Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFD)
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

Note: If you just want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold.

Note: If you want to move a page but a redirect is preventing this, do not list it here. Place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.

Note: Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as the only reason to delete a redirect. Redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted too, so it's not a necessary condition either. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Contents

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

Before listing a redirect for discussion, please familiarize yourself with the following:

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things much if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is cheap since the deletion coding takes up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • The default result of any RfD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Thus, a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article. However, for more difficult cases, this page can be a centralized discussion place for resolving tough debates about where redirects point.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another page's talk page don't need to be listed here, as anyone can simply remove the redirect by blanking the page. G6 speedy deletion may be appropriate in such cases.
  • Try to consider whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader when discussing.

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

Shortcut:

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old (or a redirect is created as a result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles—such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.

Note that there could exist (for example), links to the URL "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorneygate" anywhere on the internet. If so, then those links might not show up by checking for (clicking on) "WhatLinksHere" for "Attorneygate"—since those links might come from somewhere outside Wikipedia.

Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.

Shortcut:

Reasons for deleting[edit]

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 may apply.) See also: § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange. (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to itself or to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created.
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then it needs to be deleted to make way for move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion. If not, take the article to Requested Moves.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
Shortcut:

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history, or edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, if someone sees the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but does not know what that refers to, then he or she will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
  5. Someone finds them useful. You might not find it useful, but this may be because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. stats.grok.se can also provide evidence of outside utility.
  6. The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form, or to some other grammatical form.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut:

Just like article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. ClimategateClimatic Research Unit email controversy).
  2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

See also: Policy on which redirects can be deleted immediately.

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Shortcut:
I.
Tag the redirect.

  Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion, and enter }} at the very end. Example:

{{subst:rfd|content=#REDIRECT [[Foo]]{{R from move}}}}
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page.
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
II.
List the entry on RfD.

 Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For the template in the previous step:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.
  • It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors to the redirect that you are nominating the redirect. To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect. For convenience, the template

    {{subst:RFDNote|RedirectName}} ~~~~

    may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the redirect and use an edit summary such as:
    Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

Current list[edit]

May 3[edit]

Waadi Animations[edit]

This redirect is a hoax. The reason: Waadi Animatioons is an animation company formed as a result of joint venture between two production companies 'SOC Films' (production house) and 'ARY Films' (film distributor). The joint venture is for making an animated film 3 Bahadur. I don't see any valid reason or point to redirect an animation company to a film distributor. So this redirect should clearly be Deleted. UBStalk 05:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep per recent discussion about this redirect, which was resulted in to keep the redirect. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 08:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Previous discussion was disclosed as Keep for reason 'personal benefit' or something like that. But this nomination is for deletion with valid reason.

Electric field strength[edit]

move Signal strength over here. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2[edit]

Natasha Barackovna[edit]

Apparently this would be Sasha Obama's name if one were to use the Eastern Slavic naming custom. She doesn't actually go by this name and doesn't have any connection with any Eastern Slavic groups, so this redirect isn't helpful. I'm also adding Natasha Barackovna Obama for the same reason. I think the spirit of WP:RFOREIGN applies here. Tavix | Talk  18:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete English speaking U.S. born U.S. citizen with a background in English, and additional background in Kenya and Indonesia, but not Slavic regions. So unrelated to the target. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Split profession[edit]

I've already created Split legal profession and linked it to Barrister. But "Split profession" seems too vague. Something tells me that law is not the only career path with a split profession. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

May 1[edit]

Shields, Pennsylvania[edit]

Delete per WP:REDLINK since its target article doesn't mention this redirect. Per the redirect's creator, this is a former town that was in the target subject's geographical area, so an article being created seems likely and possible. Steel1943 (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep I added the reference to Shields in the target article, per your demand. There are several sources to Shields (a former town) being a populated place within Leetsdale Borough, including this one, which I noted on my redirect: http://pennsylvania.hometownlocator.com/pa/allegheny/shields.cfm . Shields, Pennsylvanis is also on the "Shields (Disambig)" page. This should be satisfactory to show the validity of this Redirect and stop your request to Delete this. Charvex (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Yep, since I have Shields (disambiguation) on my watchlist, and the fact that at the time it was not mentioned at its target, it would have been quite difficult for readers to understand why they were redirected to Leetsdale, Pennsylvania. However, this edit doesn't really address my concerns since the redirect doesn't equal the target. I'm still leaning towards WP:REDLINK being valid in this case. Steel1943 (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

List of video game hoaxes[edit]

Seems like completely the wrong place to go if it should go anywhere at all. The word "game" doesn't even appear once in the article.JZCL 21:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per Reasons for deleting #5: this redirect makes no sense. The putative connection between electronic game hoaxes and April Fools was not substantiated in the list article from which the redirect originated, nor is it mentioned in the target article, nor is it ever likely to be helpful or germane to draw a connection between the annual observances and publications that are not associated with the specific date. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

List of computer and video game hoaxes[edit]

Seems like completely the wrong place to go if it should go anywhere at all. The word "game" doesn't even appear once in the article. JZCL 21:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per Reasons for deleting #5: this redirect makes no sense. The putative connection between electronic game hoaxes and April Fools was not substantiated in the list article from which the redirect originated, nor is it mentioned in the target article, nor is it ever likely to be helpful or germane to draw a connection between the annual observances and publications that are not associated with the specific date. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Adam Johnson (South Carolina)[edit]

I could not figure out how anyone with this name was related to April Fools' Day.JZCL 21:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Just to save others the research, it looks like none of the people listed at Adam Johnson have any connection to South Carolina. --BDD (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Airline history links[edit]

Delete, confusing. The target doesn't provide links to airline history, and it shouldn't per WP:LINKFARM. Tavix | Talk  17:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure about that. All airlines, not just defunct ones, have histories to them. If it were historical, that'd be a different story... Tavix | Talk  19:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Crap sandwich[edit]

If you've seen This Is Spinal Tap, you may remember they had an album called Shark Sandwich which was panned in a two-word review: "Shit sandwich". Shit sandwich was once an article, was soundly deleted, and ended up as a soft Wiktionary redirect. I assume "crap sandwich" was meant as a euphemistic alternative, but it's not actually used in the film. Let's just delete this... mess. --BDD (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete this bizarre gardening accident. Ivanvector (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Soitenly![edit]

Not sure why this redirect should redirect here much more than any other film/TV series with this New York dialect. JZCL 16:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. In modern times it is most often associated with the Three Stooges (see EurekaLott's links) even though it may not have originated there or been inspired by the Marx Brothers. Many things in the Looney Tunes series were inspired by other well-known pop culture of the time (even its name comes from Silly Symphonies) and I believe this was one of them. Retargeting per EurekaLott is also not a bad idea, if that's where it's talked about. Ivanvector (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Vc games[edit]

Given that VC seems to be a bit of an ambiguous term, there's the potential that the reader could be WP:ASTONISH-ed when they arrive at this redirect's target. The phrase is not in the target article as an official name, and this could cause confusion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Video console would seem equally likely, so we could DAB it somehow (or hatnote) but I am not sure that would be any better than letting the search engine do it. Si Trew (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Am I mistaken as that is red. Weren't thinks like the Atari 2600 called "video consoles"? Si Trew (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to DAB at VCS. I think I am mistaken but we do have VCS as a DAB, for which the first section is "In Gaming", and its first entry is for the Atari VCS and the second for Video Computer SystemAtari 2600. Declaration of interest: I programmed Atari 8-bits as a hobby for many years. Si Trew (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment Virtual Console is not at that DAB but I'll add it if we have consensus here. Si Trew (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
This seems too speculative. Where are you getting the S from? --BDD (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning towards a weak keep here. I don't see any other gaming-related term at VC. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I just looked up "Vc games" via a rather popular search engine, and apparently, venture capital (accepted abbreviated version "VC") can be considered a "game" due to trying to "game the system", I guess. Steel1943 (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to List of Virtual Console games. This seems to be the only VC to use games, so I'm not sure we have to worry about a WP:SURPRISE factor. However, I'm perfectly fine with deletion due to the fact that the 'c' isn't capitalized. This might lead to confusion with Virtual console. Tavix | Talk  19:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Good call. Weak retarget per Tavix. --BDD (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

AA340[edit]

Unhelpful redirect, this is a flight number of a flight from Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport to Kansas City International Airport, which, nevertheless, is operated on a McDonnell Douglas MD-80 - TheChampionMan1234 05:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, but for a different reason than the nominator's rationale. The fact that this is a flight number doesn't matter unless there was a notable flight by that number (which isn't the case). However, I don't see any connection between "AA340" and Airbus. I figure if that was actually used as an abbreviation, there would be some hits, but I'm just not seeing it. Tavix | Talk  19:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:1r[edit]

I came across the use of both the "1r" and "lr" templates in some articles in which they were tagged, and I simply couldn't tell which one was which. While one editor may find them useful, other editors who perform maintenance on such articles will find their use confusing and may have to perform a series a steps just to figure it out (oops, I cleaned up the bare URLs, but I removed the "one source" tag). Other editors could also mistakenly add the wrong tag to articles, simply because they've seen one or both of these in other articles or by copy-and-pasting the incorrect one to another article. This will add more work for themselves or for other editors who come across them and just add to the confusion. Because "lR" and "LR" are the same thing, I've added the capitalized redirect to the nomination as well. There are less confusing redirects that can be used to help out readers and editors in understanding the tags that are applied to such articles that might need them. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep -
  1. Per WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".
  2. The redirect was created weeks ago with dozens of uses to its name, so IMO the time has passed for changing the redirect without significant confusion. Alleged confusion is not very plausible at all. So absent evidence of any harm there is no reason to delete.
  3. "There seems to be no evidence of confusion, just conjecture on the part of nominator, and no argument grounded in WP:R. Laziness is the exact purpose of redirects, to be perfectly honest, and the creator of a useful redirect that saves one or two characters should be commended. We don't delete redirects based merely on conjecture. Someone obviously found these useful given they were created."
  4. "One of the lowest things one can do is steal another mans tools. So you have no use for it. That it's being used on [talk pages] is good enough, and there is zero reason to take away something that has no higher use. Such Nominators should be required to be the one to hand edit and remove any deleted tags."
  5. "Redirects are not only cheap but this is a redirect from and to template namespace. That would tend to indicate to me that anyone using it is an editor rather than a general reader and they are hardly likely to get it [confused]. There are lots of little abbreviated things pulled up over the years such as {{tlc}} or {{tlx}} or whatever as useful shorthand for editors."
--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem with this statement in regards to {{Tlc}} and {{Tlx}} and how they pertain to this discussion is that they are the actual names of the templates, not redirects. For that reason, how this point relates to this discussion is like comparing apples to oranges. Steel1943 (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Reply - By this same logic, if {{Tlc}} and {{Tlx}} are acceptable names for the templates, the redirects are also acceptable as they are. If not, these two redirects should be renamed. Per @Thryduulf:, "we also have the {{hat}} (not about hats), {{temp}} (not about temporary workers), {{link}} (not about chains, golf courses, an American singer, etc), {{user}} (not about drug, computer or telecommunication system users), {{admin}} (not about administrators), {{ill}} (not about illness), {{top}} (not about spinning tops or clothing), {{bottom}} (not about buttocks or the seabed), {{columns}} (not about architecture), {{reliable sources}} (not about publications, {{cleanup}} (not about cleaning), {{fiction}} (not about fiction), {{copyedit}} (not about copyediting), {{tone}} (not about literature, linguistics or music), {{neutrality}} (not about international relations), and many others". --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Not only that, but copy pasting RfD's own policy into an argument is perhaps preaching to the converted... Si Trew (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Shortcuts in the template namespace are usually very ambiguous to a point where they are not helpful, and the nominator has made a good statement why; in the template namespace, if there is a shortcut used, the shortcut creator has to basically realize that the shortcut cannot mean anything other than its target, even if the other options don't exist as a template, given that new editors may think that the template shortcut will return a function that they think is possible, but has neither been created nor will ever be created. In addition, I can add these two examples to the nominated redirects' ambiguity: "1r" could mean "One redirect", and "LR" commonly means "Left right". Steel1943 (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Reply - See my reply at "05:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)". --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I was on that line of thinking. LR commonly means left and right, and the "1", at least in my font (Courier ten point), looks extremely similar to a lowercase ell. I would have thought Template:Bidi_Class_(Unicode) as a possibility, but these can go as WP:RFD#D2, confusing, and WP:RFD#D5, makes no sense. Si Trew (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Template:LR, which matches WP:LR. Weak keep on the others. I do see the potential for confusion, but it's simply a fact of life that lowercase l and the number 1 look alike, or are even identical. Somehow we manage to survive. Since these aren't in mainspace, the matter is even less urgent. --BDD (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
That's true. Striking mine as a bit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on my part, I think. Si Trew (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't even have a number 1 on my typewriter, I have to use a lowercase ell. When I started, all we had were ones and zeros, and sometimes we didn't even have ones. I built a whole database using only the number 1 and spaghetti hoops for the zeros. Si Trew (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Reply - I agree, as the arial font is the most common font that I have seen used on Wikipedia. The "1" and "l" indeed look different in most fonts anyway, including the font that I am using now. --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
So if it's useful to one it's acceptable, but if it's confusing to one, it doesn't matter? Something existing for weeks does not mean there is potential for confusion. It was only when I saw these being used in the same main space article that I could see there could be confusion because I was confused. Not everyone will have the fonts displayed significantly different. Interesting how the author's initial "copy and paste" response above has nothing to do with the argument being presented here. Not about usefulness, not about laziness, not about what other shortcut templates exist. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Reply - I have struck through my error, as I meant to say that being used on articles is good enough. This seems like a case of WP:IDLI, and people can preview their work before they submit their changes. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply - Templates {{1r}} and {{Lr}} [{{Lr}} does the same thing as {{lr}}] do not look similar to each other (nor do {{1R}} and {{LR}}). Regrettably in this case, Wikipedia does not acknowledge the case of the first letter of an article or template name. If these three redirects are only confusing to one person, then that is not such a good reason to delete these redirects. ASSUMING that we need to eliminate confusion in this case (which I do NOT think is necessary), we would only need to delete one of the lower case redirects ("lr" and "1r"), not both. AFAIK, there is no 1-2 character redirect for these targets. Additionally, WP:1R redirects to Wikipedia:Articles with a single source. Lastly, if a bot is changing {{lr}} to {{Cleanup-bare URLs}}, this does even more to eliminate confusion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP #5 (someone finds them useful). I had to look through this thread to figure out what the templates mean, but that doesn't mean that they aren't stunningly obvious to other users, and I'm not convinced that they're sufficiently harmful for that reason to warrant deletion. Ivanvector (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, confusing, since there are many meanings for LR. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete all, as mentioned, not an obvious shortcut due to multiple meanings for LR, with the most obvious listed in LR. Frietjes (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply - There are a lot of template redirects with ambiguous names on Wikipedia, and there have been no higher uses mentioned for these redirects. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tavix | Talk  02:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all per WP:RFD#KEEP #5. I stand by my comment quoted above about how being poentially misleading is not a deletion reason here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

April 30[edit]

User:TwistedAkai[edit]

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 redirect removed by the user page's user. Steel1943 (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Only edits are to this page. Seems pointless. JZCL 22:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • convert to a soft redirect. Which keeps the link the user is apparently happy with while avoiding all the problems caused by a user page hard-redirected to another namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or less preferentially convert clearly harmful redirect, as someone clicking on the username, and then talk, will end up leaving talk messages to the user on the article talk page -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Convert into a soft redirect per Thryduulf --Lenticel (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Fix'd by myself. Old joke edit made by a friend. I won't pretend to know Wikipedia discussion policies, so I'll just leave this stuff here. TwistedAkai (talk) 02:33, 1 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.

To Remake You[edit]

Can't find any connection between the two subjects. It looks like an elaborate hoax because I can't even find any articles hinting that this would even be an album title. Author was later blocked. Tavix | Talk  22:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Friedrich Walter[edit]

Delete per WP:REDLINK. This appears to be conflating de:Walter Friedlaender and de:Friedrich Walter (Historiker). BDD (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ottarious[edit]

I'm listing this batch of trivial Star Wars figures separately because each of them is mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia, so there are possibilities for retargeting. They're still trivial enough that I'd recommend deleting them.

Ottarious is mentioned at List of Star Wars species (F–J)#Gorith and Tallisibeth is mentioned at Yoda: Dark Rendezvous or Star Wars Imperial Commando: 501st. The Teljkon Vagabond is mentioned at C-3PO but apparently features in one of the novels in the Black Fleet Crisis trilogy. --`BDD (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  • REtarget Ottarious to the species page. Vagabond should redirect to the novel trilogy, if we kept it. Undecided about Tallisberth. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
We'd want to mention Vagabond at that page, then. Such a redirect could easily be deleted at RfD on its own. --BDD (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Withought[edit]

Delete as implausible typo. Jeh (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it is plausible. Lauren at Tumblr.com] seems to think so. Wrong but plausible. Without prejudice, I shall mark it in the meantime as {{R from incorrect spelling}}. Si Trew (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
(Yeah, there's a RS for you. Lauren also apparently thinks that "don't" does not need an apostrophe.) I think it is ridiculous. I think (based on other comments the creator has made) that it was created to fix an autocorrect error made by the creator's mobile device. Redirects are not supposed to exist for one user's convenience. Jeh (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate that sentiment, and at school I would have been slapped over the head with the Concise Oxford Dictionary if I misspelled a word, but the fact is it exists: what we have to decide, is what to do with it? Just because something is wrong does not mean it is not useful. Si Trew (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
And why should "Don't" need an apostrophe: I'm a big believer in banning the apostrophe, and I am not alone: I forget wheter it is the Independent or the Guardian that decided to abandon them. It was introduced in the 18th century essentially as a printer's mark, and at first only on plurals, to distinguish one St James from two St james's etc. You have picked the wrong man, I feel. Si Trew (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
(As bit by infinitesimal bit, we decide that accuracy and precision in language do not matter, because they're just "too hard" for some people. Or something. Have you seen the movie Idiocracy?) Because "dont" isn't a word. btw I find no evidence that either the Guardian or the Independent have "abandoned" apostrophes. Here is the Guardian's style guide, which says "Don't let anyone tell you that apostrophes don't matter and we would be better off without them." Got a ref for the Independent? (btw: "whether") Jeh (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I am a great respecter of the English language and have a bookshelf full of, er, books about it. But the fact is that people make mistakes and our job is to help them find what they are looking for not to act as a stern headmaster slapping on the wrist for misspelling something: the days of prescriptive grammar are long past, and most if not all lexicographers would call themselves descriptive grammarians in that the describe what people actually do rather than dictate to them like the Academie francaise (haven't the cedilla on this KB, sorry).
In any case, English is an extremely fluid language that is constantly evolving. Perhaps I am wrong about the Indie abandoning the appostrophe, but I think at least one editor mooted it. Perhaps I was thinking of this article about Birmingham City Council in that paper, that Brum abandoned the apostrophe on street signs:
If you think about it, we don't use apostrophes in speech (unless we are Victor Borge, so really they are unnecesasry. That's my stance, anyway. As you can see from the last sentence, I continue to use them (and correctly) but I am kinda a campaigner for their abolishment. How does "The cat's whiskers" differ from "That cat is yours", with no apostrophe? Why not "your's"? Si Trew (talk)
The difference is that "yours" is a pronoun, the possessive form of the pronoun "you". (See you.) All pronouns have possessive forms that do not use apostrophes (its, his, hers, theirs, yours). Whereas "cat" is a noun, and there is no inherently possessive form of nouns, so we add the apostrophe-"s". This form is necessary to distinguish it from "cats", which is simply the plural of "cat". If you propose getting rid of the apostrophe, how do you propose to make this distinction, other than by context? English has far too much of that sort of thing already. It's true that we don't use apostrophes in speech, but we get away with that because context is generally easy to determine during conversation; and if the listener is still confused, he or she can always ask for clarification. But you can't do that when reading text. Yes, you can usually figure it out, but when reading text you should not have to deal with such "speedbumps". Jeh (talk) 09:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the misspellings, the keyboard on this little laptop is far too small for my fat fingers,and the one on the BlackBerry is even worse for me, but I do know how to spell. Everyone can make a typo. Or should I say "Yes" instead of "Yeah"? It depends how formally one is speaking, surely. Si Trew (talk)
  • Keep and tag {{R from misspelling}} - plausible, based on search results. This is not a commentary on the sanctity of the English language, it just aids search results for what people are actually likely to type. It is what it is. Si, have you considered buying a full-size USB keyboard to plug in to your laptop? I had to do that for an old 7" netbook I was handed down a few years back. Ivanvector (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
* As noted below, 350,000 ghits for "withought" vs. 3.5 billion for "without" shows an occurrence rate for "withought" of about 0.01% (i.e. 1 in 10,000) of "without". That's not "likely" by any reasonable interpretation of that word. This is not merely an "implausible typo"; it's wildly implausible. Jeh (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No, 350,000 ghits shows that it is a common mistake and in exactly this context. However many hits there are for the correct spelling is what is irrelevant. Redirects aid navigation, they do not imply endorsement of illiteracy. {{R from misspelling}} is the appropriate use for this. Ivanvector (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Your claim that the number of correct spellings is "irrelevant" and that a raw hit count can be used to support a claim of "common" can only be made in complete ignorance of the meaning of the word "common". Words like "common", "rare", "unusual", "frequent", etc., are terms that describe occurrence rates, and there is no such thing as a rate without a base: x cases out of y possible. Example: If 350,000 people in a particular country have red hair, that is an interesting number. But it's just a count; it's not a rate. We can't know the rate, and so we can't say that red hair in that country is "common" (or "rare" or whatever), unless we know the total population. If that total is only one million, then the rate is almost 1 in 3, which most would say is at least "fairly common"; but if the population is 300 million, then we have a rate of just one in about 860. I think you could go a long way before finding someone who would agree that something is "common" when it happens only a little more often than once every thousand cases.
In this case, the ghit counts for "withought" vs. "without" show an occurrence rate of just one in ten thousand. That is not "common", it is completely negligible. If I was talking about a hair color that showed up in one in ten thousand people and claiming that it was "common", then either I must not know what "common" means, or else I must be hoping my audience doesn't know what it means. (Of course, AGF requires me to assume the former of you.) The most polite response I could expect would be an admonishment to go look up the word "common", and rightly so.
This redirect was created in ignorance and should be deleted accordingly. Jeh (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
You've misinterpreted my meaning. People who misspell this word commonly misspell it this way, and we keep that sort of redirect. Or in another sense, if someone (mis)types this, it's not likely they were looking for any other page. You're right that it's not as frequent an error as, say, "color", but it's a mistake made often enough (versus random spelling errors, like "withput" or "qithout") and logically enough ("gh" is silent, it's spelled like it sounds) that it does no harm to keep it. Wikipedia doesn't need to be the language police. Ivanvector (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete highly implausible. Wikipedia should not cater to people who don't know how to spell "without". BMK (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think 350,000+ ghits for "withought" proves that it's plausible. I get over 200,000 by searching for it "-without" to filter out places where both words are used. I thought this was just an archaic way to spell it, although I haven't found any proof of that. Tavix  Talk  03:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Sure, keep it, and we'll convert the entire encyclopedia to cater to uneducated and illiterate idiots. BMK (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    • 350,000 hits for the misspelling sounds impressive until you put it in context: the number of hits on the proper spelling. That number is 3.5 billion. Yes, with a "b". Of which 350,000 is one one hundredth of one percent. That's less than half as likely as getting four of a kind in five-card poker (0.0256%). That's clearly not "plausible". So I seriously doubt that deleting this redirect is going to inconvenience very many users. And for those whom it does? They should learn from their mistake, not be accommodated. Redirects are great where there are multiple correct spellings (like color vs. the French-influenced "colour"). And, in some cases, for actual typos, which occur when the writer knows the correct spelling but happens to type it worng. But "withought" is not a "typo", plausible or otherwise. It's correct typography of a wildly wrong misspelling. It is not the proper usage of redirects to make such errors silently go away. Jeh (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, the ghit (Google hit) fallacy. I was wondering when someone would call me out on it. You can take a simple number such as 350,000 and spin it any way you want. The only point that I'm trying to make is that it is used. Is 350,000 significant use? Probably not, but it depends on your definition. I am of the opinion that it used enough that a redirect is more useful than harmful. Tavix  Talk  15:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Please. Presenting the raw number with no context is spin. Putting the number in context, showing the ratio of the wrong word to the correct word, is not "spin", it is a statistically valid representation. Your attempting to frame the latter as "well, you can spin it any way you want" is just an attempt at dismissal; it doesn't refute the point. But I'm curious: if 0.01%, one out of ten thousand, is frequent "enough" usage for you, then what ratio would be not frequent enough? Jeh (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Everything is relative, isn't it? Tavix  Talk  16:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Um, that was my point. I guess you're more interested in being dismissive than in answering a fair question. Jeh (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No, it's just that I really don't care. Striking my !vote to neutral so that I can just let this play out withought my influence. Tavix  Talk  21:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The only question that matters for RfD is whether this spelling is a plausible search term to reach this target, and the evidence says it is. Whether it is correct or not is irrelevant. Whether people should know better is irrelevant (actually, by redirecting them to the correct spelling we educate them how to spell the word correctly - a Good Thing). How many people look for the correct spelling is irrelevant. All that matters is that people do use this redirect, so it's a useful redirect to have. Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence has been presented that this is a plausible search term. The evidence of 350,000 ghits for "withought" vs. 3.5 billion for the correct spelling—that's one in 10,000—shows that this is absolutely not a common mistake. "thought" and "out" do not even rhyme, reducing the plausibility even further. The notion that the number of correct spellings is irrelevant is absurd. We're not here to cater to the mistakes of 0.01 percent. And as far as "educating them" is concerned, we'll serve them better by forcing them to type it correctly than we will by making their mistakes not matter. Jeh (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Kinky boots (boot)[edit]

Redirect that was created over a year ago due to a move that was made against consensus. Don't see any possible value in having a disambiguation term identical to the term in the page title. Safiel (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment. It makes no sense at all. "Kinky Boots (boot)", sure, for footwear Kinky boots is fine and is WP:PRIMARY but not for the disambiguation. For the disambiguation, the parentheses, Retarget it to Kinky boots (disambiguation). No point deleting it as it might have incoming links, but no point ending it there either. Si Trew (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment: It doesn't have any incoming links. Boot Blues (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
And how do you know that? It may not have any internal link, but could have external links that aren't recorded. Stats show it had about 40 hits a day until the start of April, which is quite good for a redirect, though they are tailing of now. Si Trew (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Do an anchor search on your favourite search engine. Boot Blues (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
As for the hits, they were likely because many links were piped through this redirect, but they are cleared out since then. Boot Blues (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as typical {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Were the target article ever to lose primary topic status, it would have this title or Kinky boots (footwear), judging by current disambiguators used in Category:Boots. --BDD (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD. If I were looking for the article on the footwear I would probably look for it at this title (or Kinky boots (boots)) as even without looking at the dab page I know there is at least one song by this title and I don't know which is primary. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
But wouldn't you look at the DAB page I wear steel toecaps every day so I am good at winning an argument, but are we going to add every kind of footwear to a DAB? WP:IRL, never kicked anyone with them, I don't add insult to injury. I am probably the most gentle person in the world: my three rules of living are don't hit, don't lie, dont cheat.But being nearly 2 metres tall and built like a brick shithouse probably also helps me to avoid confrontation in that way. Si Trew (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
My point is that if I am searching for a topic I know or suspect to be both ambiguous and not the primary topic I will attempt to find it using a disambiguator so I don't have to go via the dab page - in this case "(boot)" or "(boots)" are the ones I'd likely try first. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I see your point and I do the same, but I think that very much depends on what search engine you use and whether you have the Wikipedia search plugins installed in your browser. Surely one of the aims of redirects is that people do not have to guess. You and I can do it because we are old hands and know the conventions: others wouldn't. Even so, I would never think of disambiguating by sticking in "(boot)" and we don't have (I haven't checked yet) Kinky boots (footwear) which would seem the more encyclopaedic disambiguation. Si Trew (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm a liar, as you see, we do have Kinky boots (footwear)Kinky boots (same target) . Will cast around for others, Kinky boots (shoes) is red, but Kinky bootKinky boots? which kinda makes sense as {{R from singular}} but who ever buys one boot, except my aunt who had a leg amputated (fortunately it was her right one, and in the UK the shoe shops leave the left boot outside so you can try it on before buying the pair, so she never had to pay for a pair of boots again, God bless her). Si Trew (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Kink boots (footwear) makes sense, even kinky boots (boots) could make some sense, but I couldn't imagine anyone would seach for kinky boots (boot). Boot Blues (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, there is already a redirect at Kinky boots (footwear), this (boot) disambiguation term is unnecessary and illogical. Noone will search for it that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎2a00:801:210:d5fa:38a5:188c:1621:964e (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete It is an amalgamation of natural disambiguation and parenthetical disambiguation. I did read comments by BDD and Thryduulf but they seemed like strained pretexts as opposed to actual arguments. It isn't the first time I see people trying to save a redirect at all costs. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
It's silly looking, and I wouldn't try to save this "at all costs". But there are good, solid reasons for redirects from unnecessary disambiguation. There are certain topics which will reasonably never lose WP:PRIMARYTOPIC—George Washington, say. But with many subjects, those lines can shift over time, and the ability to link to current primary topics with unnecessary disambiguation saves the hassle of cleanup if the topics move in the future. I see no such timelessness to "kinky boots". --BDD (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with everything between "there are good, solid reasons from [...]" to "[...] topics move in the future". But I cannot conceive a plausibly out-of-ordinary prospect of usurpation for this title. Can you? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, very easily. If the song, or a cover version of it, is (re)released, used in a blockbuster movie, etc. and becomes a significant hit then it is distinctly possible for it to become the primary topic here. This is not about saving a redirect at all costs, it's about requiring a positive reason to delete something - i.e. the redirect stays unless it is harmful for some reason - and nobody has yet articulated any reason why it is. Thryduulf (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, but it's not likely, and if so, it's not likely this would be the disambiguation term. A disambiguation term should preferably be a more generic term, not a part of the word itself. This redirect has one of the steangest disambiguation terms ever and is estetically unpleasing, thus harmful IMHO. Boot Blues (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't understand your comment. No, nothing will usurp "Kinky Boots (boot)" but this presently redirects to the base title "Kinky Boots" which may well be usurped. If that happens, then this article will require some form of disambiguation. It doesn't matter if that happesn, or what that disambiguation is if it does, as the only question we are asking here is "is it plausible that someone will look for this article at this title?" and the answer to that is firmly yes. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • What makes you think that, when at least BDD, myself and 65.94.43.89 have indicated it is useful. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete no need to keep this unlikely target. Skogsvandraren (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    • It's actually not an unlikely target at all - if someone uses this (and that is far from unlikely) then there is nowhere else they could be expecting to go. You presumably mean it's an unlikely disambiguatior, but BDD and I above note that it is not. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant to "Kinky boots". We will worry about the future when it comes. Fleet Command (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Octagóncito[edit]

Deletion. Basically, "Octagóncito" and "Octagóncito (AAA)" are two different professional wrestlers. It's better to have the former as a red link, encouraging for an article to be created in the future, than have it redirect to a wrong person. "Octagóncito (AAA)" was recently moved to "Octagóncito" (without discussion), creating this redirect. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) #GG (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Move the target article over the redirect. (AAA) is a disambiguator, right? There are two wrestlers named Octagóncito? If we only have an article on one, it should be at Octagóncito, and Octagóncito (AAA) would be an ok {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} and placeholder in case the base title Octagóncito is converted into a disambiguation page. So I think the move was correct. Pinging that editor for his thoughts. --BDD (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Move per BDD unless and until an article is created on the second wrestler. Ivanvector (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Move or dab per BDD and Ivanvector. Note that there was an undiscussed move of Octagóncito to Octagóncito (AAA) yesterday, performed by the nominator. Unless the other Octagóncito is discussed on Wikipedia, the addition of "(AAA)" should be reverted. Turning the redirect into a redlink is obviously undesirable. BarrelProof (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Color-ish redirects[edit]

Delete all. I have to save it before fixing it because this little laptop its touchpad is very sensitive, and my fingers aren't.. Si Trew (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  • comment what is the reason for deleting them? They are not obviously problematic and you have not given a reason.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing because they're kind of redundant. Whatever they target to is the redirect itself minus a few letters at the very end. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep blackish because it isn't a redirect to black, its target is a song sitcom. Not sure about the others yet Siuenti (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oops yes, sorry about that. Siuenti (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
(Pinging Si Trew to let him know that his nomination moved here.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not sure about the other but we should keep the redirect to the sitcom since that is a pleasurable misspelling.--67.68.209.200 (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, and thanks to whoever moved it. My rationale for deletion is that these are actually harmful, entries in an encylopaedia should be nouns not adjectives. I don't know if WP:TITLE covers it quite, but we don't want a precedent where anyone can put in "strangeish" or "oddish" and get a redirect: the aim is to countenance creation or maintenance of "-ish" words, which although used in vivid speech, are not very encylopaedic. We have ish as a DAB but does not really link to an article on the suffix, we do not have -ish. Si Trew (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep-ish seems like they're good enough as is. They should point to "variations of colorX" articles variations of orange etc preferentially though. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Why? We're not Dulux and have to invent new names for paints each year. Let's have Magnolia pointing to Beige or something. Drab (color) is also a colour used in the military (my whole house was painted in Drab, "Borrowed" from the British Army, with Olive Drab on the outside) but we don't have Drabish or Drabbish. We don't have Magnoliaish or Beigeish. These are just invented words and WP:RFD#D2 makes no sense. If someone wants to find out what Pink is, they search for Pink, not Pinkish. They could be afer Pinking (a WP:TWODABS for Engine knocking and Pinking shears) if you want, but not Pinkish. You have to get into the mindset of how people search for stuff, and these are harmful. Si Trew (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've got no problem with retargetting to the variations of articles per the anon (Si Trew's comments don't make sense to me as these are explicitly not inventing names for colours). Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Because we are going to end up with Yellow-brownish and Creamish and what have you, in a combinatorial explosion. We can't do that. I know WP:CHEAP but it actually makes it harder for peopele to find the information they want: That's my argument. Si Trew (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "-ish" in this sense means "approximately" or "close to." It is typically only used for common colors when you're talking about a color that is is not quite blue (for example), but is the the closest color that you can use to describe it. Because of this, you're never going to hear someone say "magnoliaish," because that's a specific color and someone will therefore describe it exactly. Keeping that in mind, I do think that we should keep them, but retarget to the specific "shades of ___" article where applicable (because that's what ___-ish is). Specifically:
  • Retarget/keep per Tavix. I could see how these are viable redirects and likely search queries, and this makes the most sense to me. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget WhiteishWhite for consistency; keep all of the rest. Not to discount Tavix' suggestion, but other than whiteish I don't see that there's a strong need to retarget any of these other than change for the sake of change. They're fine as-is. Ivanvector (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - WP:NOUN relates to article titles, not redirects. I don't see anything harmful about these redirects; they are valid words and potential search terms. I would be OK with the re-targeting that Tavix recommends, although I think keeping them as is would be most intuitive. Neelix (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget' per tavix, that is by far the best way to do it. I think I may have put a tilde or something in someone else's, but only minor, sorry about that. @Tavix: has hit the nail on the thumb with this one. Si Trew (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget most, keeping Blackish per Tavix. It's possible, though very unlikely that someone searching for, say, "Blueish", wouldn't think to search out Blue themselves. It's reasonable to suggest they may be seeking shades of blue instead. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: With the exception of Blackish, the consensus on the rest of the nominated redirects is still a bit "ish" and could possibly become less "ish" with more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Prussians[edit]

Prussia is sufficiently well known that readers searching for "Prussians" are probably looking for people associated with it, rather than this older ethnic group. The redirect and its hatnote should move there from the current target. BDD (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe. I suppose Fooians and Fooian people are often an article-redirect pair. --BDD (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

List of featured articles[edit]

Unnecessary, hardly used cross-namespace redirect. There was some minimal discussion before creation, but I don't think enough reason was given to create this redirect. Relentlessly (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep The target page is clearly targeted towards readers, and with cross-space redirects, that is what really matters. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Harmless. Si Trew (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Since I created the page I can't comment, but I'll say that although I now use shortcuts (WP:FA) to navigate around the site, before I knew you could use them I would type in list of featured articles to try and reach the page. I feel others do too. Neuroxic (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Neuroxic: so your way of not commenting is by commenting then? :) Of course you are free to comment, but quite right to declare an interest. Si Trew (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Not used ≠ wrong. It's there in case we need it, and if someone's searching for this there is little else they could mean. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I'm not a fan of WP:CNRs of this type, because it allows casual readers who don't know the interworkings of Wikipedia to "fall" into the project-space and get really lost or confused. Since this isn't in Wikispace, we can't just be thinking about Wikipedia here. Wikipedia isn't the only form of media that has "featured articles." It's a fairly common journalistic term that refers to an in-depth narration or investigation. It's also known as a feature(d) story (which is the title at which we have an article for). Is it likely that someone would use this redirect in this fashion? Probably not, which is why I am only weakly advocating for deletion. But it is something to think about... Tavix  Talk  03:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per Tavix. Steel1943 (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Category:Featured articles, although lists and categories are not supposed to be interchangeable. But at least Category: is a reader-facing namespace. Delete per Tavix otherwise. Ivanvector (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Tavix. Featured articles appear in more places than just on Wikipedia. Otherwise a weak retarget per Ivanvector. JZCL 19:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, pure project namespace business, no shortcut, not needed to kick the search engine. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RDELETE#D6, barely used redirect. Esquivalience t 16:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

"Betray us"[edit]

Delete per the precedent set at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 7#"Richard Rossiter". It's an implausible redirect because it's enclosed in quotes. Tavix |  Talk  04:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per precedent.--Lenticel (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as a confusing generic redirect. Quotation marks might also cause searching issues.--Lenticel (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Augh, I just argued at WP:VPP that we don't make "precedent" arguments here, now you've made a fool of me. :( Delete because this phrase is an overly-generic partial title match for the topic (should be "General Betray Us", "betray us" could have multiple targets), and also because the quotes are irrelevant. Ivanvector (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay I deleted my original reason. I don't want other editors to look down on you just because of me :) --Lenticel (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete oooo I remember this controversy...absolutely disgraceful. Anyways: yeah, I find it hard to believe any significant number would be searching for it that way. And if they did, how many more redirects do we need for that? Other redirects to consider: "Betray Us", 2007 General Betray Us Controversy, Betray Us, Betray us. First 2 are equally unlikely search queries, last 2 might be worth keeping. ― Padenton|   04:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That was a good find. I added the first one because it is enclosed in quotes just like the one I nominated. I think any of the others would/should have to be nominated separately because the rationale would be different (enough). Tavix  Talk  18:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep this is eight years old, and the arguments for deleting are weak at best. "Not a likely search term" should only apply to new redirects. It is immediately obvious from the target page why the redirect goes there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough18:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC).
  • Keep A redirect with the name of a phrase goes to the article describing it. That's exactly what redirects are for. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning keep here. This is a phrase, so I don't think the quotation marks are inherently problematic. If it were double 's, that would be a big problem because it would interfere with markup. "Richard Rossiter" isn't a great precedent because it fell under CSD. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 21#"swimmer" is a closer case, though there really weren't any redeeming qualities to that redirect. Also, Ivanvector or others, what else could "betray us" logically refer to? The phrase is vague on its own but may still be unambiguous in an encyclopedic context. Still, it might be better to keep that discussion separate. All of the betray us redirects could be discussed on their own if we just stick to quotation marks here. --BDD (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @BDD: "Richard Rossiter" was a speedy delete, but I interpreted that as WP:SNOW rather than an actual CSD due to the "implausible redirect" and the deletion summary basically saying "per RFD" instead of "per CSD". I can't look up how recently it was created, but would it be an R3 then? Pinging SarekOfVulcan as well. Tavix | Talk  14:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, either way, as with "swimmer", quotation marks make no sense there. They definitely make sense for songs and TV episodes. Maybe a bit less so for phrases, but there's still some logic there. Random words or personal names, sure, definitely not. --BDD (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral The Rossiter deletion was definitely a CSD, because there was no reason to quote the guy's name. I can definitely see an argument for leaving it quoted here, although I'd probably come down on the delete side if pressed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

MacacaGate[edit]

Delete Per WP:RFD#DELETE 3, 8; per WP:LABEL. "The suffix ‑gate suggests the existence of a scandal. Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally (e.g. Watergate), with in-text attribution if in doubt. Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies." I was only able to find the use of the neologism 'macacagate' in [1] [2] [3]. The 3rd is a brief mention in a list of terms ending in 'gate' discussing the impact of the watergate scandal.

Reasons WP:RFD#KEEP criteria don't apply (by number):

  1. Was previously an article, redirected per AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MacacaGate). Most policy-based votes in the AfD were easily supportive of outright deletion, but the closer decided to compromise towards a redirect. (To be clear, I am not contesting the closing) The afd was over 8 years ago, but the last time the target article even briefly mentioned the macaca incident was in 2008. +States+Senate+election+in+Virginia%2C+2006&text=macaca. The only WP articles describing the incident appear to be macaca (term) and George Allen.
  2. The term is rarely used for the brief controversy in non-self-published sources. The only links to it are in the above mentioned AfD and another AfD occurring at the same time Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macaca (slur). The redirect has only 75 views in the last 90 days ([4]), 2-3 of which were me. Disclaimer: Before making this RfD I did remove one of the links (I changed the link in Sepia Mutiny per WP:LABEL), this is also likely where a decent amount of the traffic came from.
  3. See #2.
  4. This might be what kills this RfD. But, as I explained in 2, the only links to this redirect are 2 AfDs 8 years ago and logs where they're transcluded, and a brief mention in the talk page archive here Talk:George_Felix_Allen/Archive_2 by a confirmed sockpuppet blocked indefinitely (with the username Maca and Macaca, suggesting single-purpose account). (also note the disclaimer listed in 2).
  5. Based on the traffic stats I listed in 2, it's difficult to believe this is found useful by any significant population.
  6. Doesn't apply. ― Padenton|   16:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Weak keep'. @Padenton: I think reason 4 is what kills your RFD, that it has been around for a long time (8 years) and we don't know what incoming links might be to this, but it does no harm. My first two ghits actually have Macaca-gate with the hyphen, which we don't have. However, extremely well reasoned and I take my hat off to you for that and will happily change my vote if others agree. Si Trew (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Nah, soddit, Padenton done all the work, Padenton knows what (s)he's talking about, Padenton has gone through every means to try to get it deleted, so I think this should be Deleted on trust. Padenton has put a lot of effort into this. Si Trew (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete due to the fact that it isn't even mentioned at the target article and the fact that it is potentially harmful. Tavix  Talk  02:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Retarget, fairly strongly. The term is used in reliable sources (cf. MacacaGate -wikipedia), is unambiguous, and WP:RNEUTRAL specifically gives two similar -gate redirects as example of acceptable non-neutral redirects. Climategate and Attorneygate may have been more common, but that's hardly a reason to delete this one. --BDD (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Good call, that's where the controversy is discussed. I'm also adding a capitalization variant to the nomination. --BDD (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The issue with adding it to the article for this purpose is that WP:LABEL explicitly says we should only refer to it as '-gate' if it's in wide use externally. It's not. I linked above the only 3 WP:RS articles I could find (someone else is more than welcome to try and find some more) 1 of which was a brief mention in an article discussing the impact of the watergate scandal. Another was a blog (WP:PRIMARY), leaving the Salon article. If someone can find wider use, maybe then, but I'm not seeing it here. It also seems it would be a violation of MOS:NEO for us to be attempting to increase the usage of the term in such a way. Articles on neologisms are frequently deleted because they are attempts to increase usage of a term (said in policy WP:NOTNEO), and I think for the same rationale it would be inappropriate to add 'macacagate' to the prose of the article (or a related article) with this goal. Again, this is based on my only finding 1 secondary WP:RS providing more than a brief mention. If someone can find some more, perhaps there will be more reason for these alternatives. ― Padenton|   21:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:LABEL and the like are all good reasons to leave it out of the body of the article. So no wonder the phrase itself doesn't exactly appear. Navigational aids like redirects are a different matter; that's sort of the point of WP:RNEUTRAL. --BDD (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you're right on this one. I struck out my bit on adding it to that section, but I don't think having the redirect poses a major problem. Tavix | Talk  02:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Last ice age[edit]

I gather that there's a discrepancy between scientific and common usage with this phrase. This is a former title of the article now at Last glacial period, and I believe most readers searching for this term would be looking for that article rather than the current target. The hatnotes at both pages adequately explain the difference, IMO, but I think we'll do more good than harm by retargeting. The uppercase variant initially redirected to Wisconsin glaciation, so a disambiguation page is not out of the question, though I think it it's not the best solution here. --BDD (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Competitive gaming[edit]

Delete this is not a synonym. E-sports have nothing to do with most pro-gambling -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. This isn't gambling, this is gaming, and I think it may be useful in some way. Raymie (tc)
  • Keep per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. While "gaming" by itself can refer to quite a few things, "competitive gaming" overwhelmingly refers to e-sports; indeed, "competitive gaming" appears, in boldface, in the first sentence of the Electronic sports article. Sideways713 (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: competitive gaming almost always refers to electronic sports competitions. Esquivalience t 16:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

XHCAR-TV[edit]

Permits given by the Mexican government to the state of Campeche but never actually built. Removed with the April 28, 2015 IFT list. All links to these redirects have been pulled. Raymie (tc) 04:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

American Delicious[edit]

I don't think this is actually a cultivar of apple. According to List of apple cultivars, there are two types of "Delicious": Red and Golden. Delete as either a hoax or per WP:REDLINK. Tavix | Talk  03:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete it seems to be an actual apple variety although quite old (19th century). I suggest deletion to encourage article creation. --Lenticel (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Awaken (Kendrick Lamar album)[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON. Looks like someone was trying to guess at his new album. (Turns out it was called "To Pimp a Butterfly") Tavix | Talk  02:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

List of Kendrick Lamar feuds[edit]

  • Delete. The Kendrick Lamar article doesn't mention any feuds, especially not a list of feuds. Tavix | Talk  02:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I must agree that these pages are to be deleted cause I accidentally created a redirection of these two names to the original article. It was by mistake. DBrown SPS 14:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @DBrown SPS: In that case, I marked them WP:CSD#G7. Would the same apply to the other "feud" related redirects you just created? Tavix | Talk  15:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: Yes, of course. I would also like to apologize for all the fake pages and unsourced material I made. I wished it didn't happen until now. Go on ahead and block me from editing. DBrown SPS 15:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @DBrown SPS: Hey, I don't think you should be blocked, they were created in good faith. There's a big difference between vandalism and what you did. I'll look through all of them, but a bunch of those are actually salvageable. We have a List of Drake feuds, so the one you created about Drake works. 50 cent has a few notable feuds so it makes sense to create the redirect about him to his article. The Jay-Z and Nas redirects probably could be retargeted to the article on their notable feud. The exception here is when there isn't any information about any feuds, as is the case with Kendrick Lamar. Tavix | Talk  15:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: Thanks. I really do appreciate it.

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@DBrown SPS: No problem! You've got a lot of good edits, so keep up the good work! Hip hop feuds is a fascinating topic, I'm glad to see someone looking into them. I took a look at all of the redirects and did the following:

  • I do want to note that Jay Z also had a feud with Jaz-O (Jaz-O#Feud with Jay-Z), and Drake (List of Drake feuds#Jay-Z) although they aren't mentioned at Jay Z's article. If it develops to the point where Jay Z has a "feud" section or article, this should be re-retargeted to where ever that information is compiled.

"Certainty"- the film[edit]

Delete as this redirect is all kinds of implausible as a search term: the title enclosed in quotes, no space before the hyphen but there is a space after the hyphen, and "the film" afterwards. I can't see this being useful to anyone. Tavix | Talk  02:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible redirect. JZCL 19:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

네모네모 스폰지밥[edit]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. SpongeBob isn't Korean. Tavix | Talk  02:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Spongebob is an English-language product, therefore has no affinity for Korean -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per IP. JZCL 19:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Weight earth[edit]

This was an essay that existed for 4 minutes before it was redirected to Earth. It should have been deleted then because it isn't useful as a redirect. Let's get this one right now. The word "weight" isn't even used in the targeted article... Tavix | Talk  02:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom OR Weak Retarget to Earth mass. --Lenticel (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm also leaning towards "delete" on this one. The possibility for a retargeting to Earth mass is only validated by the fact that Earth weight currently redirects there. However, the issue I see is that weight is not mass, but rather mass times gravity. Steel1943 (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't think there's a way to retarget this without violating WP:NOTFAQ. Ivanvector (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Quadruple (computing)[edit]

Delete four unsourced non-notable WP:NEO redirects. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Be..anyone (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep "Half-byte" viable search term, and not a neologism, since it is literally half a byte, where "byte" is defined as 8 bits, instead of as a machine word. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep half-byte and quartet, delete quadruple and tetrade. A nybble is half a byte; bytes are also called octets and a quartet is half of that. Both terms are mentioned at the target. The other two are mentioned at the target but unsourced, and don't seem to be in common use from what I can tell (and one is misspelled). Ivanvector (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep (4x). These nominations are invalid, All four entries are perfectly valid redirects (per WP:REDIR, in particular WP:POFRED and WP:CHEAP) to an article discussing them. They would continue to be valid redirects even if the article would not discuss them specifically, but a closely related topic (which it does). Although it would be possible to bring by references, redirects do not need to be referenced by themselves (references may be added to the article, but this is completely independent matter of affairs). While many redirects (including these) are notable, we do not apply the same notability criteria to redirects as we do to articles. After all, one of the main purposes of redirects is to guide a reader to an article or contents in another article discussing the topic s/he is looking for even if s/he may use less than perfect (sometimes even downright incorrect) vocabulary. We even have (and keep) redirects for sometimes obscure and unlikely misspellings (something I do not personally propose, but it demonstrates the extremely wide spectrum of and low threshold for valid redirects). It would be absurd to keep misspellings and delete valid terms. Finally, none of these terms is a neologism, quite to the contrary, but even if they were, this wouldn't be a reason to delete them, either.
Octet and quartet are established terms used in the telecommunication industry to avoid the historical ambiguity of the terms byte and nibble (which do not always mean 8 or 4 bits in all contexts). I'm familiar with them for about 20 to 25 years, but their usage are probably older.
Quadruple (Quadrupel in German) is a term found in various places in the net and is listed in other Wikipedias as well. I have, however, not seen it being used in recent academic literature, so it might have felt into disuse (which doesn't render it invalid, anyway, as Wikipedia covers topics regardless of if they are modern or historical). I have seen it being used to specifically mean a quantity of 4 bits in the early 1980s already - even before I learnt about the existance of the now much more common term nibble. Semantically, nibble commonly (perhaps even universally?) refers to either the upper or lower half of a byte (but note that some authors use(d) the term nibble also for bitcounts different from 4, similar to a byte not always holding 8 bits historically), whereas I do not remember quadruple being used in exactly the same way - the (- per nom - strictly always) 4 bits of a quadruple could also be located somewhere in the middle of a byte/word, so it appears to be used in a more general context - but it's fine to discuss this in the context of the nibble article and does not invalidate the redirect.
Tetrade is a very old term as well, dating back to when BCD computing was still common. It defines the bits holding a BCD digit. I have seen the terms tetrades and pseudo-tetrades being used in academic papers in the 1980s and 1990s, but always in conjunction with either BCD math and data representation or logic optimization, so it appears to be used in a specific context only, but this doesn't make it less valid.
Half-byte should be really self-explanatory.
All these terms are also mentioned in various other Wikipedias.
To sum it up, all four terms are perfectly valid redirects per WP:REDIR. None of the criteria for deletion WP:R#DELETE applies, while most criteria for WP:R#KEEP apply, thus they should be kept. It is possible and desirable to even expand their coverage in the target article.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

American egg throwing[edit]

Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL, it's a pejorative term that isn't in widespread use. It's also ambiguous because it could also refer to Egg tossing, Egging, or even Egg dropping. Tavix | Talk  01:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • delete as vague and possible slur since American football is sometimes called "handegg".--Lenticel (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete 'Handegg' may be widely used, but American egg throwing is a bit of a stretch. ― Padenton|   16:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Nolan 3[edit]

Delete as confusing due to its extreme ambiguity. In this case, "Nolan" refers to the director Christopher Nolan and the "3" refers to the fact that it's his third batman movie. However, this could refer to anybody at Nolan and you could make the 3 mean just about anything you want it to mean. Tavix | Talk  01:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • delete as vague synonym. --Lenticel (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

A Airlines[edit]

Delete, this redirect is equally plausible for a lot of other airline companies, i.e. This term is altogether implausible. - TheChampionMan1234 00:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

April 29[edit]

Sydney Airways[edit]

This apparently was the name of a minor airline company which was merged with the target (which I have yet to verify if it is true), but the current target is not helpful. - TheChampionMan1234 23:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Boeing Airlines[edit]

There is apparently some non-notable use of this term but current target is certainly not helpful for those searching this term - TheChampionMan1234 23:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Scottish problems[edit]

Perhaps this was intended as irony or humour, but it doesn't seem like a very helpful redirect. In fact, it's not a very likely search term at all; I don't think there's anywhere useful it could link to, so it should probably just be deleted, and the link removed from the sole article that points to it. Robofish (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

My first thought when seeing this was West Lothian question, so perhaps retarget it there? Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - West Lothian Question is only a name for an issue that isn't any more a Scottish problem than it is a problem of Wales, Northern Ireland and England. At different times, Scotland may have different problems or no problems -- and it may present different problems or no problems. So the right target can never be fixed. Since the only mainspace article it links to that links to it is National Association for the Vindication of Scottish Rights, which really doesn't need to wikilink this phrase at all, it's probably better deleted. --Stfg (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague. There are a lot of problems that they can encounter.--Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or even speedy delete as something close to an attack. JZCL 19:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Carlos Perez (baseball, born 1991)[edit]

Player was released by the Braves so the target is no longer valid... suggest deletion as the player is not notable enough for his own article. Spanneraol (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete He was released by the Braves organization so the redirect can't be kept. It doesn't look like he was picked up by anyone else, so a retarget to a different organization is out of the question. He doesn't pass WP:NBASEBALL so creating an article on him isn't an option. Therefore, the only option we do have is deletion. Tavix | Talk  20:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Marcus Dyrus Hill[edit]

Redirect's title contains wiki markup. Due to the technical issues caused by wiki markup in article titles, title with two consecutive apostrophes are restricted from creation by the title blacklist. In effect, this redirect should be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete due to potential technical bugs because of the markups --Lenticel (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Gareth Morgan (athlete)[edit]

Improper dab.. proper redirect exists at Gareth Morgan (baseball). No need for this one Spanneraol (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Robert L. Gordon IV[edit]

This redirects to America's Promise, but there is no mention of Robert L. Gordon IV in the article on America's Promise. Either provide information about Robert Gordon or delete the redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

  • If there was anything about him in his (presumably) father's article Robert L. Gordon III I'd retarget it there as an {{R from relative}}, but there is no mention of any offspring, let alone by name. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Reverse Redirect and send to AfD the article was converted to a redirect with "not independently notable". Perhaps it's better off to send this to Afd for discussion. --Lenticel (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore article and send to AfD. Discussions about whether or not he is "independently notable" is better suited for that forum. Tavix | Talk  20:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Shriya Pilgaonkar[edit]

Unnecessary redirect. No info on target page. Himanshugarg06 (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete to encourage article creation. They seem to be a writer and director according to IMDB. --Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Name of the person has been mentioned in the article. If you think it's not true, than a sourced reliable source has also been provided. Regards, KunalForYou📝☎️ 15:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Scandals shaking the Swedish Social Democratic government[edit]

Appears to have been a newspaper article. JZCL 17:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Additional time[edit]

Does not only apply to association football, there are a whole host of sports to which this is applicable. Delete to encourage article creation, or dabify. JZCL 14:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect per nom, makes sense. GiantSnowman 17:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per TCM1234 -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

After extra time[edit]

Does not only apply to association football, there are a whole host of sports to which this is applicable. Delete to encourage article creation, or dabify. JZCL 14:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect per nom, makes sense. GiantSnowman 17:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Injury time[edit]

Does not only apply to association football, there are a whole host of sports to which this is applicable. Delete to encourage article creation, or dabify. JZCL 14:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect per nom, makes sense. GiantSnowman 17:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Stoppage time[edit]

Does not only apply to association football, there are a whole host of sports to which this is applicable. Delete to encourage article creation, or dabify. JZCL 14:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect per nom, makes sense. GiantSnowman 17:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Pundle[edit]

I see two dictionary definitions here and here that describe "Pundle" as a "short and fat woman" and one as "a dirty slovenly girl" but nothing to describe a cat's behaviour. I'm aware of cat kneading (as are the myriad of T-shirts filled with holes I have owned), but this isn't a name I'm aware of. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Added Pundling as verb form of non-existent verb. (Pundle is listed in the OED as a noun, but not with the feline meaning, and there's no verb. Pundling isn't listed separately either. Neither form is found in Merriam-Webster at all.) --Stfg (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete. I have been entirely unable to verify that either word has any relation to cats, or any other encyclopaedia topic for that matter. wikt:pundle only has an imported entry from the 1913 Webster's dictionary and that marks it as an oboslete term for a "short and fat woman", it doesn't have an entry for "pundling". Even Urban Dictionary, the very definition of an unreliable source, has only one definition and that relates to duct tape. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, I apparently created pundle awhile back as housekeeping after a pagemove from pundling to kneading. The original version of that article is so bad that if it weren't for having heard this term used 'in the wild' I'd suspect it was WP:BOLLOCKS. Nevertheless, I am completely unable to find any written evidence that this meaning exists outside the brains of one editor from 2005 and one slightly dotty fellow animal shelter volunteer. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: from the oldest version of the page, "the origin of the word is from the BBC Radio 4 program 'word of mouth', which deals with matters concerning the finer points of the english language. It was suggested by a guest in the absence of a word which specifically names this activity". In other words, a protologism that never caught on. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as an obscure and unrelated term. --Lenticel (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Redirects created by Danny: Class A (i.e. of the form: First name(s), surname, first half of senior title, all junior titles, second half of senior title)[edit]

@Thryduulf: I do not think so. They were created in a space of two months. After the first one or two, the creator would have noticed his bot′s exploits, disabled it and asked for the pages′ immediate deletion. These have been around for 10 years.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all - misleading; these are all wrong. Ivanvector (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all as implausible synonyms. --Lenticel (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Redirects created by Danny: Class B (i.e. of the form: First name(s), all titles, surname)[edit]

I believe that this is too long to be actually helpful. ANNOUNCEMENT I went to look up this user's page creations from the time this one was created to see if there is another one or two like this, in order to bring them here. What I found was a little more and it is coming. These are all of them (at least I hope I did not by-pass any). The Theosophist (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as harmful: That's not the way someone writes someone's style, with their title put between their forename and surname. Si Trew (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Si Trew. Ivanvector (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Si Trew. --Lenticel (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Delete. This is kinda what we used to call informally "Army English" (working in the defence industry) in that the British Army quartermaster's store always listed things as "Boots, black, 11 size, two, marching for the use of", i.e. a kinda reverse Polish notation which is very easy to parody but not useful to an encylopaedia. Si Trew (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete all per Si Trew. Updated my vote since it seems that there are a lot more of these faulty redirects lying about. --Lenticel (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Si Trew. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Si Trew. May have been bad form to add so many redirects to this nom after there were already comments on it, but rationale is the same. I'm striking and re-!voting just to confirm I support deletion of all of these, not just the one, in case anyone asks. Ivanvector (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Redirects created by Danny: Class C (i.e. implausible typo)[edit]

April 28[edit]

International Islamic University, Islamabad.[edit]

Delete. Implausible typo. Nick Number (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to the article at International Islamic University, Islamabad. The mistake is only in the full stop/period at the end and that seeems quite plausible, I tend to end sentences with full stops/periods and so I don't see why someone wouldn't on a search term. But there's no point taking them via the DAB (at International Islamic University). Si Trew (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ledy Waschingdon[edit]

Delete. We just deleted WP:RFD#Exselenc Georg General Waschingdon, and we don't have Georg Washingdon or Georg General Waschingdon or General Georg Waschingdon, so I don't think we should have this. In any case I am not sure she was Lady Washington (which is an article about a ship that hatnotes over to Martha), was she? I think she was known, postumously according to her lede, as the First Lady of the United States, but was not a Lady in the British sense of hereditary titles. Si Trew (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, it's from the painting and the other discussion had established that. I wonder if it can be redirected to something about the painting? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per previous discussion. Tavix | Talk  20:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Algerian Revolution of 2011[edit]

The Algerian government never changed during the 2010-2012 protests, so it is misleading to use the word revolution. eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

When is Christmas[edit]

Delete. I've been going through stackloads of these this morning of "who was" or "when was" and in good faith User:Siuenti created this as something of a test case (law) (as Siuenti politely said on my talk page). I say WP:RFD#D5 but actually it is a cunningly good test case, because it is actually useful and marked as R to section. Si Trew (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Just added the section link into the nom, @Siuenti: I am sure will not mind that. Si Trew (talk)
  • Keep: not sure how many people need telling when Christmas is, but it seems like a good page to have. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Actually, people do need telling when Christmas is. It is celebrated on different days in different countries and different forms of Christianity: In many European countries, the major celebration is either on 24 December (Christmas Eve) or on 5 December (St Nicholas Day). So it is useful. The reason I say delete is as part of the test case: WP:RFD#D2 recently created redirect with no incoming links. This is very much in the nature of a test case to establish consensus on what we do with this, but @Siuenti: has managed to outwit me by coming up with something useful (I take my hat of to Siuenti). It may have been better to invent something preposterous, like When did the last brontosaur die, I'm not sure: maybe by inventing something useful it muddies the waters. Si Trew (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTFAQ ; this is a FAQ access type redirection . -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as harmless and likely useful. WP:NOTFAQ is about article content, not about redirects. Redirects such as this also aid search engines to answer questions that people ask them as well as helping directly. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as harmless and possibly useful. The default for redirects, in the absence of harm, is to keep and I am not seeing any policy grounds to delete. Just Chilling (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

What is a man?[edit]

Delete. Not mentioned at target. Si Trew (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Neutral This is an infamously corny line from one of the game's cutscenes, but the line itself is vague enough that perhaps someone searching this (if we need it at all) is looking for something else. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 16:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Retarget to What Is Man? (essay) as a plausible synonym. The target article needs some cleanup though. --Lenticel (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. It's also a line in the famous song, most notably sung by Frank Sinatra, I Did it My Way; "What is a man, what has he got, if not himself, then not a lot. the record shows, I took the blows, and did it my way". I would have thought we'd have an article on that song but with trying various capitalisations it seems not. We do have Sinatra Doctrine but that seems a stretch. Si Trew (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
As a primary topic, What Is Man? would seem to be a better place if we were to retarget. But at a glance, perhaps there shouldn't be a primary topic here at all. --BDD (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There are actually a lot more topics than just the King and Twain essays so I created a dab. It's at What is man?. However, there aren't any topics that I could find that are referred to as "What is a man?". In absence of a better target, I'd say weak retarget to What is man?. Tavix | Talk  21:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

When was the Berlin Wall built[edit]

Wikipedia is not Yahoo! Answers. Questions like these should be taken to the reference desk. Tavix |  Talk  02:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOTFAQ ; this is a FAQ access type redirect -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems more an Ask Jeeves request, as the first one that allowed natural-language questions (not very well in its early days) but we don't have WP:ASKJEEVES or WP:NOTASKJEEVES, or WP:JEEVES: perhaps we should. I'm going to be a quiz show pannellist and say 1961, without looking up the target. Si Trew (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Oooh I was right. Do I win a teddy bear or goldfish or something? Si Trew (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are other redirects like this, see Special:PrefixIndex/What_is. I would encourage someone with the time and inclination to nominate those that are not proper names of books, etc. – Fayenatic London 08:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Nice find. I'll do it, but it will take me a while. I have time on my hands. Si Trew (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, old, harmless. Siuenti (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I went through all the "Who was" not the "What was" or "When was", this is a bit of a Herculean task, but I'll get there. Si Trew (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. Liam987 talk 15:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as it takes people to the information they are looking for without harming anything. WP:NOTFAQ is about article content and so is not relevant here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Șiștarovăț/version 2[edit]

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 speedy delete per criterion R3 by RHaworth. Steel1943 (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary redirects, and unlikely search terms. All attributions on these redirects have already been moved elsewhere to more appropriate title so their attribution can be retained per WP:A. Steel1943 (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete maintenance cleanup -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:35, 29 April 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.

Draft:Actress, Model Faith Picozzi[edit]

This is an unlikely entry point for this topic, an irrelevant redirect. It does no harm, but it does no good either Fiddle Faddle 17:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. The redirect serves as a method for the draft's creator to locate their draft, given that the redirect is an {{R from move}} to its current title. (Also, its target, Draft:Faith Picozzi, is currently nominated for MfD. I'd say that the better path would be to await the result of that nomination to then see if this redirect is then eligible for G8 speedy deletion.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The author has plenty of links on their talk page to the correct title for the draft. Not that it really matters one way or the other. Fiddle Faddle 17:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and St. Kitts and Nevis[edit]

This redirect could be useful but it is very big. I am not very sure and I would certainly like to hear a second opinion. The Theosophist (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak delete, (with respect to Her Majesty) these exact words in this order are in the lede at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, the normal way we list royals, ( → Elizabeth II) presumably as WP:PRIMARY) so anyone searching in this way would find it anyway. It does get a few hits bit <1 a day on average, so let the search engine do it. That being said, it's not actually harmful. Si Trew (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is not any of her many official titles. Ivanvector (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete. She's actually also only Elizabeth I in many places (such as Elizabeth I of Scotland and that is witnessed in many ways such as how it is written on pillar boxes, postage stamps and other official documents in Scotland because Elizabeth IElizabeth I of England was never their queen, the Act of Union 1707 not having been thought of at the time. I guess technically she is only Elizabeth I in Canada, for similar reasons, but the article at Dei Gratia Regina has a nice picture of a Canadian quarter where it says Elizabeth II. Si Trew (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
No, she is Elizabeth II in Canada, as well as the other Commonwealth realms she rules. Numbering of monarchs is royal prerogative - as I understand it she could call herself whatever she wants in Canada. The monarchy is legally distinct in each realm but follows from the English line. The numbering has only been controversial within Scotland. During Elizabeth I's reign, Canada was ruled by a number of French kings, and didn't have an English ruler until a century and a half later. Ivanvector (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Surely a monarch rules all their realm and has one realm? I presume (not checked) "realm" is a modifcation from "regal" in some way. Not really sure, Queen Victoria was proud to be dubbed the Empress of India. As you can tell I am no expert on matters regal (I'd pension them all off meself) but just trying to work out if this is correct or not. Si Trew (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
By my understanding, you're right, but it's an odd situation with the Commonwealth. Prior to E2R's coronation, the whole Commonwealth was ruled by the monarchy of England under George VI, but with her coronation, each Commonwealth dominion became a legally distinct monarchy separate from the monarchy of England, thus each now has its own monarch. But through convention or legal agreement or whatever, the dominions agreed in 1952 that Elizabeth II was to be monarch of each particular dominion, with a distinct royal title in each. In regard to this redirect, each dominion holds its own Crown as the highest in that realm, thus, while she is in Canada or acting in her role as the Canadian monarch, her title Queen of Canada (etc) is considered higher than her royal titles in other lands, and when she returns to England she is Queen of England (etc). Nowhere is she ever titled Queen of all of the Commonwealth realms simultaneously. She is also Head of the Commonwealth, which is another distinct title, and interestingly not subject to the same rules of succession. I'm also no expert in this but I seem to have been doing a lot of reading about it lately. Ivanvector (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
And indeed it is: apparently Latin: regalimen ultimately, via French: Royaume, according to the article at realm. QueendomKingdom by the way, I believe the word was invented by the humourist Alan Coren, he was certainly very fond of it, but would be hard for me to RS that. Si Trew (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ivanvector's explanation and fact that the extreme length makes this implausible as a search term. Why is this the order that was chosen? Is there any reason for that? If it is arbitrary, there could be an insane number of variations on this (I really don't want to do the math either). Tavix | Talk  00:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete For screwing up the table of contents on WP:RFD. (really though, unlikely to be useful in any way) No one is going to spend their time typing all of that into a search bar looking for Elizabeth II. (does the search feature work for that long a query?) No one is putting it in an article. There also aren't any other Elizabeth II's as far as I know. Also requesting sanction (half-jokingly) for anyone who linked that redirect in an article for significantly cluttering up that article and making it difficult to edit. ― Padenton|   20:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Hitler[edit]

I think this redirect should have been deleted when its brother, WP:HITLER, was deleted. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 14 § Wikipedia:HITLER. Fleet Command (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per above-noted consensus. Also likely offensive when used in pretty much any context. Perhaps it could target to WP:GODWIN instead. Ivanvector (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete as possibly harmful especially since it retargets to a page that is designed to lower tensions. --Lenticel (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep/Retarget Retarget to Godwin's law(WP:GODWIN goes there already) It seems like a perfectly fine redirect as is. Regarding the RfD linked above's concerns, don't really see how its offensive given the target and the truthfulness of Godwin's law on the internet. ― Padenton|   20:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Queen Victoria/version 2[edit]

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 speedy delete per criterion R3 by RHaworth. Steel1943 (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a long-unused page which was created for an obscure technical reason. The Theosophist (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Nom. looks plausible. But this page had 21 visits during the last 90 day, every time, it was one visit per day. Any idea why? Fleet Command (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete. Looks like it was overlooked and not tidied up after a previous move. As for the number of visits they don't rise above the level of noise; maybe bots, maybe links from outside WP. It has a little more history than most redirects, so maybe a mirror has an old copy of it that is generating occasional bot visits.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have moved the attribution formerly at this redirect to Queen Victoria (died 1901) so that the attribution can be retained per WP:A. At this point, I'd say that the nominated redirected can be safely deleted due to having no attribution history and being a very unlikely search term. Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@Steel1943: Comment I do not find Queen Victoria (died 1901) useful in any sense, other than keeping the attribution. Would it not be better if the attribution was kept through a redirect that could also be helpful in other ways? Victoria, Queen of Great Britain, for example.--The Theosophist (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@The Theosophist: Its creation is not so that it can be the most useful redirect in existence; its creation is so that the attribution can be somewhere per WP:A. Also, per WP:NCPDAB, this type of disambiguator is a possible consensus-supported option. Anyways, if you feel like nominating that redirect with or without attribution, I would vote "keep" as a valid redirect per WP:NCPDAB standards. Steel1943 (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@Steel1943: Still, if we can have a redirect that both keeps the attribution and is useful in other ways, is it not even better?--The Theosophist (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@The Theosophist: I'm failing to see how my move of the attributions to any plausible title supported by a guideline (which defaults to me believing that the redirect I created is "useful" since there's a guideline supporting its existence) vs. your thought about creating another plausible redirect are connected. However, I do agree that Victoria, Queen of Great Britain is also useful as a redirect, so I created it. Steel1943 (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible synonym. Probably a leftover from a technical move so its deletion can be just considered as housekeeping. --Lenticel (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete maintenance cleanup -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:36, 29 April 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.

Talk:Steve Crowther[edit]

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 speedy delete per WP:G8 (talk page of a deleted page). My bad; looks I got this wrong before. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The article page was deleted but, for reasons unknown, the talk page survived as a redirect to a different page. It has to be deleted. The Theosophist (talk) 13:09, 28 April 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.

Albemarle County Democratic Committee[edit]

This should either be deleted as not notable, or retargeted to Albemarle County, Virginia, or to Democratic Party of Virginia. The Theosophist (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • n.b. It's not mentioned in either of those articles either. --BDD (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Certainly. Someone searching for it would be better served by either of these two, though.--The Theosophist (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looking at a Special:Search is seems like a number of people named Jefferson came from there (such as Peter Jefferson) but this is blocking my search because all roads end up back here (and with the WP search plugin for Mozilla Firefox). Talk:Thomas Jefferson is in category B-class articles for Albermarle County (I am not sure if it is standard procedure to put those cats on the talk page instead of the article, it rather depends, we've never really been consistent about that, e.g. {{translated page}} goes on the talk page). This is just blocking my search and that is harmful. Therefore my delete. And he was Democratic-Republican anyway, which is hardly the same thing. Si Trew (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Big fucking deal[edit]

There is, in the article, mention of his uttering this sentence. However I do not believe that he was the only person that ever uttered it nor that it was so notable that it should redirect to him. The Theosophist (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible redirect. We've had such items deleted before. Something that comes to my mind is the tongue-in-cheek "WTF" template and a "HITLER" redirect. Fleet Command (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an example of tmesis, i.e. putting one word inside another phrase . And tmesis I believe is the only word in English to start with "tm". Fan-bloody-tastic. Si Trew (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: I did use tmesis in my nomination. I cannot see why is that a reason for you to vote Keep, though.--The Theosophist (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@The Theosophist: I probably did not put myself well. What I meant was that I think that @FleetCommand:'s argument is invalid because this is a perfectly valid expression, and attempted to explain why. All searches I get refer to Joe Biden, so I think it is perfectly valid to keep it, as BDD says immediately below as an {{R from quotation}}, and it is at the article. Si Trew (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep This seems to be a valid {{R from quotation}}, especially if it's mentioned at the article. Yes, others have spoken these three words together, but are there any other notable instances of someone doing so? --BDD (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@BDD: The question is: is this instance notable enough for the words “big fucking deal” to link to the Vice President of the United States?--The Theosophist (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
If it's notable enough to appear in his article and no others, then yes, I'd say so. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Baraka Hussein Abu oumama[edit]

Not a plausible typo. The Theosophist (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • This is, apparently, an Arabic form of Obama's name. Qaddafi used this is a letter to Obama he wrote in 2011, full text here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
This does not appear notable and is not mentioned in the article.--The Theosophist (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Err no, it's not any clear form of Arabic for Obama. It rather seems to have been Qadhdhafi screwing around or mocking the Obama family name (which is Kenyan of course and nothing to do with Arabic as such). DELETE collounsbury (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's the title of the article at that external link. However I think the translator has not a first-rate grasp of english since "campaigne" is thus spelled, NATO is not properly capitalised, and "That America helps only" is grammatically correct but should be "That only helps America" (i.e. it helps no-one else), not that Libya is the only country that America helps. Since it is signed by Mu'aumer Qaddaffi I wonder if the translator slipped and got "Oumama" instead of "Obama" because of the cognitive dissonance with Muammar Quadaffi (which we don't have but the article resides at Muammar Gaddafi), but that's pure speculation on my part. Arabic has B as the second letter of its alphabet (bā), just like the Latin alphabet so there's no reason it would be transliterated this way (the difficulty transliterating kh- or gh- sounds as Q or G is far more understandable as we don't really have that sound in English). Si Trew (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Maliciously[edit]

They are probably better off at the disambiguation page Malice instead of to the the legal term. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The legal term is the only entry on the disambiguation page to which these terms could refer; all of the others are proper nouns. Neelix (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to Malevolence, a disambiguation page with several related entries listed at the top. (By the way, that disambiguation page needs some serious cleanup, but it seems like the best option, especially considering that the title "Malice (law)" contains a disambiguator.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
If any of those entries could be referred to by the terms above, then the entries should be added to the Malice disambiguation page, which would then be an appropriate target for these redirects. Neelix (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think that "Malice" is a particular term in US law in various states and does not, for example, exist in the United Kingdom ("Absence of Malice" being the most obvious from Agatha Christie I think, so this is not WP:WORLDWIDE. I think it is a fairly common term but in the US most states make a distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor which has been lost in UK law, and really it is absense of malice that is the difference. I think best to DAB it, but not sure about the adjectival forms. Si Trew (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Neelix. We're not a dictionary, and none of the other uses seem relevant. --BDD (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Makes article writing law articles easier. One simply encloses stuff into [[ and ]] as one writes. I strongly oppose redirect target change without careful analysis of current uses. Fleet Command (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per FleetCommand.--The Theosophist (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The Ice Age Movies[edit]

Ice age (disambiguation) lists two films that aren't a part of this particular franchise. Thus, these aren't all of the movies with Ice Age in the title, even if they are the most notable. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually as you see we don't have I or IV (IV being the Latin for @Ivanvector:). Ice Age (film) exists as a DAB so maybe we should retarget it there, Si Trew (talk) 06:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Ice Age (film) is itself a redirect to Ice age (disambiguation)#Film. Ivanvector (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't noticed that. I suppose a bot would "correct" it if we took it that way. I'll mark it as {{R to section}} if that is not already done, just as a bit of gnoming and no prejudice to this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It was already marked and I changed mine above since I don't see it in any way prejudices the discussion, struck Ice age (film) and going with Ice Age (disambiguation)#Film. Si Trew (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm Ice age (film) is red (Ice Age (film) being the R), but Ice Age (disambiguation) redirects to Ice age (disambiguation) with lowercase A, and that redirect is already marked as {{R from alternative capitalization}}. Should we create the film one with the alt caps as an {{R from alternative capitalization}}? I don't see the point right now to do that, but it kinda balances things up. Si Trew (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I think no, unless there are a number of notable documentaries about ice ages, rather than children's movies called "Ice Age". Ivanvector (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. View stats during the last 90 days is negligible; any rise in the view stat is caused by this RfD. IMHO, this isn't how Wikipedia links the titles and hence this isn't how people are used to find information on Wikipedia. It is an aberration. Fleet Command (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

IOS 9[edit]

Nonexistent Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - TheChampionMan1234 03:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to History of iOS#Versions. There is much coverage about the future iOS 9, e.g [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] so it is almost certain that people will be searching Wikipedia for it, and that section seems to be the best place to add content about it in advance of there being enough to write an article. While there isn't content there yet, it educates people that there isn't a version 9 yet but gives them the information about what other versions do exist, which is the most helpful to them. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redirects must lead people to information. This doesn't. It sends people on a wild goose chase to a long article. I think the annoying practice of creating a redirect for next version of a popular computer program must be outlawed. (What's the Wikipedia term? Out-policy-ed?) But I tell you, if this practice gains consensus, I am going to make "Windows 11" through "Windows 128" and "iOS 9" through "iOS 99" all in one day. (Some people choose to read the last statement as a threat, some as a statement of cooperation. What is your take?) Fleet Command (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
As a respect for consensus, even when it sounds insane.--The Theosophist (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
It reads to me as a reductio ad absurdum argument. These redirects should only exist in cases where it is likely that people will be looking for information about them on Wikipedia. I've demonstrated the case that is the case for iOS 9, but it would not be the case at all for Windows 13+ (Windows 11 and Windows 12 I'd need to actually investigate, and I haven't got time for that atm). The solution to there being no information about iOS 9 at the target currently is simply to add it - the existence of predictions about it in reliable sources is easy to verify (and that does not fall foul of WP:CRYSTAL). Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
And to me. Creation is not the inverse of deletion. If something has been create for whatever reason, then we have to consider what harm or good would be done by its deletion (or retargeting, etc): that's no excuse for threatening to create hundreds of useless redirects (and yes, threat is my take). Si Trew (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
It is indeed reductio ad absurdum; that's how I respond when I see absurditas. How many times people made Windows 9 redirects while there was zero solid information about it? (Only today we know there was never a Windows 9.) If Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, then it stands to reason not to tolerate giving the impression that someone somewhere had seen something in some crystal ball in it. Fleet Command (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget as suggested. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

April 27[edit]

Power sharing in nigeria[edit]

This began life as a non-encyclopedic essay that really just provided an overview of Nigerian politics. I've been unable to find any better target for this. If we can't find one, it should be deleted, as it will only mislead readers. --BDD (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Owain Glyndŵr[edit]

Delete mojibake. Gorobay (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if they are that seems strange mojibake with the Scandinavian accent. Si Trew (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Nope, this is completely normal mojibake. The UTF-8 bytes for ⟨ŵ⟩ are 0xC5 0xB5, which represent ⟨ŵ⟩ in Latin-1. Gorobay (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible misspellings. --Lenticel (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Nig·èria[edit]

Delete. Not a Franco-Provençal-related topic. Gorobay (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Irish studies[edit]

These redirects are only useful if the meanings and developments of Irish studies, Scottish studies and Welsh studies are briefly mentioned in the article Celtic studies. RekishiEJ (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK - these are not synonyms. I'm sure there are fields of study relating specifically to these three languages/people/countries which are distinct from Celtic studies, but we don't seem to have articles on them. Ivanvector (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
'Comment. English studies is its own article. We have to be very careful now as there is a general election coming up in the UK on 7 May (I just got my postal vote today) so that anything we say influences that election, which I am sure none of us wants to do. Voting is very important, people died for our right to vote. Si Trew (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete to encourage article creation. --Lenticel (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Enver Hoĝa[edit]

Delete. Not an Esperanto topic. Gorobay (tlytalk) 04:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Well it's at eo:Enver_Hoĝa as a short article, so it patently is an Esperanto topic. Si Trew (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
You can write about anything in any language, but some topics have intrinsic connections to certain languages. Hoxha has no such connection to Esperanto. Gorobay (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete Yet another cross-language redirect. Seyasirt (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Lord Billy[edit]

I presume this was created as a joke. I can't find any notable uses of Bill Gates being referred to as "Lord Billy." Tavix  Talk  04:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as unlikely synonym. I only found cites about a certain Billy Lord instead. --Lenticel (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, wrong. As an American he could never be a Lord (we have Lord William Bentinck who was rather an eccentric character, and Lord William Howard) but this seems very unlikely. On the other hand, I can see that a Bills ((DAB) and Act of Parliament#Bills passing its second reading in the House of Lords is just about possible, but still seems very unlikely. Si Trew (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking aloud, not really suggesting a retargeting, but if a reader did search for this term, it seems like King Billy would be the more logical place to send them, though I was also surprised to see that as a dab rather than a redirect to William III of England. --BDD (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Conservative news[edit]

Fox News Channel isn't the only (or most prominent) place for conservative news. This redirect seems promotional to me, and could be a WP:SURPRISE for people in the List of countries that are not the United States (if I may use a SimonTrewism). Tavix  Talk  04:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as vague. "Conservative" can mean a lot of things --Lenticel (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fox News is not the same as the more generic "conservative news". The redirect potentially violates WP:RNEUTRAL, also making it undesirable.- MrX 16:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. If we could take care of deleting the actual "news" channel as well, that would be ideal, but there's a chance that's outside our jurisdiction. Ivanvector (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete'. The Bellylaugh is ribbed by Private Eye for being rather conservative, newspapers are entitled to express free speech. Si Trew (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Planeguage[edit]

The name is not mentioned at the target. - TheChampionMan1234 02:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete It's a marketing youtube series that Delta did on Airlines passenger etiquette. Personally, I think they're kind of cute but the Wiki isn't an avenue for promotions. --Lenticel (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - marketing/neologism. Unencyclopedic. Or non-notable ad campaign, I guess. Ivanvector (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Retarget' to Plain language. Si Trew (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it's "plane language" (pun intended) --Lenticel (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
A quick gsearch for "aviation terms" shows a lot of sites, but Wikipedia is not one of them. (I appreciate the pun, I'm a great fan of them. Alan Bennett somewhere says that people who groan at puns are doing so either because they wish they had thought of them, or seen them coming and have had time to duck). I mean we could put it to Wingspan or List of aircraft (there are more specific lists such as List of large aircraft) or something but that seems quite a stretch. Si Trew (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is one the few times that I think saying "per nom." is appropriate. Redirects must lead people to authentic information. This one does not seem to be doing that. Fleet Command (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree, it could go to altimeter or artificial horizon or any other guage in a cockpit but that would seem simply pointless. Si Trew (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

April 26[edit]

201x and beyond in film[edit]

Delete as misleading and inaccurate. 201x in film only contains one year, it doesn't deal with anything "beyond" that year. Any notion otherwise is confusing. Tavix  Talk  23:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • delete as confusing. It may even be misconstrued that the target article covers everything about films from 201x onward.--Lenticel (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - misleading, WP:CRYSTAL, etc. Ivanvector (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Man of the Philippines[edit]

Delete as an implausible search term and confusing: I originally thought this was an award or a competition. Tavix  Talk  18:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete I to would havr thought this would have been about a person or award, not about anyone who is citizen of the country.--67.68.161.47 (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I think this is a partial title match to Ten Outstanding Young Men of the Philippines.--Lenticel (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

반달리즘[edit]

Delete. Vandalism is not Korea-specific. Gorobay (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete while there is vandalism in Korea the term does not have a strong enough connection to that country to make it a useful redirect for the English Wikipedia.--67.68.161.47 (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete vandalism is a worldwide phenomenon that isn't native to Korea. Also since the Wiki isn't a translation dictionary. --Lenticel (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete as cross-language redirect. Seyasirt (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. This is a general topic with no affinity for any particular language -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Untitled-Vijay-Prabhudeva Project[edit]

This project is no longer untitled... Tavix  Talk  03:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete with Tavix. Patently it has a title. We don't have Vijay-Prabhudeva Project fortunatelyl, so it seem an odd creation in the first place, but its time is up. Si Trew (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Adam Orth Twitter incident[edit]

Unhelpful redirect because the subject isn't mentioned at the targeted article. Tavix  Talk  02:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Adam Orth currently redirects to Adrift (video game). Is the "Twitter incident" what's discussed at Adrift (video game)#Development? --Delirium (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Nippleman[edit]

There is no significant connection between this term and Metallica. Tavix  Talk  02:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as unlikely synonym. It seems to be a slang based on Supernumerary nipples. --Lenticel (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Supposedly, Nippleman is a major character in a series of web cartoons written around the time that Metallica sued Napster, with the lawsuit as one of its major themes. The web series itself is non-notable, so the character is also not. This could have the potential to be insulting, so let's delete it. Ivanvector (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. It sees there's an indirect connection between the two, but not enough of one for this redirect to be useful: people searching for Nippleman will be unlikely to ever find what they're looking for in the Metallica article. --Delirium (talk) 06:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Late Quaternary[edit]

The article does not say anything about Late Quaternary A8v (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep unless anyone can come up with a better target. I don't think we have much to say about the Late Quaternary period; readers will find relevant information at the Quaternary article. — This, that and the other (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as above: every boy is fascinated with dinosaurs and some of the best were in this period[citation needed], I think it is a likely search term. It's a pity we don't have a separate article, but what we have is as good as it gets right now untill some paleaontologist decides to edit Wikipedia. WP:NOTFINISHED, WP:NOTPERFECT. It ususally gets a couple of hits a day lately though in march there was a bit of a rise peaking on 10 March it got 12, then falling off in the days after, perhaps something on the telly? But this definitely gets hits above noise level so to delete it would be harmful. Si Trew (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I hope you were joking about "some of the best dinosaurs" being in this period... Tavix  Talk  15:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I was not exactly joking but taking the POV of when I was a seven year old boy, so being childish in that biggest are best as a boy playing with dinosaur toys etc. I wouldn't say joking exactly but that from the POV of a seven year old boy they are the best the great big ones. (Most dinosaurs were actually about the size of a starling, within a few inches here or there, according to the Natural History Museum, but of course they don't put that in their front entrance as it's not as impressive as a plastercast of – if I remember correctly – a brontosaurus (I think they changed the name of that but then changed it back). Si Trew (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep; Quaternary is a broader topic, which includes Late Quaternary, even though it doesn't specifically mention it. This redirect isn't misleading anyone, and creating eight redlinks wouldn't help anyone. Perhaps someone with knowledge in the field can advise whether "Late Quaternary" is a recognised term, or if the linking articles would be better coded as "late Quaternary". I've raised this question at WT:WikiProject_Geology#Terminology. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete not mentioned at target. If WP doesn't have anything to say about a topic it should be upfront about it. Siuenti (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag as {{R from subtopic}} per Colonies Chris. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete According to the United States Geological Survey, "Late Quaternary" is an informal term. As such, I don't think it should be mentioned in the wiki. I voted "Weak" since I'm not that knowledgeable in Geology. --Lenticel (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for finding the USGS link - I've added a sentence to the article to explain the meaning of Late Quaternary, with that as a reference. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Welcome. I am open to changing my vote to "keep" if we can find other reliable sources which supports that informal term. --Lenticel (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Changing vote to Keep looks like Tavix found some cites about it. --Lenticel (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Extinct bird dodo[edit]

A redirect that is not of much use A8v (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as harmless. It gets hits, sometimes as many as four a day. That is four people in the entire world who found this a useful search term on that day. We're kinda defeated a little by the WP search engine plugin in that they may have just selected it that way, but it's harmless. It's not a great number, but I think four is better than zero. Si Trew (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It's accurate enough. Plausible search term as kind of a reversed dab "Dodo (extinct bird)". 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep plausible synonym since the bird is known for its extinction. --Lenticel (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. People searching this would reach their destination even in absence of this redirect. And all redirects are harmless. In fact, I dare User:Si Trew to harm me with a redirect. Fleet Command (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Former Turkish Province Of Yunanistan[edit]

Delete. "Yunanistan" is the Turkish for "Greece" (cf. tr:Yunanistan) but Greece has never been a Turkish province. It was (excluding the Ionian Islands) part of the Ottoman Empire (of which Turkey is the modern successor state) - see Ottoman Greece for the main article on this period of Greek history. The Administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire fluctuated but based on our articles, there was no single province covering the modern concept of Greece. Those parts of the territory now forming Greece that were part of the Ottoman Empire were included in at least the following divisions: Pashalik of Yanina, Morea Eyalet, Salonica Eyalet, Ottoman Crete and Eyalet of Adrianople, most of which also covered land not in contemporary Greece. This, along with Google results, suggests that "Former Turkish Province of Yunanistan" is not a term used outside of a few discussions concerning Turkish Irredentism and/or suggestions to sell Greece to Turkey to pay off the former's debt (nothing even approaching a reliable source that I've found). There exists also the FTPOY acronym, a redirect that has been separately nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 24#FTPOY and that was how I discovered this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Note I will advise the Greece and Turkey wikiprojects about this discussion. As this has the potential to a lively debate, commenters should be aware that this discussion is within the purview of the discretionary sanctions authorised for "Topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted" at WP:ARBMAC. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Instead of deleting, redirecting to Ottoman Greece is a better choise. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I considered that, but as the few uses of the term are in unreliable sources and are all talking about 21st century Greece, I don't think that anyone using it will be expecting to land at that target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete this is obviously an attempt to rile people by equating Greece with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia name, just as the now-deleted Former Macedonian Republic of Greece. The redirect serves no purpose other than nationalist "humour"... Constantine 21:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the term were in widespread use, rather than directing to Greece or Ottoman Greece, imo it'd best be redirected to an article that explains the joke, such as Macedonia naming dispute. But afaict it isn't in enough use to merit mentioning there, so a redirect wouldn't be helpful. --Delirium (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong delete There was never a Turkish province called Yunanistan, or anything like that. This redirect (and related FTPOY) was created by a SPA, probably in a lame attempt at being rude. Anyway, the two redirects have no meaning, serve no purpose and can be speedily deleted according to WP:G3 and WP:G10. Place Clichy (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above mentioned findings. --Lenticel (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

April 25[edit]

Destiny's Child World Tour 2010[edit]

This should have been deleted as WP:TOOSOON back in 2009... Tavix  Talk  20:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Beyonk[edit]

I'm not seeing any connection between this redirect and Beyonce. Tavix  Talk  20:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible synonym or Retarget to Beyond as a possible typo.--Lenticel (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete as unhelpful and possibly a slur. Seyasirt (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Typo doesn't seem likely on a QWERTY (or AZERTY or other layout): keys are on different hands and even a two-finger typist would not miss by that much, but maybe on some mobile device or something they are close. Doing a gsearch, there appear to be a lot of people of some kind of East Asian ethnicity (judging solely by the pictures, big racist I am) who call themselves this on various social networking websites, but I can't work out whether it is a real name or is just used as a nickname. (I don't subscribe to those sites and do not want to.) Si Trew (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

2020s (Timeline of Montreal history)[edit]

Delete as unhelpful because the Timeline of Montreal history has no events listed in the 2020s. It's also implausible as a search term. Tavix  Talk  20:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Qualrus[edit]

Does this User even exist? JZCL 12:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes the user exists (which is why you can press the "user contributions" page on the left side and see their one edit, which was to make this redirect). It has something to do with [11], an 2011 project to redesign the new account system, apparently. I ask some users there about it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Looking into it some more, it appears some new users got these experimental new account pages, and a link to the Wikimedia project appears in the new user log summary. What this means is that a new user registered and by pure coincidence was one of those given the experimental sign-up pages. That said, keep, since if that's what they wanted, there's no reason to tell them they can't, no good reason to delete it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Convert to soft redirect per WP:RFDO#From userspace. If Qualrus really wanted his/her userspace to be redirected to the United Kingdom, that option will still be there, but one would have to actually make that click instead of it happening automatically. That way, there isn't a WP:SURPRISE. Tavix | Talk  20:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Colorado Springs Crusaders[edit]

Delete as unhelpful, because it's not mentioned in the target article at all, and per WP:REDLINK to show that the article does not exist. Natg 19 (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Restore articles and take to AFD. I don't think any of these teams are notable, but I feel like you're skirting the process by redirecting them and then nominating for RFD a few months later. If the articles should be deleted, let's do it the normal way. Tavix  Talk  04:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore articles and take to AFD per User:Tavix. It's probably best to have these discussed at AfD so that you'll have a bigger number of editors to look at it. --Lenticel (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

John Madden (baseball)[edit]

Delete: No longer listed on this page (or any page for that matter). Tavix  Talk  00:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Also fails WP:MLB/N, so we shouldn't have an article. - Eureka Lott 01:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This redirect contains important history and should probably be retained. It was initially submitted as an AfC request and accepted by User:Empire3131. User:Fabrictramp declined a speed delete request on it before it was merged and redirected by User:Spanneraol. Had the merged content seems to have been removed without comment in April 2010 by User:209.158.191.254, the redirect would still be valid. - TB (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The redirect would not still be valid because the player is not currently in the Mets organization and hasnt been for several years. Spanneraol (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    • It seems a bit counterintuitive to restrict an article to just a teams current minor players. If this really is the best way to curate this information, should there not be another article listing previous minor players to which information is moved rather than just being discarded? That would then be the natural target for this redirect. - TB (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Amendment 1-10 of the Constitution of India[edit]

Not at all useful. Ninney (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete: implausible. Unlike the Bill of Rights, the first ten Indian Amendments don't seem to have any common or unifying theme. Besides, they would be amendements, not amendment. Tavix | Talk  20:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

25th Amendment of the Constitution of India[edit]

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 speedy retarget per WP:BRD. I'm being bold here, so feel free to revert/discuss if you think there should be a different result. (non-admin closure) Tavix  Talk  00:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

An article exist, refer Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India. Redirecting the current target page is not useful. Ninney (talk) 00:12, 25 April 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.

Eighty-Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India[edit]

The target article is List of all amendments, no specific topic related to the 86th amendment is discussed. Also, no potentially useful page history, or edit history. Ninney (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I merged the two discussions as they both have the exact same rationale. Tavix  Talk  00:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Eighty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India was created by myself in January 2014 as a redirect. At the time it had incoming links, although it no longer does. Given that the target contains the most complete information we have on this topic (a shockingly scant 30 words), I'd say keep with the aim to re-target to a more comprehensive article as and when such is written. - TB (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Forty-Forth Amendment of the Constitution of India[edit]

The target article is List of all amendments, no specific topic related to the 44th amendment is discussed. Also, no potentially useful page history, or edit history Ninney (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I merged the discussions as all three of them have the exact same rationale. Tavix  Talk  00:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per the discussion of the 86th amendment above, the target of these redirects contains the best information we have on the topic. It's far from comprehensive, but better than nothing. When a better article is added, re-target to that. - TB (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

April 24[edit]

List of Microsoft Project Viewers[edit]

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 delete. --BDD (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Does not lead to anything. It was originally a standalone list of red links; then a redirect to a list of red links and now a redirect to nothing. Euthanize it? Codename Lisa (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wow! That's a lot of unwanted things there! Fleet Command (talk) 14:16, 28 April 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.

Soitenly![edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 1#Soitenly!

What's happening to my body[edit]

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 delete. Hell, it could be puberty, mutation, illness, parasites... I don't know what's happening to your body, reader. I just don't know. --BDD (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Meh. JZCL 16:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete looks like this is a book series about puberty. Maybe better off as a redlink to encourage article creation --Lenticel (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, with @Lenticel:. Not sure what the difference is between puberty and adolescence in this sense, but I am not a doctor. Si Trew (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete the term is not mentioned in the article and there are othet possible things people could be searching for such as sickness.--67.68.161.47 (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as an implausible redirect. Like Lenticel, I would say this sounds like the title of puberty-related literature. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget Lynda Madaras the author (Area Madaras and Simon Sullivan has no article). 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 05:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Fleet Command (talk) 14:17, 28 April 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.

Islam means[edit]

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 delete. --BDD (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not only a highly unlikely search term, but also redirects to the wrong place (if it should redirect at all). If anything, it should probably go to Islam#Etymology_and_meaning but I say delete. JZCL 16:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. I agree that it could be retargeted, but "Islam" means "peace" doesn't it (roughly speaking, to an audience that does not speak Arabic). I am with User:JZCL here (and to declare an interest I lived in Cairo and went to school in a mix of Arabic and English for two years when I was in my teens and know a bit of Arabic, but not much). Si Trew (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague. "Means" may refer to "method" or "meaning" --Lenticel (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Are you thinking in the sense of The means justify the ends? We don't have that I think it is in Shakeseare somewhere but certainly in Orwell and he didn't invent it and didn't pretend he did. It's in a paper he wrote for in 1954–43, Tribune. I have all of Orwell here but I kinda know it word for word and am just throwing it out as a sugggestion. Si Trew (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I got that wrong, it is the ends justify the means Orwell was arguing against, but perhaps he would reverse it. In a Scott Adams cartoon as a deliberate ploy Dilbert misspells it as "Neans", so that it can be punned "The N's don't justify the 'Neans'", but I don't think that's vvery reliably source. Si Trew (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weal delete. Not an unlikely search term but one that is not catering a search method, but rather, a searching peculiarity. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:15, 25 April 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.

WISDOM OF HINDUISM[edit]

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 delete. --BDD (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Particularly the caps lock on this redirect leads me to believe this is a bit NPOV JZCL 16:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Retarget to Wisdom#Hinduism. I think the better retarget there would be "Wisdom in Hinduism" --Lenticel (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: the CAPS make this implausible and it seems to be promotional to me. We don't have Wisdom of Hinduism, for example. Tavix  Talk  15:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obscure redirect. People who search for its title would reach the same destination even in absence of the redirect. Fleet Command (talk) 14:19, 28 April 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.

Chawah[edit]

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 delete. --BDD (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Not mentioned once in the target article, all I could find was that it seems to be Hebrew for "to breathe". Type it into Google and you'll find a whole load of unrelated pages. JZCL 16:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • WP:NOTGOOGLE but I couldn't find anything on it, what I got most was chihauha. Howevever, others are more talented for searching than I am. it appears somehow to be the name for Eve, Adam's missus in the Book of Genesis, but this is blocking the search so I am having trouble finding it. A Jewish scholar I am sure would know instantly, I will search around for WP:Judaism or something and drop them a note. Si Trew (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I left a note at WP:WikiProject Judaism, which seems quite active, referring back to this section. Si Trew (talk) 21:29, 24 April 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.

Criticism of the Boy Scouts of America[edit]

In my mind there is a fine line between a "criticism" and a "controversy". JZCL 16:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. Nominator is completely right: There is indeed such a fine line. However, in Wikipedia, redirects are allowed to traverse that fine line. Still, the visit stats is poor. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, pace @Codename Lisa:. Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said "the English cannot draw a line in the sand without blurring it"? Articles should be accurate but redirects are here to help people find them, however "wrong" they are, so in principle I am with Codename Lisa, but the stats show there are so few hits for this one, less than one a day (excluding the peak when this discussion opened where it hit 6), that it's not worth keeping. WP:CHEAP, I know, but this seems harmful because people search in different ways and so they can't find what they're looking for if a redirect is in the way. Si Trew (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, I would've thought "membership controversies" would be a narrower topic than controversies or criticisms in general, but Boy Scouts of America controversies also redirects to the target page. Especially in Wikipedia parlance, I don't think there's much of a distinction between "Criticism of Foo" and "Foo controversies". Whenever I'm looking for juicy gossip on a page, I check the TOC for a Criticism or Controversies section. --BDD (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hafsa Sultan[edit]

The situation is completely similar with my previous request below. These women were also sisters and two separate historical figures. They weren't a person who had two names. They also had different mothers. One of these sultanas was the wife of a minister (Şehzade) and the other one died at a very young age (Hafsa). A user moved Hafsa Sultan to Şehzade Sultan and changed the whole material except creating a new article for Şehzade Sultan and caused this problem. I think this redirect should also become deleted. Keivan.fTalk 13:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

What's with the cedilla on the S (if that is the right name for it)? That's not English. So if you are going to move it, do it properly. I'd be inclined just to Revert it back to where it was. Sezhade Sultan, without the cedilla, is red: but if we keep it should be created as an {{R from title without diacritics}}. Si Trew (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: The cedilla on the S is completely normal. It's a Turkish name and it should be written in that way. Even the names of Turkish actors and political figures are written like this in English Wikipedia. However, I'm not here to discuss about Turkish alphabet. Actually I see no reason for keeping Hafsa Sultan, but if you think it should be kept, then it should redirect to one of her parents' pages. Unfortunately there's nothing about her in Selim I and Ayşe Hafsa Sultan's article. So keeping this redirect page has no meaning. Keivan.fTalk 06:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@Keivan.f: thanks for explaining that. As far as I remember, and I am just going off the top of my head, Attaturk changed the Turkish Alphabet from Arabic to the Latin Alphabet in 1922, which must have been a bit of a surprise, but it is useful to remember that: I had never seen this little lodge before. I agree with you it should go Delete per WP:RFD#D5, makes no sense, and perhaps WP:NOTENGLISH but that is more the target than the redirect. I doubt an English-speaing user on an English keyboard could possibly type the target, but the redirect itself doesn't have any diacritics. Si Trew (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: About the target, I don't see that much problem. When I search "Sehzade Sultan", I get the result. Try and you'll see. Actually, I don't agree with changing the formats and ways of writing Turkish names. Many Turkish names have such Latin letters. For example Kıvanç Karakaş, Bülent İplikçioğlu, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan,..... For more examples see Turkish people's category. Almost all of their names have such Latin letters. But when you search these names without those letters, you'll get the result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keivan.f (talkcontribs) 14:03, 15 April 2015‎ (UTC)
Yes, I agree in principle. Our job here at RfD is to help people get to where they want to go. Sometimes that means a delete because the redirect gets in the way of the search engine and people end up in the wrong place. But if not, it tends to be kept as harmless, however few hits it gets. Kivanc Karakas exists but not Recep Tayyyip Erdogan nor Bulent Iplikcioglue. I think that it is pretty standard procedure to create the {{R from title without diacritics}} (I do it if I create a translation from French which has an accent, for example), but don't want to do so before we get consensus here about what we do with these, as that's just making more work for each other. Si Trew (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I did try searching, by the way. I am nothing if not thorough, as most here will tell you, and yes, i got that result. The problem is there are lots of different ways of searching and we don't want an R to "block" the search, that is a difficult call to make because we don't know what the search would do without it but have to guess. Fun, isn't it! Si Trew (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As with below, this should be reverted to the status quo ante. --BDD (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@BDD: I think this article's situation is different from the one below. When this one was moved from Hafsa to Sehzade its material also changed. But Hatice Sultan was moved to Fatma Sultan without any changes in the article. I think Hafsa's page should become restored if she was notable and if she wasn't it should become deleted. I also think we should keep Sehzade Sultan's article. Keivan.fTalk 13:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
That would probably call for a histmerge then... --BDD (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am not sure the status quo ante is much good, though, (you mean, "what it was before", I presume: we have an article status quo ante bellum which i have not checked but what I would translate as "what it was like before the war"). The thing is we need to set an obiter dictaobiter dictum on these things so they are not created unnecessaily. R's are cheap, sure, but the problem is they hurt people trying to search for information: that's our job isn't it? Et in arcadia ego. Si Trew (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It's translated at that article as "The state existing before the war", but I think mine is more colloquial. Si Trew (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III)[edit]

Recently, I realized that Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) redirects to Fatma Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III). Actually they were sisters and two separate historical figures. They weren't a person who had two names. Even their mothers were two different persons One of these princesses was the wife of a prime minister (Fatma) and the other one died at a very young age (Hatice). A user moved Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) to Fatma Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) and changed the whole material except creating a new article for Fatma Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III). I think this redirect should become deleted. Keivan.fTalk 13:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem with that, thanks for it. I was unaware of that template, but the more specific the better. Si Trew (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
But I think it's harmful. Imagine Prince John of the United Kingdom redirected to Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester. It really makes people confused. When I searched Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) and except that I found an article about Fatma Sultan I got confused. Hatice Sultan should redirect to one of her parents' page not her sister's. I was thinking about creating a new article for Hatice and for doing that, these two pages should become separated. Keivan.fTalk 06:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
If you create the page, presumably as a {{bio-stub}}, it will soon be closed here as a procedural close as an R converted to an article, and I very much encourage you to do so. I haven't the knowledge to do it myself, but have done so in the past on engineering topics, and I think one was closed yesterday in the same way. That's just making the encyclopaedia better. If I can help with any copy editing etc please let me know. Si Trew (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Thanks. If I need your help, I'll tell you. But the problem about Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) is that she was only one year old when she died. Thus no special and important information can be found for her. I think like Hafsa Sultan, we should delete this one too. Keivan.fTalk 13:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Well then surely this goes Delete under WP:N, not notable, I would have thought. Just because you are the daughter of someone does not mean in your own right you are notable. Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is not notable because she is the daughter of King George VI of the United Kingdom: She is notable in her own right. Peaches Geldof similarly is notable not because she is the daughter of Bob Geldof but because she hit the press for various naughties. I think we have a policy on this but struggling to find it: WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay but well-established. Si Trew (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not that simple. You cannot overlook the Paula Yates syndrome. 176.92.183.71 (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. That is exactly what we must do. Paula Yates is notable in her own right, not because she was the sometime wife of Bob Geldof (perhaps I picked the worst example possible). These daughters are not notable in their own right. Any woman except Eve is the daughter of someone, but we don't have articles for every celebrity's daughter (partly because they are entitled to their privacy): if they choose to put themselves in the public eye, that's a different matter, but we don't have an article on Kathryn Blair], for example, the daughter of Tony Blair and Cherie Blair, because she is not in the public eye and not notable in herself. (She is in Cherie Blair's infobox: actually it Rs to the DAB at Katherine Blair, but she hasn't an article: as gnoming I'll check if that is tagged properly.) Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I marked the R at Kathryn Blair as {{R from incorrect name}}. I am not sure it even belongs on that DAB because it just says "daughter of former prime minister Tony Blair" so I am not sure that is very useful. We don't have Paula Yates Syndrome. Si Trew (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Oddly, in Tony Blair's infobox the children are not linked, and are listed only by first name: In Cherie Blair's, they have surnames ("Blair"). I think my point is proved, though, and I don't want to fix that while this discussion is open (and not sure which way I would fix it: children of famous people are entitled to their privacy; but the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages is a matter of public record which anyone can look up, and genealogy websites generally do). Si Trew (talk) 07:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Unfortunately I discovered a new problem. User:Retrieverlove is the person who moved Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) to Fatma Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) and changed the whole material of this article. Actually Hatice Sultan didn't die as a one-year-old girl (that was my mistake). Actually she had a political marriage and was influential. Take a look at the history of the page. I don't know what to do now. Should we make two separate articles for these two individuals? All of these happened because of that user. He always move pages and changes their material without discussion. Then I'll report the situation to an administrator to make those articles separated. There are warnings on his user page telling him to start a new article for a new individual except moving the pages and destroying their material. Of course he hasn't made this kind of problem since a few months ago. Anyway we have to decide what to do with this redirect page. Keivan.fTalk 18:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: I'm really confused. When I read the page's history before moving I understood that he just moved the page and changed the name from Hatice to Fatma. I think we have to ask him why he did this? Maybe the correct title for this article is Fatma Sultan and she was married to Ibrahim Pashsa not her sister Hatice. It's really confusing. Someone has to ask him why he moved the page. Keivan.fTalk 19:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@Keivan.f:} we can work together on this. My Arabic is not very good, but Wikipedia is kinda "blocking" the search engines so that every time you try to look this up you go round the houses to end up where you started. We'll sort it out by working together, yes? Si Trew (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment making a start, "Sultan" is not a name you ever have as a first name in English but Zoltan is a very popular name in Hungarian. Excuse me for doing the working-out here but we'll get there. Si Trew (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Right, so what you're saying is Hatice and Fatma are two different people. In that case, there is no point linking one to the other, that is just misleading. I think that is what you are saying. Si Trew (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: I have checked the sources. They're two different individuals. They're sisters. The things that I don't know is that was Hatice married to Ibrahim Pasha or Fatma? Was Hatice and influential figure during his father's reign or Fatma? I don't why that user moved this page. We have to ask him. I don't want to make false statements about two historical figures. We have to make sure. Keivan.fTalk 13:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It sounds like the simplest solution for now would be to undo the move and change of article scope. That never should've happened, regardless of the notability of either of these figures. From there, we could AfD Hatice or write a new article on Fatma as necessary. --BDD (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Query @Keivan.f: is it at all possible they were both married to Ahmed III? That seems rather incestuous but it happens. I believe, and I may very well be mistaken, in Islam one is allowed to have four wives, but he was Christian surely, although no mention of his religion is at the target. According to theottomons.org he did seem to like to collect wives. God only knows why, one is enough trouble.Si Trew (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @Si Trew: No they're his daughters and I'm sure that he was a Muslim, not a Christian. But you're right. Under the Islamic law you can just have four "wed" wives. Ottoman's harem system seems to be confusing at first but I can explain it now. Above the all women of the harem was valide sultan, mother of the sultan. After her, four wed wives of the sultan had the highest positions. They were called haseki sultan or kadınefendi. Then came daughters and sisters of the sultan and finally there were many concubines who were called hatun or hanımefendi. Women were called hatun (instead of sultan) and valide hatun (instead of valide sultan) before Suleiman the Magnificent's reign. He created the titles valide sultan and haseki sultan for his mother, Ayşe Hafsa Sultan, and his principal wives, Hürrem Sultan and Mahidevran Sultan, and the title hatun remained for lower ranked wives and concubines. After 1650s kadınefendi and hanımefendi were used instead of haseki sultan and hatun. Keivan.fTalk 06:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
      • thanks for that. This is all useful information and I learned a lot, we should probably link into the article, which doesn't even mention Harem except in a reference. The reason I assumed he was Christian was just the picture on the external link I gave appears to show (in my eyes) him wearing a mitre but I guess it is some other kind of titfer. I think poor old Ahmed needs quite a tidy up then, but don't like to do so when it's related to an open discussion. Si Trew (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
This screen keeps moving things around. Fed up with it. My question to @Keivan.f:, who is obviously the expert on this one and am inclined to go on that expertise: My question is, do you think that Hurrem Sultan and the Harem of the Sultan could possibly be confused (to an English-language audience): and if so how would we disambiguate that? Si Trew (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
We do have Imperial Harem and I suppose the Sultan was the Emperor of the Ottoman Empire, it is not about what is right but what is useful. Si Trew (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Actually Hürrem Sultan won't be confused with the Harem of the Sultan, that's because she's known to the west by her nickname, Roxelana, and is known to the east by her royal name, Hürrem Sultan. Keivan.fTalk 08:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@Keivan.f: Thank you once again for your expertise, a true credit to Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: You're welcome ;) Keivan.fTalk 08:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, still not sure on that. Because in my southern British accent we tend to use elision a lot, which seems lazy to others but is not laziness it is part of my accent or dialect, so a "hat" becomes a "a" with glottal stop each side which actually is harder, if you think about it, than just saying "hat", but there's loads of H dropping and whatever, and our vowels are all over the place. I have trouble living in hungary because the vowels are very precise and I can never hit them right cos in English they are dipthongs whereas in Hungarian they are pure vowels. Si Trew (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Video vixen[edit]

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 retarget to Video Vixens. --BDD (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete or retarget WP:REDLINK video vixens are not an exclusive hiphop topic, indeed, Alicia Silverstone and Liv Tyler are not hiphop models, yet are famous video vixens from Aerosmith's videos. The current target is misleading. Video vixens have existed since the rise of MTV. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting thought. I would clash by suggesting that those two examples aren't so much "video vixens" per se, as much as they are just would-be vixens, who happened to wind up in a few music videos, but were otherwise known for other things. I believe the overwhelming majority of video vixens are known for being that and only that, without any other overriding source of prominence, fame or notability. Still, you're right that they could be present as models in other genres. I think the term is just most widely associated with the genres of hip hop/rap. 24.6.187.181 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Video vixen is most often used to refer to women in hip-hop videos, and especially black women (see e.g. this link and Confessions of a Video Vixen). The term 'video vixen' is also bolded as synonymous in the lede of hip hop model. The new article Hip-Hop Video Vixens was recently merged with hip hop model. gobonobo + c 23:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I would not say that, check out all the video vixens from Robert Palmer videos and 80's rock. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, I can't see a better target. We don't have standmeat (slang for a pretty woman employed to drape over a car or whatever at a conference, who has no other skill) but I can't see fashion model being a good retarget either. Si Trew (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:55, 24 April 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.

I Am (Leona Lewis album)[edit]

A draft already exists: Draft:I Am (Leona Lewis album). Someone else last week created this redirect and it got deleted. Something needs to be done to stop people from creating this redirect all the time.  — ₳aron 12:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Is the draft ready for the mainspace? If yes, then this discussion is meaningless. If no, then the redirect is harmless and should remain in place until the draft is ready to go. - Eureka Lott 16:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment albums are not ready for mainspace until a title, release date, and full tracklist are confirmed per WP:NALBUMS. If this redirect is kept, I feel it should at least be fully protected until article is ready for mainspace. I'm currently on the fence as to whether or not it should be kept. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't see why it should be fully protected or even semi protected. Oxygen isn't, as a counter-example, (an I delibertaly edited it and reverted my edit to prove the point, if you check its history) even though we'd be hard up without it but can manage without a singer. We only protect things in cases of WP:VANDALISM, and that hasn't happened here, WP:AGF someone simply has slightly the wrong target and that's what we're here for, to discuss it. Si Trew (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Protection is performed for more than vandalism; other reasons include content disputes and unsourced/poorly sourced changes. I recommend full protection to prevent users from prematurely transferring information to mainspace. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
That's premature. Protection happens after WP:VANDALISM, not before. This sounds like a case of WP:OWNERSHIP to me. Si Trew (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Really more of a WP:TOOSOON case. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
You're right, I'd forgotten WP:TOOSOON. Si Trew (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd also recommend that @Calvin999: ("Aaron") does a WP:RM because to my mind, having looked at it, it is perfectly fine to go into mainspace. WP:NOTPEFECT, WP:NOTFINISHED, but it is far better than what we have there at the moment. Si Trew (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Not yet; it needs a confirmed release date AND full tracklist first in addition to confirmed title before it is ready for mainspace per WP:NALBUMS. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Forog[edit]

Appears to be Hungarian for "rotate". I feel like there is more to this than I can clearly perceive, mainly looking at the redirect creator and a human rights org on Facebook about Macedonia and others. I just don't know. It doesn't make much sense to me. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment It seems to be about a certain "Former Ottoman Republic Of Greece" or FOROG. I'm not that familiar with Greek history and politics to add a Keep or Delete vote. Perhaps a more knowledgeable editor can shed light to this?--Lenticel (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I checked my Hungarian dictionaries (the kinda equivalent of the Oxford English Dictionary published by Akademia Kiadó, kinda the equivalent of Oxford University Press, the absolute bible which my missus is very proud to own). In the Hungarian to English volume it lists "forog" as turn, revolve, go around and there are derivative terms for "my head"s spinning" and so on. In the English to Hungarian "rotate" is listed as "forgat" as a verb and "forog" as a noun (amongst other alternatives). I don't know how useful that is to this discussion. In English there is no noun that cannot be verbed. Verbs are generally listed in th second person singular without the -nithat forms the infinitivem so it would probably been forgatok, te forgat Mr.Guye forgats, Mr. Guye and I forgatünk, and so on, but I am not entirely sure about that. Si Trew (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
There seem to be quite a few Facebook pages for film site which literally translated would say "I spin the reels" and indeed Hungarian: forgatok is the correct first person conjugation (I don't really know how one translate that, "I am a projectionist" does not seem very satisfactory). Si Trew (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

FTPOY[edit]

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 delete. At this time, there's strong consensus to delete Former Turkish Province Of Yunanistan. I could hold off on this one or close that one as WP:SNOW, but I won't. If the other redirect is unexpectedly not deleted, I may reopen this. --BDD (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

There are other things that have this acronym. Looking at the history, this title appears to stand for Former Macedonian Republic of Greece (maybe in another language?). I am open to deletion, redirection, or disambiguation. But clearly the redirect as it is is inappropriate. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. could it have been a transliteration from Greek where gamma has been transliterated as Y (badly) because it kinda looks similar although obviously is a different literal, G? But that's just me playing detectivve: patently nobody wanting to find the article on Greece is going to type this. But it's had 54 hits in the last 90 days according to the stats, so something must be linking to it, but there's no internal links (except to this discussion). Thryduulf is more conservative about this than me, and I would say that's below the threshold for a keep, but @Thryduulf: may well disagree. Si Trew (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Defer It seems to be an acronym for "Former Turkish Province Of Yunanistan". "Yunanistan" is the Turkish for "Greece" (cf. tr:Yunanistan), as testified in Muslim minority of Greece, there is an official recognised Turkish minority in Greece so that redirect is good and need concern us no more (I've tagged it as {{R from other language}}). Greece has never been a Turkish province, although it was (excluding the Ionian Islands) part of the Ottoman Empire (of which Turkey is the modern successor state) - see Ottoman Greece for the main article on this period of Greek history. The Administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire fluctuated but based on our articles, there was no single province covering the modern concept of Greece. Those parts of the territory now forming Greece that were part of the Ottoman Empire were included in at least the following divisions: Pashalik of Yanina, Morea Eyalet, Salonica Eyalet, Ottoman Crete and Eyalet of Adrianople, most of which also covered land not in contemporary Greece. This, along with Google results, suggests that "Former Turkish Province of Yunanistan" is not a term used outside of a few discussions concerning Turkish Irredentism and/or suggestions to sell Greece to Turkey to pay off the former's debt (nothing even approaching a reliable source), and so I will nominate that redirect on today's page (incidentally, the term seems to have been inspired by Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)). If that is deleted then this acronym should be too, unless we have an article it could be retargetted to (I've not found one, but I haven't looked hard). If people do see value in the long-form then the acronym is should be kept (unless something else is the primary topic), so I suggest dererring this discussion until the one I'm about to start completes. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Striking my weak delete, that seems the more sensible way do it. According to Name of Greece#Ionia-derived names the "yun" or "ywn" is a borrowing grom the greek for Ionia. If nothing else, I think we should redirect it there where it is described, but I agree with Thryduulf that this discussion is better off defered until that listing is sorted out. Si Trew (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per the other discussion and Thryduulf's clear explanations. These two redirects were created by a SPA, probably in a lame attempt at being rude. They have no meaning, serve no purpose and can be speedily deleted according to WP:G3 and WP:G10. Place Clichy (talk) 13:22, 28 April 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.

April 21[edit]

Randi[edit]

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 procedural close for two reasons: 1. An article specifically about the given name "Randi" has been created here. 2. This discussion has devolved into a requested move of Randi (disambiguation)Randi, and those discussions should take place at WP:RM, not here. I have no prejudice against that discussion being created there. (non-admin closure) Tavix |  Talk  21:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

We may need to delete or modify this redirect in light of this development (Doesn't seem to be a hoax or joke). Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep unless the article for this "development" can be referenced during the course of this discussion. Doing anything preemptively without an article or subject in a section of an article is similar to WP:CRYSTALBALL. Steel1943 (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I wasn't proposing immediate deletion or other urgent action, I added this to the list because it may become a problem in the near future. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ceannlann gorm: I clearly understood your nomination. However, in practice, redirects are supposed to direct readers to what existing article they are trying to locate. Until something gets added to Wikipedia in "article form" about this subject, trying to change this redirect or start a discussion at the present time about the possible future need to change the redirect is a bit premature (since no new outcome would be able to be established in the usual 7-day period which RfDs run due to no new targets existing.) I'd say that this discussion would best be reinitiated once the article for the subject referenced in the nomination is created. (In the meantime, it may be advisable to check out WP:PRIMARYTOPIC prior to another discussion happening to see if the discussion is necessary.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep (Status Quo): In light of the points raised, I would like to withdraw the nomination for now, if possible. Thanks. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have taken WP:BOLD and done what 65.94 said, which seems like the obvious solution: just after I closed it. It was not technically an {{ec}} but I would not have closed it had I seen 65.94's comment before: so I just wanted to comee, as my usual clean hands doctrine, to let you know that. But it seems like the best solution. Si Trew (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I reopened the discussion. This is a good faith discussion that should not be speedily closed, per WP:WITHDRAWN. We should try to reach consensus on the correct target. - Eureka Lott 14:09, 22 April 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.

Wii arcade[edit]

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 delete. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Given that this is not an official term for its target (specifically the section at Virtual Console#Wii), and the fact that this redirect once targeted WiiCade, it may be best if this redirect is deleted so that readers can decide for themselves where they want to go if they look up this term. Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. It is redirecting apples to oranges. Fleet Command (talk) 14:53, 28 April 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.

Vc games[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 1#Vc games

User:Thefierydutch1212/Nike quickstrike[edit]

Cross namespace redirect that doesn't qualify as WP:R2. Redirects from userspace to articles are inappropriate regardless of target. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • i think it does, it is more WP:RFD#D5. makes no sense, and WP:CNR as you say. I have managed somehow to make my font incredibly small so I have to fix that. Si Trew (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's a redirect left from a userspace draft which was moved to mainspace and then merged into a better article. If Thefierydutch1212 has some use for it that's fine, if not then they should request WP:G7 deletion. Redirects from main space to user space are inappropriate regardless of target, but going the other way is generally fine. Ivanvector (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I could understand this point of view if a page move didn't take the contribution history with it. However, a page move does take the edit history of the former page and moves it to the page history under the new name, so retaining important edit history isn't an issue here. What it leaves is a redirect that is not at all likely to be used and serves no real purpose. (This applies to all the redirects I've listed on this page that follow this pattern, but I didn't want to put the same response in too many different places; I would just merge them all but discussion has occurred under each of them and I'm not sure what to do about that.) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Well I agree these discussions shouldn't be merged. What I'm saying is that it's normal for a page to be drafted in user space, and when it gets moved to main space a redirect is left behind. The resulting redirect is harmless (casual readers will never see them) and is in user space (users can do what they want with their user space, mostly). There is a remote possibility that the user has some use for it, and absent a better reason to delete my preference is to just leave users' spaces alone. I am interested in what people who have been around RfD longer than I have think about these cases though. Ivanvector (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have tended to draft DABs etc for RfD in Draft namespace, but that is kinda new (at least to me, which probably means a couple of years) and I don't think every editor would know about it. Even so, if it is accepted here i move it but it leaves the trace with a redirect, which I tend to take to WP:CSD as WP:G7 author requests deletion, with a brief explanation referring back to the discussion here and why I made it in draft (as if I was noted for brevity!). But it seems entirely reasonable to me to create drafts in user space because that is what we were always told (though I forget which exact guideline that would be). Si Trew (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Convert to soft redirect I tried to describe treatment of pages like this the other day at WP:RFDO#From userspace. For my part, if Thefierydutch1212 showed up and said, "Yes, I want this to remain as is," I would agree to that. He or she hasn't edited in over five years, however, so that's unlikely. In the meantime, this redirect would confuse or mislead those who stumble across it, though I grant that that number might be rather low. Converting it to a soft redirect, IMO, preserves the user's intent at least somewhat without ASTONISHing others.
Regardless, if this is going to be a soft or hard redirect, Nike, Inc. should be the target rather than the current dab Nike. This page became an article, Nike Quickstrike, which was redirected (not merged) to the Nike page, which occupied the base title at the time. The Quickstrike isn't mentioned in the Nike article, and was thus brought up at RfD in 2012. It resulted in no consensus based on an editor's opinion that a merge should take place. That seems questionable to me, but perhaps we should resolve this case before looking at Quickstrike again in earnest. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Who's Earnest, and why should we put it in him? Si Trew (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It's important that you stay on topic. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hahaha, nicely done. That was just a joke of course, but I don't see the harm in sticking in a joke every now and again. I do try to stay on-topic, but sometimes I ramble because it gives others (and myself) kinda lateral thinking and every now and again, not often, we come up with a completely new but perfectly right retarget or something that will help our readers. I'm not saying in this case, of course, but every now and again, maybe 5% of the time. Si Trew (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
...You rang? Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Convert to soft redirect at Nike, Inc. per BDD. Soft redirects solve the WP:CNR problem without (significantly) messing with people's userspace. Tavix | Talk  03:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

1-800-OOPS-JEW[edit]

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 retarget to Recurring segments on The Colbert Report#Atone Phone. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a trivial joke from the Colbert Report. If it isn't notable enough to be mentioned in the article, it shouldn't be notable enough to have a redirect. Tavix |  Talk  15:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • It actually looks like the phone number is 1-888-OOPS-JEW and not 1-800-OOPS JEW... Tavix |  Talk  14:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RFD#D2 nonsense: What would 1-800-00PS-JEW look like? I do appreciate this programme is satirical, and very funny, and no offence was actually meant to the Jewish community, but I think this harmful from the pont of view of an encylopaedia. It's not mentioned at the target. Si Trew (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not nonsense, it is a variant on the toll-free phone numbers used in North America, traditionally, 1-800, but lately 1-888 due to exhaustion of 1-800 numbers, therefore a very likely term. And as the segment prominently pronounces it as "OOPS" and not "zero-zero-PS", that's a likely spelling. The phone number 1-888-OOPS-JEW is covered in the Recurring_segments_on_The_Colbert_Report#Atone_Phone section. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
You're right, and stats (for the redirect) show it gets one hit a day at least, sometimes two or three, so Keep as useful. Wrong, but useful. Si Trew (talk) 07:41, 23 April 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.

శ్రీ లంక మాతా[edit]

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 delete. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Sri Lanka’s languages do not include Telugu. Gorobay (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep it seems that a population of Sri Lankan Gypsy people do speak Sri Lankan Gypsy Telugu. However, I don't know if said variant is close to the main Telugu language. --Lenticel (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I didn’t know about that language. Google does not reveal any non-Wikipedia results for “శ్రీ లంక మాతా” or “శ్రీలంక మాతా”, so I am not sure this even is valid Telugu. Gorobay (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, it's not so much the language as the alphabet, they may not use that alphabet, so it may not make sense. I try to find out but Wikipedia kinda blocks these things cos all roads lead to Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
We have it at te.wikipedia.org after it jumps through a redirect. Perhaps we should do a cross-namespace redirect? Si Trew (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
You are forgetting the last word, “మాతా”. Gorobay (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Gorobay: yes but when I checked, it may have changed, the full title te:శ్రీ లంక మాతా was a redirect to the shorter title I gave above. I think it still is, but it Telegu Wikpedia does not say so. (and te:ప్రస్తుతం ఈ పేజీ ఖాళీగా ఉంది is even longer). Si Trew (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure what you are getting at. Neither of those pages exists. Moreover, it doesn’t matter whether they exist if Telugu is not especially relevant to this topic. Gorobay (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Was just doing research. They exist at Telegu Wikipedia and appear blue to me, I am not saying that they exist at English Wikipedia (or should), just whether this is [[tlx|R from incorrect name}} as well as {{R from foreign}}? But without a Telegu speaker I don't know how we would discern that. Si Trew (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete as foreign script redirect. Seyasirt (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as potentially misleading since we can't verify if this is indeed an actual native name of the target article. --Lenticel (talk) 05:35, 26 April 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.

Waadi Animations[edit]

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 keep. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This redirect is senseless. Waadi Animations is an animation film making company, and the user redirected it to a film distributor? Delete this page so I may create it properly. UBStalk 12:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment The redirect does not have to be deleted for you to create an article. You can just overwrite it.--The Theosophist (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you can just go ahead and edit over top of the redirect, it doesn't need to be deleted first. Ivanvector (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Overwriting a redirect dont give you credit here. Does it? UBStalk 04:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it that important? Plenty of people have adopted articles/redirects, overhauled them beyond recognition, and not gotten recognized as the creators of these articles through what amounts to a mere technicality. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment if the nom wishes credit then they might be interested in creating the article and then submitting it to WP:DYK --Lenticel (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Waadi Animations is mentioned at the target page. Regardless of who "gets credit" for creating an article on it, the question we should be asking here is whether Waadi's connection to ARY is significant enough that this redirect is helpful. It may be replaced by an article at any point. I encourage you to think of readers first, your own recognition second. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
What's the business about getting credit. I can quote from The Hangover in Question (a parody of Body in Question) by Alan Coren that it says in second para "Thenceforth shall thy mouth be as a wadi, and thine eyeballs as twin coals, and the fruits if thy loins go about on all fours, even unto the tenth generation". And I can do that without even looking it up. Wendy Cope] has a nice poem, "Ten Green Bottles, Put em in the bank, Ten green bottles, what a lot we drank, and with ten green bottles, then yesterday's a blank" I forget the rest. Si Trew (talk) 10:21, 22 April 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.

EyePhone[edit]

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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

My search for "EyePhone" brought up a few Futurama references, which is great, but probably more important is references to new technologies combining phones with something eye related. Examples include [13], [14], [15], [16], etc. My point is that people searching for "EyePhone" probably aren't wanting the plot of a Futurama episode. Tavix |  Talk  19:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - the concept of a mobile device which interfaces directly with the eye does not seem like it's going to become notable enough in the short term for WP:REDLINK to apply, and there's little reason to believe that it would (or that Apple Inc. would allow it to) be called "EyePhone", thus at the moment, the current target is neither misleading nor harmful. Ivanvector (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:51, 21 April 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.

Don Quijote Project[edit]

I can't figure out what this is supposed to refer to. No mention at the target page (now or when the redirects were created), no relevant history, no clear results from Google. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete I mainly found various school projects that students did about the book. They are NN and redirecting these titles to anywhere may generate WP:SURPRISE. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Depending on your teacher, in English you may pronounce it "key hot" or "quick sote", but you would never spell it with a J. WP:NOTENGLISH. quixotic is a DAB, and apparently we hace quixotism, a word I have never heard. Poor old Miguel de Cervantes must be turning in his grave. Si Trew (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above or Weak retarget to Don Quijote (spacecraft) which is technically speaking, a proposed project. --Lenticel (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Don Quijote (spacecraft), per User:Lenticel who is right as always.Si Trew (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually I only read it in Catalan never read it in English. I have hidden shallows. Over at hu:Don Quijote we have it thus, and es:Don Quijote is a bluelink that is an R to es:Don Quijote de la Mancha. Can't find anything in Catalan, but we also have Don Quijote (store) in EN:WP, with apparently 160 stores in Japan and three in Hawaii (they're back again). Si Trew (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget per Lenticel. I'm a bit disappointed that it's not one of those silly pseudoscience groups organizing resistance to a wind farm. Ivanvector (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as unhelpful. "Project" in this sense is extremely ambiguous. This could refer to any number of songs, films, books, etc. called "Don Quijote" (see Don Quixote (disambiguation) for the full list). If you must retarget, I'd suggest the DAB, but I think it's best in the off-chance someone searches for it to be taken to the search engine. Tavix  Talk  19:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

John Kennely[edit]

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 delete. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Non-notable pervert from the To Catch a Predator series. The redirect should be deleted per WP:BLP as he isn't mentioned or sourced in the article. Tavix |  Talk  16:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • What a WP:SURPRISE! You search for a predator, and you get a president! (sarcasm) Tavix |  Talk  03:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
So you're suggeting the two are different things? (cynicism) Si Trew (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Heck, even I'm laughing at these comments. (But, I'll keep this vote here.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, he was by far one of the strangest cases on the show but unusual ≠ notable. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was leaning towards redirecting to JFK, but L and D are a hell of a long way away, so it seems a very unlikely typo. Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • D and L are close by on Colemak and adjacent on JCUKEN and BÉPO keyboard layouts. In other news, Colemak, JCUKEN, and BÉPO keyboard layouts exist. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I bow to your better knowledge, was unaware of those layouts. ColemakKeyboard layout#Colemak, it still seems quite a distance to me but I touch type so would not be using the same fingers and would not miss in that way. JCUKEN I think is irrelevant as that's a Cyrillic layout. BÉPO also → Keyboard layout#BÉPO, and indeed on that one they are adjacent. So weak keep. Si Trew (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
So you want to weakly keep John Kennely at To Catch a Predator because it is a plausible typo to John Kennedy on a few obscure keyboard layouts? Tavix  Talk  17:38, 26 April 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.

Giordano Orsini (Senatore 1241)[edit]

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 delete. Deryck C. 12:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Procedural nomination of a WP:PRODded redirect by Alessandro57. The rationale was: "error in date." Tavix |  Talk  16:32, 21 April 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.

Lisa Falkenberg[edit]

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 delete. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This redirect should be blanked because the target has no content about the redirect subject TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I'll take this to CSD as WP:BLP but with little hope of success. Si Trew (talk) 06:33, 22 April 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.

Fusion–fission hybrid reactor[edit]

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 keep. --BDD (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Appears to have a ndash, non-ndash version exists Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I do not understand your proposal. Are you saying the redirect should be deleted because the spelling with ndash is an "unlikely search term"? I do not find this sufficient reason to delete a redirect which is otherwise perfectly correct and does no harm. I even think "Fusion–fission hybrid reactor" would be the preferable title: it should either be "hybrid fusion-fission" or "Fusion-fission hybrid reactor", but "Fusion–fission hybrid" is nonsense (hybrid is an adjective and refers either to reactor or to fusion-fission. The expression "fusion-fission hybrid" makes hybrid a noun, but there is no such thing as "a fusion-fission hybrid"). --dab (𒁳) 13:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep differences in dashes are an excellent reason for redirects, which sort to use where is often either not known or not remembered. Thryduulf (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Mark as {{R from alternative punctuation}} if sensible to do so, but the WP:Manual of Style mandates en dashes so it does not seem unreasonable to use them in titles, to me. I don't know how one would type it, but others do frequently, in article I see all the time (I write &ndash; because that' just quicker for me) so I don't think it at all unreasonable. Si Trew (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep variations on dashes should all have redirects -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Just so I understand this: our policy is to include every possible variation of punctuation, spelling mistake, dashes, etc. because someone might type them in, no matter how unlikely (or impossible) and that the system will find the correct article anyway? We admonish editors to remove trivia from their articles, and then support useless cruft like this? I am flabbergasted. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  • @Maury Markowitz: No, that isn't correct. We only keep plausible variations because they are useful as a navigation aid and are generally harmless. This is different from articles because people aren't going to be reading the typos, but the can still make them when searching for the article. For more information, see WP:RTYPO (which isn't a policy, but it's more or less what we do.) Tavix |  Talk  15:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd back up what Tavix said. It's not that it is right but that it's written. Sometimes we get a WP:SURPRISE that an unlikely misnomer (coming as a virgin) actually gets a lot of hits: but this isn't one of them: the stats are 0 until this discussion started, but I found one the other day where to my surprise there were about 40 a day, even though initially I think I !voted to delete it (and changed my mind). Si Trew (talk) 13:34, 23 April 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.

Hybrid Nuclear Fusion[edit]

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 keep. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

non camel cased version already exists, and I can find no reason to have two Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is not actually camelcase (that would be HybridNuclearFusion) but just a standard other capitalisation redirect. We keep those unless they are in the way of something else as many methods of searching and browsing Wikipedia are case sensitive. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Does no harm, sends people where they are likely to want to go. Si Trew (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep this uses standard title case ; what titles normally look like when it's not Wikipedia -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is such a thing as Standard title case (we do have Title case}, but not lettercase butletter case: we have majiscule and minuscule and i imagine but have not checked Miniscule as an {{R from misspelling}}). since I think it varies very much between publications, and their own editing style, but we have WP:STYLE to say how we write it here, and this is WP:SNOWBALL surely. 11:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Plausible title variant. --Lenticel (talk) 00:31, 23 April 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.

Nessie the Dragon[edit]

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 retarget to Loch Ness Monster. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

redirect without mention in article or assertion of why/what. Seems a ringtone of no encyclopaedic merit. Widefox; talk 10:22, 21 April 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.

Amefuto[edit]

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 delete. --BDD (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently this is the Japanese Romanization of "American football." As such, it should be deleted per WP:RFOREIGN. Tavix |  Talk  04:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. No affinity for this language by this topic, which is a native English-language topic, therefore not having affinity for any language other than English -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RfD#D2 makes no sense: I explain why. Wiktionary has it and perhaps we could do something about that, but I think its definition, which is a stub, is all in katakana, which is used for foreign words. But since this is a word only in Japanese and not in English it is a native word, so should be in kanji not katakana, and this is a back translation: it don't exist in English, (yet). It says it is "Romanization" (Romaji) → Romanization of Japanese, but it is not, it is Katakana. Trust me learned a bit, not much, of Japanese at university. Nihon-go benykyo UMIST-daigaku shimasu'. Si Trew (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Tavix: That's true, this redirect patently is a romanization. THe odd thing is, at Wiktionary, it is not romanized(at the target) but in katakana, which is used for foreign words in Japan. My problem is that it's not a foreign word, but a Japanese neologism/translation, so it doesn't belong in English Wikipedia at all in my opInion. I'll mark it {{R from foreign}} if not already done, without prejudice to this discussion, of course. Si Trew (talk) 07:14, 23 April 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.

Flood lyrics[edit]

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 delete. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 19#Flood chords. Wikipedia can't be a lyrics site due to WP:COPYVIO which makes this redirect unhelpful. Tavix |  Talk  04:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • delete per nominator. Unlike the chord redirect, there is no ambiguity over what this is about and it is clear that we do not have any appropriate content for this search so it is misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTLYRICS. Ivanvector (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 01:34, 22 April 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.

Proof that Nazis deliberately killed six million Jews[edit]

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 delete. --BDD (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This was created as an essay, but was quickly redirected. I don't think this is a good target for this redirect as it is kind of the opposite of denying the Holocaust. Frankly, I don't think this is useful anywhere and should be deleted per WP:RFD#D5 as it makes no sense. Tavix |  Talk  04:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, WP:POV, not to mention that it's a pretty specific search term that isn't likely to be used. While it's pretty clear that the Nazis performed the Holocaust, this was probably created out of (understandable) spite for the target. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is an entirely inappropriate name for a redirect. It does not match any of the purposes of redirects. Zerotalk 10:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - horribly POV. Should have been deleted in the first place, not redirected. Ivanvector (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. A bit too specific and the target doesn't contain the proof anyways. --Lenticel (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. If someone wants to search this way, they can do so by using the search engine. Nuremberg Trials could just possibly be a retarget, but that is a legal proof and not an everyday what people believe proof. Si Trew (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Now I shall probably be told off for saying everyday instead of every day (i.e. diurnal), even though it is correct. I love it when people correct my English. I am English and learned to speak it from quite an early age. It's not my fault that on the front of shops it says "open everyday" when it should say "open every day", that is just reality. Si Trew (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of crazy ideas from grammar nazis, but the idea that everyday and every day have two different meanings just takes the cake. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTBATTLE. This is clear trolling because it must be obvious to almost anyone that it is an implausible search target. Fleet Command (talk) 14:56, 28 April 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.

Penn Leads the Vote[edit]

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 delete. --BDD (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 28#Lead the vote. This seems to be a student-run voting initiative at the University of Pennsylvania. There is no reference to it at that target, however, and therefore should be deleted as unhelpful and confusing. Tavix |  Talk  03:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete per Tavix and the previous discussion. I bet there are many others, an active campus it seems, which is good, but not Wikipedian. Si Trew (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per precedent. I think this is a case of WP:NOBLE --Lenticel (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think you have hit the nail on the thumb there, @Lenticel:. Si Trew (talk) 10:51, 22 April 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.