Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 21

< May 20

May 22 >

May 21

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 21, 2015.

Th.Wolf

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn by the original nominator. Feel free to revert if I'm wrong and/or you actually want this deleted. (non-admin closure) Tavix | Talk  00:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Th.Wolf → Theodor Wolf  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect was mistakenly nominated at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Th.Wolf with the following rationale by WQUlrich:

Botanical abbreviation "Th.Wolf" does not refer to Theodor Wolf. Cannot determine who it does refer to, if anyone.

...Since the editor was the creator of the redirect, I already attempted to nominate this for speedy deletion criterion G7, but it was declined. Maybe the nominator was looking for a retargetting option, but I'm not sure. Steel1943 (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm not an expert on these abbreviations, but it appears that Th.Wolf does refer to Franz Theodor Wolf [1] [2]. Since I can't create it, I'll note that Franz Theodor Wolf ought to be a redirect to Theodor Wolf as well. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@209.211.131.181: I created the redirect for you. Why don't you create an WP:ACCOUNT? It'll allow you to create redirects like that in the future, which is a huge help to the project. Tavix | Talk  00:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• • Keep (in light of the above information) and do the redirects as recommended. I was looking for a retarget and couldn't find one myself. That's what I get for dabbling in something I know very little about. WQUlrich (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC) PS: Once that's done, he should be added to the List of botanists by author abbreviation. WQUlrich (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Can I simply withdraw the nomination and delete the tag? WQUlrich (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Club

• Template:Club → Template:Db-club  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. This redirect is counterintuitive - it has been added to articles in the context of a sports club or playing card suite, inadvertantly nominating it for speedy deletion. TB (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I think this is one of the first times ever I have seen a harmful redirect in the "Template:" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Retarget to Template:Clubs as an {{R to plural}}. (Besides, the template only shows one club: ♣.) Tavix | Talk  22:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Backwards man

• Backwards man → Freddy Got Fingered  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I guess this is a gag from the movie, but to quote its 2006 AfD, "neither an individual article on this subject nor a redirect [to] Freddy Got Fingered is warranted." BDD (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete there are a lot of backwards men, some of them in horror. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Martin Van Buren/Inaugural Address

• Martin Van Buren/Inaugural Address → Martin Van Buren  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There's only one sentence about Van Buren's inaugural address at the target page, so this redirect is highly misleading. It was created with the full text of the address, but that belongs at Wikisource, not Wikipedia. (It's there, in case you were wondering.) BDD (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Butcher of Gujarat

• Butcher of Gujarat → Narendra Modi  (links · history · stats) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)      [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 23 § Butcher of Gujarat – keep

Senseless attack page on the Biography of living people. Needs to be deleted, if you want to keep it, then redirect it to 2002 Gujarat riots instead of a living Prime Minister of a country. The term is a part of political mud slinging by rival political parties.C E (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

A few years ago Aamir Khan said I have a dog named Shah Rukh. People call Karan Johar and Shah Rukh gay couple. Are we going to create a redirect on that towards the biography of living people.--C E (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Two Editors who support this have a nice history

• First

• SecondC E (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Your comment on TopGun and I constitutes a personal attack. Either comment on the issue, and if you don't have anything meaningful to say, then ship out. I hope one of the admins here takes note of this. Your shady WP:POV regarding this topic area is also not hidden from anyone. Also, it appears to be implicit that CosmicEmperor is canvassing for votes through private emails (see note below). Mar4d (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how your comment adds anything to your argument as, at best; if you were right in your claims, a fallacy and does not automatically make my judgement here wrong, and at worse; is a personal attack. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep It's not an attack page, it's a redirect. WP:BLP doesn't apply, WP:RNEUTRAL does. As the nominator knows, this redirect was kept a few months ago when it was last discussed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL and per the last nomination and my rationale then: BLP is satisfied as sources are present for this [3]. Nothing has changed since the last nomination. Plus, this being a politically charged nickname needs to be explained in the article itself as per the last closure. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Strong keep Given the outcome this nomination just a few months ago, this nomination is both tendentious and uncalled for. There was obviously no question over the notability of the term, as it is covered in numerous WP:RS and there is consensus on that. There is a precedence already established regarding such redirects (eg. Butcher of Beirut, Butcher of Prague, Butcher of the Balkans and more); it is in fact a designation, and this term itself has been used to refer to the subject of the article. As far as the BLP rationale is concerned, redirects don't need to meet NPOV per WP:RNEUTRAL. Per WP:REDIRECT, if a term is notable and widely covered, then it ought to be redirected. So there is no violation of WP:REDIRECT concerning this and BLP does not apply. Case in point, if the article's title was Butcher of Gujarat, then that would be a BLP issue. Mar4d (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete As I said last time around, "This is an ephemeral political attack, and enshrining it as an indefinite search term is short-sighted and ill advised." And TopGun is right about one thing: what also hasn't changed from last time around is that the nickname isn't mentioned at the target page. Look, I don't know the context of the nickname or know enough about Modi's policies to agree or disagree with them. But surely it's absurd to call him a murderer. This is really amateurish of us. --BDD (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

How does this redirect constitute an attack? We are not the ones using it. It has been used by critics and opponents alike, and is backed in reliable sources. If it was a vague term with little use, then that would be an issue. But that is not the case. And like I have said above, we have a precedent on redirects on controversial personalities (see above). Heck, even non-controversial personalities have redirects here. There is no such point given in WP:REDIRECT that says a search term should be deleted simply because it hurts the political sensitivities of a few, even though it is in use. Wikipedia is not censored. Mar4d (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

If it's that significant, why isn't it discussed in the article? Is it discussed somewhere else? --BDD (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It should be discussed in the article. The article indeed notes that the subject is controversial for the Gujarat riots. However, that alone is not a single criterion for deletion. Mar4d (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It is a criterion for deletion, actually. See Abecedare's comment below. --BDD (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, as per last closure, the topic is supposed to be discussed in the article itself but was probably removed or after the tedious discussion, no one was left with the energy to yet again dispute at the article itself. Something that is likely happening again with this early nomination. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Delete ^{STRUCK DUPLICATE. WHAT'S THE POINT? YOUR NOMINATION ITSELF CALLS FOR DELETION  sami  talk 06:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)} All those who are supporting this redirect are Pakistanis who have personal hatred against Narendra Modi.C E (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That is both an unprovable attack (and false as I am not Pakistani) and a complete irrelevancy, since it offers no rationale for deletion. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Who knows? Can't be verified.--C E (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Weak keep. As I said in the previous nomination, if this is redirected to Modi's biography then there really should be some mention of it in the article in order to explain the term. The Gujarat riots themselves are certainly already discussed there, and I'm disappointed that nobody who supported keeping the redirect has added such content. Apart from that, it's an acceptable redirect, because this epithet has been used and discussed in the press. The term itself is an attack on Modi, but that's not sufficient reason for deletion. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Weak delete WP:R#DELETE number 3 advises us to delete offensive redirects unless they are "discussed in the article". WP:RNEUTRAL says that we should keep such redirects if they are "established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources". This particular redirect falls right in that policy gap: it is attested by mainstream sources, but is still too obscure (given the extensive coverage, including brickbats, received by the subject) to be worth mentioning in the Narendra Modi article. The problem is that without any context provided by the target article a reader is left uninformed about whether the sobriquet represents a generally accepted opinion, or just election-time rhetoric. Also compare with "Maut ka saudagar" (Merchant of death), which (rightly, imo) remains a redlink despite being similarly attested by mainstream media sources, and was a title used by a much more prominent figure than TMC spokesperson who coined the "Butcher of Gujarat" epithet. So I am voting a weak delete per the principles of BLP, with the weak only because Modi is hardly a a non/minimally-public figure and this redirect is hardly the worst he has been called. PS: I was informed of this discussion by an email from User:CosmicEmperor. Abecedare (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Strong keep This term is well known and is not a simple attack Modi became synonymous albeit temporarily with this term which is used in Indian politics by Indian politicians to this day. Excipient0 (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Weak delete Given WP:RNEUTRAL, which says that a redirect for a common term should be kept even if non-neutral, because it facilitates searches. Also, given that the previous RfD was closed "keep" less than 6 months ago, and nothing has changed since then, this nomination seems like pure tendentiousness. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC) Amending vote to weak delete. Dug a little deeper; the term is used frequently, but almost all the uses are in reference to the statement which coined the term. Therefore, that coverage seems more like coverage given to the incident, than the term itself; therefore, the conditions for RNEUTRAL aren't quite satisfied any longer. That said, it gets enough hits to be borderline. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Not well known term, those who are saying "Keep" have some POV, if it would have been "dog", "pig", "rat", "monkey" still these people would have say "strong keep". We have to think that he is Prime Minister of India. Maybe some people don't know importance of democracy and the leader of biggest democracy and leader of 1.25 billion people, maybe because their own nation don't have true democracy. He is not person like any designated terrorist. He got clean chit from all inquiries till now even when rule of opposition party was in centre. No charge on him is proved. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 22:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete: The Gujarat riots are not commonly called "Butcher of Gujarat". Kailash29792 (talk) 06:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• Note Abecedare notes in his comment above that he was notified of this discussion by an email from User:CosmicEmperor. If true, this is clear-cut WP:CANVASSING from CosmicEmperor, and it is easy to imagine the incoming army of other possible canvassed votes. The closing administrator should take strong note of this blatant canvassing by CosmicEmperor and take action where necesssary, as well as factoring this into the closure of the RfD. Mar4d (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Our article aside, my Google search for the phrase (without any qualifications otherwise) finds just about nothing except for stuff from the end of April and beginning of May of last year; aside from those, it's a couple of forums (?) that are a few weeks old. This seems to me to demonstrate lack of continued use, to demonstrate that this isn't continuing to be a likely search term. This is different from examples given above; consider Ariel Sharon, whose "Butcher of Beirut" appellation is sourced to something from nearly twenty years after the incident. If this term again becomes a common appellation for Modi, resurrect it, but a contentious flash-in-the-pan appellation shouldn't be encouraged by a redirect. This is a difference from six months ago — unlike then, we can now say that it's been over a year since anything significant was using this term. And note that I came here through a link from WP:ANI, not through canvassing. Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Your assertion that the term isn't used is not true [4] [5], while just a simple Google search returns over 18,500 results [6]. This notability issue was discussed and established in the previous RfD. It has enough common usage to be termed as a redirect. Also, there is no such criteria that a term loses its validity if it has not been used in recent times. If it hasn't been used in the last few weeks, that doesn't invalidate its past or future use, which is very common. See also WP:NOTNEWS. Mar4d (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Not suitable for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.9.20.149 (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

You have not given a reason. See WP:NOTVOTE. Mar4d (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The redirect makes no sense.--85.9.20.154 (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• Note: 3 5 6 of users who said delete are administrators. Though it doesn't matters who they are because everyone has equal value here, but still I'm just saying because usually most of admins have neutral point of view and they have vast wikipedia experience regarding terminologies on Wikipedia and rules of Wikipedia. Here NPOV is important.(Though 1 admin is saying to "Keep")--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 14:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the closer would be some one experienced enough to factor the consensus as it is done. There is also a standing consensus to keep this redirect from the previous RFD, I doubt much has changed if we keep that in to account. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Random newspaper attack that's not even mentioned in the page it redirects to. Shii (tock) 15:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Just an excuse for some political posturing. Per Nyttend, does not appear to actually be in use in any case. SpinningSpark 16:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete -It appears to me an inappropriate redirect term for following reasons;

1. R#DELETE-#3 -The redirect is an offensive/abusive term to refer an individual.
2. The redirect term doesn't aid searches at all. A simple look at stats page here for last 90 days reveal the fact. (It has 101 views in last 90 days. Even my userpage have 398 views in this month and more than 1500 in last 90 days). The stats suggests that it is not a search-term what a redirect is supposed to facilitate.
3. The redirect is not a common-term. A simple Google search reveals the origin of the term in a spiel of an opposition political party campaign during Indian General election 2014 (what media took as first-hand news on breaking stories). It was used during election campaigns and the usage ended with the endings of respective campaigns (few re-print may be found else where, or some copy-cat by few other organisation).
4. BLP policy -I would like correct few editors here who are arguing since it is a redirect, it does not come under BLP policy. BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia.

Redirect is in violation of BLPCRIME policy. Given that verdict has been in subjects' favour, he must not be treated guilty what this redirect is probably meant to portray.

5. WP:RNEUTRAL doesn't apply -since redirect term is not a common/established term and doesn't facilitates on searches (see #2 and #3 above). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - It is not a search term. It was created just to make a point. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - unless the page is turned into a real article, which contextualizes the origin and use of this term. Otherwise, it's offensive; anyone in search of this term can use Google instead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• I don't think the redirect should target to a place that doesn't mention the term. It could be seen as a WP:BLP violation. There is one article that mentions Modi as the "Butcher of Gujarat": Saradha Group financial scandal. That mention is referenced with two citations. That seems like an odd target, but it is the only "valid" place for this redirect at the moment (except for deletion). So right now, my choice would be to retarget to Saradha Group financial scandal#Political reactions and protests. If the term gets mentioned and cited elsewhere, I might reconsider. I'm fine with deletion though, because it might be best for the search engine to deal with it. Tavix | Talk  04:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually a more useful retarget would be 2002 Gujarat riots since that is where the usage originates from. Mar4d (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I realize that, but the phrase isn't mentioned there. If it becomes mentioned and sourced there, it would be the more appropriate target, but that isn't the case right now. Tavix | Talk  06:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• Strong keep and lock per WP:RNEUTRAL clause # 3. The title of the redirect has been used in multiple sources 1 2 3 4 et al. The redirect should be kept for because it provides an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term. Since the term has nowhere been used in the article, it does not violate BLP policy.  sami  ^talk 06:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Your sources shows it is not search term, sources you have given shows only one opposition politician calling him Butcher to gather some muslim votes in elections. Nothing else. We are not communals, we have to think in logical way. If we are also thinking in communal way then what is difference between such biased politicians and wikipedians? --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 07:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

We can keep and redirect it to Mahmud of Ghazni.C E (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep BLP does not apply here, it's not an attack page. We also have similar redirects like Jackal of Bengal and the Butcher of Bengal. Strong keep. Faizan (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

This is the page of current Prime Minister of India,not some Army General who took part in actual war with Bangladesh in 1971 and was directly involved in 1971 Bangladesh genocide. If Pakistani Prime Minister and President is not responsible for anti-Christian riots in Pakistan, Shia community bombings, Hazara community massacres, so Narendra Modi can't be demonized.C E (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Used during an election campaign with little traction since then. As nyttend says, google results are almost entirely confined to the middle of last year (the elections) and, looking through the first few pages of results, all we see are wikipedia and quora (which, likely, uses wikipedia anyway). An obvious negative term that has no currency outside should not be a redirect when it is "offensive and abusive" and is not an established term.[7][8]--regentspark (comment) 14:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I read this statement by another user on the talk page,so I am mentioning it here. I decided not to contact him, not to post on his talk page about this discussion even if his comments showed that he had interest. But his comment is important for this discussion. C E (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Knights who say ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-p'tang, zzoo-boing, gdgdbaaoizen

• Knights who say ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-p'tang, zzoo-boing, gdgdbaaoizen → Knights who say Ni  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Too silly, and that's not even how it's spelt according to the article. Double sharp (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep The phrase gets some google hits so is a possible search term for readers coming from another site. SpinningSpark 17:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. The redirect doesn't seem incorrect or ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I trust that the nominator is aware of the irony of nominating a Monty Python link for being silly. The entire Monty Python concept is predicated on silliness. Being silly is not included in WP:NOT, and if it were, an awful lot of other pages would need deleting. Nominating for being silly is itself silly. SpinningSpark 22:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course I am aware of this particular irony. But this is silly enough that I somehow doubt anyone is going to type it in consistently with this spelling, and so if any of these spellings is going to be a redirect then it ought to be the way the subtitles do it – which, according to the article Knights who say Ni, is not this one, but rather "Ekke Ekke Ekke Ekke Ptangya Zoooooooom Boing Ni!". (It's uncited, though, so I'd withdraw this argument if it turns out that the redirect actually uses the spelling of the subtitles.) Double sharp (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per above. I weighed the redirect and found that it is heavier than a duck. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - plausible (though likely very uncommon) search term. I trust there's not ambiguity. WilyD 10:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Can someone please explain this "plausible redirect" stuff? It is quite common among regulars of this particular discussion area and it is often based on "there are some Google hits". Did the GHits exist before the redirect was created? Is anyone really going to spell zzoo-boing, gdgdbaaoizen consistently? The silliness, if any, lies less with Monty Python than with our own. One day, I'm going to let rip in this area and hopefully dismantle the entrenched daftness in a way that, alas, people have been unable to do at Commons. - Sitush (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Did the GHits exist before the redirect was created? Yes, the redirect was created 19 Nov 2009. Just limiting the search to posts with an obvious date stamp finds 24 Jun 200719 Jun 200716 July 200715 June 200710 July 2007. All with an exact spelling match. That's better consistency than most people on the internet can correctly spell simple words like there, you, and it's. SpinningSpark 17:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, being silly is just fine in this area (Monty Python). (I've restrained all my silly socks from opining here and overwhelming the discussion, with some difficulty.) Bishonen | talk 12:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC).

Scotland in other languages

• Écosse → Scotland  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Ecosse → Scotland  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Schottland → Scotland  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Skottland → Scotland  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Scotland has no affinity with French, German or Swedish. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - directs the readers to what they're looking for, no argument has been suggested for deletion. Not only that, but the gibberish in the nomination statement ain't even true. WilyD 17:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@WilyD: why do you always insist on using the phrase "no argument has been suggested for deletion" even when many people have told you that it is blantently false. There is an argument presented for deletion. It's WP:RFOREIGN. Whether or not you agree with that argument is what you should be saying. In the interest of not pissing other people off, I'd suggest you not use that phrase unless there literally isn't any reason for deletion suggested. Tavix | Talk  17:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I insist on noting that no argument has been presented for deletion, because in cases where an argument has been presented to support deletion, it's proper to examine it and either refute it or explain why (it/they) (is/are) less important than the reasons to keep. In cases like this one, where literally no reason for deletion has been suggested, it's important to note that. If you don't like it, stop nominating redirects for deletion without presenting a reason to do so. You might assert that you've done so, but my niece might assert that she's the Queen of Slabovia, and many people are happy to assert the Earth is 6018 years old. Asserting something doesn't make it true. Here, no argument has been presented to support deletion, and that's important to my thinking about the issue. WilyD 10:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This is actually completely wrong. The eight section listing reasons to delete explicitly mentions foreign language redirects to subjects that are not related to that language as a reason to delete. I may be wrong but I think that has been there for quite some time. In this case the argument is that the foreign names for Scotland are from languages that are not meaningfully related to that country so therefore they are not needed on the English Wikipedia. The essay referred to was a reiteration of this existing concept. The poont being is that arguing that a person who mentions the foriegn language redirects are not connected to the subject is not proving a reason for deletion of the redirects when it is driectly supported by a subsection of what literally is titled reasons for deletion does not make sense --70.27.231.57 (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)--70.27.231.57 (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@WilyD: The anon is referring to WP:RFD#D8, which I recommend you read along with WP:RFOREIGN. It is a an argument for deletion, and a valid one at that. Tavix | Talk  05:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Ecosse at least. It is commonly seen on Scottish car number plates, although I am not sure that it is strictly EU bureaucrat legal. SpinningSpark 21:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete redirects from languages with no affinity within Scotland, nor is it English. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I thought I just gave an affinity with Scotland above. The Ecosse logo and Scottish Saltire are preferred by many Scots in place of the GB national identifier on car number plates. They are widely available, see Amazon for instance. The issue is often discussed on forums [9][10][11] and the issue was even covered on BBC News. It's all too likely that people will try to look up Ecosse on first seeing one of these Scottish cars. SpinningSpark 12:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • If I were closing this, I would interpret this as an imperative, i.e. "Delete redirects from...", not "Delete: redirects are from..." This is how I'm using the same phrase below. Nyttend (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete redirects from languages with no affinity within Scotland. Spinningspark demonstrates that "Ecosse" is used on the Scots number plates, so we can say that it has an affinity; count me as a "keep" for it. If anyone shows a similar affinity for any other title, count me as a "keep" for that one too. Nyttend (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete the redirects from the Swedish/Norwegian (Skottland) and German (Schottland) name forms per WP:RFOREIGN — why WilyD won't accept that link as an argument is mysterious to me. Those forms have no affinity with Scotland. Keep the French (Écosse and Ecosse) per Spinningspark. Also this is the time, if ever, to appeal to OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST: do we have redirects from the Danish/Fair Isle/Icelandic name form (Skotland), or the Spanish (Escocia), Italian (Scozia), Finnish (Skotlanti), or Dutch (Schotland)? No, they're redlinks. Should we create them? Not on your life. Bishonen | talk 20:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC).
• In light of these facts, keep Écosse and Ecosse and delete Schottland and Skottland. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Future years in country redirects created by Coekon

• 2017 in Australia → 2015 in Australia  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2018 in Australia → 2015 in Australia  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2019 in Australia → 2015 in Australia  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2020 in Australia → 2015 in Australia  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2021 in Australia → 2015 in Australia  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2016 in China → 2015 in China  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2065 in China → 2015 in China  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2017 in Hong Kong → 2015 in Hong Kong  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2018 in Hong Kong → 2015 in Hong Kong  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2019 in Hong Kong → 2015 in Hong Kong  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2020 in Hong Kong → 2015 in Hong Kong  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and as confusing because these pages don't mention any future events. Tavix | Talk  02:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per crystal. ....Why are they pointing to the wrong year? ― Padenton|✉   02:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment 2016 in China was deleted about ten hours after this nomination was made. Nyttend (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)