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.

  • If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you need not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
  • If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. Put a request to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.
  • Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. That is not a sufficient condition. Please do not use it as the only reason to delete a redirect.

Contents

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at a "Search results 1–10 out of 378" result 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. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • If a good-faith RfD nomination has no discussion, the default result is delete.
  • 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 to a different article, discuss it on the talk page of the current target article or the proposed target article, or both. But with more difficult cases, this page can serve as a central discussion forum for tough debates about which page a redirect should target.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
  • In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

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 "https://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 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 an 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. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but 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.
  7. The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and deleting the redirect would prevent anonymous users from so expanding the redirect, and thereby make the encyclopedia harder to edit and reduce the pool of available editors. (Anonymous users cannot create new pages in the mainspace; they can only edit existing pages, including redirects, which they can expand). This criterion does not apply to redirects that are indefinitely semi-protected or more highly protected.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut:

Just as 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 may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.

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.
  • If the redirect is to a template that is currently in use, you will need to use {{rfd-t}} instead (see that template's documentation for instructions).
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 this template:
    • 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.}} ~~~~
  • If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
III.
Notify users.

  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]]
  • 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.

Current list[edit]

February 10[edit]

File:Picture009.jpg[edit]

No need to retain this generic meaningless image name redirect after the file was moved under WP:FNC#2. Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 07:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Stark Mele[edit]

Here's another Neelix WP:PTM construction. There's no evidence that Casandra went by this name. -- Tavix (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete just like the others. Legacypac (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Lizardheaded frog[edit]

An editor opposed to the Neelix cleanup has returned to reverting CSDs, Many similar frog redirects are being deleted that are similar constructions, but since the CSDs were reversed, I'm taking these to RfD for wider input,

These are fake words which I could not find any use of in RS. We should not allow random words to be shoved together to make new words, especially on little known species because this spreads error across the internet that quickly starts to look like an actual alternative species name as the mirrors copy it.. Legacypac (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Strong and speedy keep. Please stop telling lies about editors who disagree with you. These are legitimate redirects. In each case, the target article identifies a slight variation of the redirected phrase as an alternate species name; for example, "lizardheaded frog" goes to Zakerana sauriceps, which states in its lede that "lizard-headed frog" is an alternate/vernacular name for the species. This discussion is just a retread of [[1]], which was an overwhelming and unanimous keep. Your anti-Neelix jihad is leading you into damaging the encyclopedia. You should stop. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Responsible editors appreciate work on the Neelix cleanup. What have you done to help? We've had lots of discussions leading to deletion of his wordcombinations, not withstanding the one cited. Legacypac (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
None of that justifies your false personal attacks on people who think your extreme approach is damaging. Nor does it justify indiscriuminately cleansing Wikipedia of anything with Neelix's fingerprints on it, regardless of its value. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

A review of the redlinks on this version [2] of the Neelix frog redirect list (still being worked on) will confirm that many of these fake words are being deleted. Examples Fourlined frogs, Bubblenests, Annandales highaltitude frog, Pleskes highaltitude frog, Jerdons narrowmouthed frog, Bright yelloweyed frog and those are just a few since the frog page was formed. Legacypac (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

UASVMCN[edit]

Delete, inaccurate acronym: the university uses "USAMVCN" as their acronym. This has literally no usage outside of Wikipedia. I got 19 search hits, all of them are mirrors. (Neelix) -- Tavix (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete one of many such fake constructions he dreamed up. Legacypac (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Petrolet[edit]

Delete per WP:R#D5, as I'm pretty sure this is nonsense. I can't find any connection between the redirect and the target and it's not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. -- Tavix (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Asset-backed[edit]

Delete as a vague adjective. Securities aren't the only things that can be "asset-backed:" a quick search also provided Asset backed lending and Asset-backed risk. (Neelix) -- Tavix (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete same thought I had when I saw it on the list but I'd not gotten to it yet. Legacypac (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

False equivalencies[edit]

Retarget to false equivalency as {{R from plural}}. The related topics of False balance and false equivalence already link to each other through hatnotes. Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget as above. Si Trew (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy retarget as obvious. -- Tavix (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget looks ok. . dave souza, talk 06:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Jeb?[edit]

While I understand that this is a play on Bush's "Jeb!" slogan, I don't feel like this redirect is appropriate, especially since it points to a WP:BLP. Delete per WP:R#D3, especially since there isn't any non-neutral discussion of "Jeb?" at the article. -- Tavix (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Not true. Jeb!Jeb Bush since he has used the slogan since 1994 (see also the RFD for Jeb!.) -- Tavix (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
We're not talking about "Jeb!" we are talking about "Jeb?" which is the 2016 campaign criticism and not any other Jeb campaign. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget per 70.51 as {{R from typo}}, but it's not at that target either. Si Trew (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Could you explain why you feel it's a typo? The question mark and exclamation mark are on literally the opposite ends of the keyboard and I can't imagine someone accidentally typing ? unless they they are purposefully looking for "Jeb?" as a question of his character or something. -- Tavix (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Not on all keyboards, not everything is QWERTY. And I can see that if something were printed as "Whatever happened to Jeb!?" people may mistype it, being unsure of the multiple punctuation. Whether that counts as an {{R from typo}} is a bit weak, but if it's not a likely typo, this should probably be deleted as WP:RFD#D2 confusing since it's not at the target. Si Trew (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't implying QWERTY. I can't find a major keyboard in which the ? ! are near each other. -- Tavix (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
They are next to each other on many cell phone keyboards. pbp 06:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep or retarget: IMO, the D3 claim is specious; I don't see how the redirect is harming anybody. Frankly, this discussion is splitting gnats. pbp 01:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not harmless, it's an attack to make him seem indecisive or uncertain, which isn't something we should be promoting in our WP:BLPs. -- Tavix (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, multiple RS criticism using this term is fair game if not WP:UNDUE, but this link ain't it (if it were, I'd add it to the target and say keep). Si Trew (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Tavix: Are you going to bludgeon everybody who votes keep or retarget, rather than your preferred option of delete? I hope not. pbp 06:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as it is a unsourced negative redirect at a real person which is forbidden. Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict)
  • Delete. This is a fairly common joke made at Bush's expense (I've seen examples on at least two network late night talk shows), and it's nowhere near derogatory enough to require deletion, especially when a high-profile public figure is involved. See Slick Willie, Tricky Dick. But there's no discussion of it in any plausible target article (likely because it's obvious and superficial). No target, ergo no need for the redirect. Can always be restored if a decent, relevant discussion is written (which won't happen unless Jeb? overtakes Donald Grump). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

February 9[edit]

Ash leaf[edit]

Delete. Confusing. In the context of the current target, these are adjectives that are missing a noun (e.g. ash-leaf maple) and don't seem likely search terms as such. In another context these could be interpreted as stand alone nouns (i.e., leaves of ash trees (Fraxinus)). As adjectives they could also potentially appear in the common names (with an additional noun) of any number of other species that have epithets of fraxinifoli(a/us/um), which means "having leaves like Fraxinus" (Acer fraxinifolium is a synonym of the current target, Acer negundo) Plantdrew (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as too confusing. Legacypac (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate between ash tree and ash-leaf maple and any other topics -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Stats at noise level 1–2 a day (by the way the new stats tool is worse than the old stats.grok.se – at least on my browser – where have the totals gone?) and no internal links. Si Trew (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as confusing --Lenticel (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hebburn Argyle F.C.[edit]

No hint that Argyle (see [3]) is the same club as Hebburn Town Ureinwohner (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Montgomery Cunningham Meigs[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 deleted, CSD G6: Deleting redirects or other pages blocking page moves. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete redirect to Montgomery C. Meigs (1816-1892) to allow creation of new article on namesake Montgomery Cunningham Meigs (1919-1944), decorated World War 2 commander. New disambiguation page for 4 people with same name has also been created. NotaBene 17:57, 9 February 2016 (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.

Goldspotted frogs[edit]

These are a little to far from the name of the frog for my taste. Sliding Gold and spotted together to make a fake word plus skipping the keyword "pond" that designates the type of frog tips the balance from helping the reader to introducing error onto the internet. These redirects get picked up from Wikipedia and listed as synonyms on other websites and soon we just gave a frog a new common name. Legacypac (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Duc Tran[edit]

Vandalism? This is supposedly related to the Newspeak word "duckspeak", but it looks like a Vietnamese name. Google returns lots of results related to Vietnamese people, but nothing about 1984. BDD (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target; WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Does not redirect to a section (list entry), because there isn't one. Si Trew (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. WP:G3 Frank (User Page) (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Frideric[edit]

Delete per WP:R#D8 as an obscure or novel variant name. Wikipedia has an article on one person that used it as a middle name: George Frideric Handel. However, since we don't employ {{R from middle name}}, that would be an inappropriate redirect, as would keeping it because there are no one listed at the dab by this name. Let the search engine do its job. -- Tavix (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Akshya101 : saint soldier rational public school talwandi sabo/subpage[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 deleted, see below. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This was obviously intended as a userspace draft. Since it was moved to the real article title, it does not qualify for R3. —teb728 t c 04:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. While it doesn't qualify for R3, I believe it to qualify for WP:G6 under "Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace." -- Tavix (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:SUBPAGE -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted; the title alone shows that Tavix was right. Nyttend (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2016 (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.

February 8[edit]

Crossville, TN μSA[edit]

Using the letter Mu is not something people would be doing while typing "USA". Bgwhite (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Emu and the jabiru[edit]

With respect, this was a very poor redirect decision. This started as a one-sentence stub on an Australian Aboriginal myth. I assumed from the title it was going to be a comparison of emus and jabirus, so that's WP:ASTONISH/WP:XY. "Jabiru" in this case seems to refer to Black-necked stork, which does mention an Aboriginal myth, but nothing about emus. BDD (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

U.S. Virgin Island[edit]

Like rivers and parks, the singular implies the existence of an island by this name. Legacypac (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. Sure, it's erroneous, but it's not ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment there's also United States Virgin Island. And British Virgin Island. And, less plausibly, Us virgin island, USA Virgin Island, and Special:prefixIndex/Virgin Island of the. And that's just the singular stuff. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep The singular might also imply a sticky S key. By the way, which U.S. Virgin Island is the largest? Bosley John Bosley (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, the difference between the two is that there is a next-to-nothing chance of another unrelated island being named "United States Virgin Island." For attestation purposes, reference #37 in the target article is about a "Virgin Island Vacation Guide" and BJB gave another informal example of usage (although a sticky key would produce: "U.. Virgin Iland"). -- Tavix (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep I think this can be a honest misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Not particularly different from New York Yankee. When the title is plural, it's reasonable for someone to search for a singular form (A: "what's that place south of Great Thatch?" B: "That's a U.S. Virgin Island"), and that's why we have {{R from singular}}. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Redirects for pluralization errors are not merely allowed but encouraged. Rossami (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - Plausible redirect due to forgetting the "s" on "Islands." — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Dearling[edit]

Very vague Neelix redirects Legacypac (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete, WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, there is no way calling someone "dear[ie]" implies an intimate relationship. I don't know if "intimacy" still means "having sex", but it used to be a euphemism (at least in UK news reporting) for that. Intimacy redirects to this same target, I could probably write a short RS'd article there about its use in this sense. We have a DAB at Intimacy (disambiguation); I'll list that separately. Si Trew (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget the first two to Term of endearment. Perhaps send the others to Dear? Nyttend (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I've never heard the first used. Dearly - dearly beloved we are gathered... Or She will pay dearly for that mistake. So I'm not sure dearly is a term of endurement always. Legacypac (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Haha, no, marriage is a term of endurement. Si Trew (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget dearies to dearie (disambiguation); delete all others.
    • "Dearling" can be either an obscure alternative to "darling", or the name of several people mentioned on Wikipedia but do not have articles yet. Music writer Robert Dearling is a redlink with possibilities. Delete to reveal search results for readers.
    • "Dearness", "Dearly", or "Dearer" can refer to either sense of the word "dear" - close relationship, or expensive. Delete as WP:XY. --Deryck C. 23:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • delete all I'm just not seeing keeping any of these Neelix-generated "trap every search" implausibilities. Even "dearies" is weak considering that the disambig of for things that aren't generally going to show up in the plural. Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Si. Too broad a term for too specific a target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The fiftieth day[edit]

While this is the translated meaning of the target, it seems like a really vague search term. The fifth day of what? Christmas, life, school, anything! Legacypac (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment maybe retarget to the original holiday which is Shavuot? --Lenticel (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Celebrated on the "sixth day of the Hebrew month of Sivan " ? Legacypac (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Pentecost" and the names of this Christian festival in other languages are all phonetic translations of the Greek name meaning "fiftieth day", or a semantic translation thereof. Until there is another notable topic that is literally known as "(the) fiftieth day", Pentecost stands unambiguously as the appropriate primary topic. Deryck C. 22:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. The fiftieth day of what? On the fiftieth day following the Feast of First Fruits (Bikkurim) is the Feast of Weeks (Shavuot) or Pentecost (Leviticus [Vayikra] 23:15–21) Bosley John Bosley (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XY. I know that "Pentecost" literally means the fiftieth day, but I don't think it is the primary topic here. This could also refer to February 19, the 50th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar; it could refer to Shavuot, the 50th day of the Omer; or it could refer to Sigd, an Ethiopian celebration that occurs 50 days after Yom Kippur. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete or disambiguate per NCFF. I also found Quinquagesima which could fit that definition. -- Tavix (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

2015 / Regression[edit]

This is bizarre formatting, and I can't imagine why anyone would search for a film this way. -- Tavix (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Cut and Paste from Putlocker Bosley John Bosley (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
That's not the name of the film, it's showing two categories on one line, separated by a slash. That's why that says "released" on that line. -- Tavix (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I know...I'm moderately intelligent...you wished to know why anyone would search for a film this way. Bosley John Bosley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
...and yet that didn't answer my question. I would've assumed someone with moderate intelligence would know that "2015 / Regression" is not a plausible way to search for a film. -- Tavix (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
You did not ask a question; you made a statement. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I guess I'll make it more explicit then: Why do you expect other people to search for a film in this manner? -- Tavix (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:SUBPAGE we do not make movie articles as subpages of the years they are released -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

US ^^[edit]

Delete as an obscure typo, it seems unlikely to forget to un-shift for that long. In external searches that omit the ^s, this is actually a search for the United States, making this more trouble than it's worth. -- Tavix (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep Intuitive redirect. Please switch off all the lights and take your laptop to bed. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep shift error, such as a stuck shift key -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - People sometimes forget to release the shift key when typing, or it could be sticky. For example, while I abbreviate World War 2 as WWII, some people abbreviate it as WW@. Oops, I mean WW2. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2, not at target. The above case for typo assumes that the caret ^ is shift-six, which it is not an all keyboard layouts. So it could be a typo for something else entirely. Si Trew (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Mohamed Aloulou[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. Thanks, Ivanvector! --BDD (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Clearly not the same person, rather the government minister he worked for, see fr:Mohamed Aloulou. PanchoS (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2016 (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.

Greygreen[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 deleted' Legacypac (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I was expecting a color, like thousands of other Neelix redirects. But not this time. Suggest we just delete this one Legacypac (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2016 (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.

Whiten[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 deleted' Legacypac (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

An astonishing result for a dictionary word created by Neelix Legacypac (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as too wide of a likely word (could easily be for the color white). SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 8 February 2016 (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.

Blackishness[edit]

Neelix word play. WP is not a dictionary. Everyone can see black is the root word of these, but the reader will get no further insight into any of these at Black Legacypac (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep These things are never Blackest & Whitest. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hustler (prostitute)[edit]

Witionary lists: hustler ‎(plural hustlers) 1. One who hustles: especially somebody who pretends to be an amateur at a game in order to win bets. 2. pimp. 3.A prostitute. 4. A male prostitute who sells his services to men.

So this could refer to at least #3 and #4 and maybe #2. Legacypac (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Whiteslave[edit]

Fake compound words not used in real life except as hashtags. Wikipedia should not originate nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep all. Omission of a space is an entirely plausible typo. Rossami (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

White-slaves[edit]

Can't find any real life uses of this fake hyphenated words made up by Neelix Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep all. The addition of a hyphen is not "fake". These redirects are plausible and there is no potential for confusion. Rossami (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment wouldn't these be the adjective form? -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
No. Even "White-slave traffic" would imply that it was white slaves that were doing the trafficking. Si Trew (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Alabama state park[edit]

Plus:

  1. Alabama state park
  2. Alaska state park
  3. Arkansas state park
  4. Colorado state park
  5. Connecticut state park
  6. Georgia state park
  7. Hawaii state park
  8. Idaho state park
  9. Kansas state park
  10. Kentucky state park
  11. Louisiana state park
  12. Maine state park
  13. Maryland state park
  14. Massachusetts state park
  15. Mississippi state park
  16. Montana state park
  17. Nebraska state park
  18. Nevada state park
  19. New Hampshire state park
  20. New Jersey state park
  21. New Mexico state park
  22. North Carolina state park
  23. North Dakota state park
  24. Ohio state park
  25. Oklahoma state park
  26. Pennsylvania state park
  27. Rhode Island state park
  28. South Carolina state park
  29. South Dakota state park
  30. Texas state park
  31. Vermont state park
  32. Virginia state park
  33. West Virginia state park
  34. Wyoming state park

A series of Neelix redirects using the singular to refer to a list of parks. We decided that Foo frog was not appropriate to lead to a list of frogs in Foo area. The plural versions were also created by Neelix and are not nominated here. The internal search engine and external search engines will find the list just fine without these confusing redirects, Legacypac (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. The singular implies one park, not a list of parks. The redirects are misleading because it might cause someone to think there is a state park by that name. There are a few others not created by Neelix: Arizona state park, Florida state park, Illinois state park, Indiana state park, Iowa state park, Michigan State Park, Minnesota state park, Missouri State Park, New York State Park, Oregon State Park, Tennessee State Park, Utah State Park and Wisconsin State Park. Delaware State Park is the name of a state park in Ohio and Washington State Park is the name of a state park in Missouri-- Tavix (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per the discussion on rivers from a few days ago. Unless there is actually a park by this name, the singular search should be a dead end with results, not a link to a list where there are no parks by this name. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep I never had a say when "We decided that Foo frog was not appropriate to lead to a list of frogs in Foo area." How many were involved, six? seven?...less?. Alabama parks; Alabama State Park; Alabama Parks should all redirect to the list... Until WP: Wikipedia is not useful has been properly integrated into our pillars policies or essays, we should consider the Billion or so others who are unfamiliar with USA Parks & Recreation. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    • They really don't need to know anything about parks; they just need to know how plurals are formed in English. I'm all for accessible writing, including for readers, but the truth is that competence is required for them too. --BDD (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I figured there would be some actual xxx State Park out there much like Canadian River and Mississippi River should not direct people to lists of rivers in Canada or Mississippi. Search engines are smart enough to get people to a list or article even if they can't be bothered to put an S on the end. Legacypac (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Unlike the Canadian and Mississippi Rivers, these aren't capitalised; people aren't going to see "Arkansas state park" as an implication that there's a state park named "Arkansas State Park". This is just another version of {{R from singular}}. If we had those lists at "Arkansas state parks", "Montana state parks", etc., rather than them being the redirects mentioned in the nomination statement, I don't imagine that people would object, and these are reasonable variants of those titles. So basically, if "As" redirects to "List of As", and if "A" is a reasonable redirect to "As", it's a reasonable redirect to "List of As". And finally, please remember that not everyone uses the search engine; what about people like me who access pages by editing the URL at the top of the browser window? Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok, but for those who do use the search box, capitalization won't matter. And not everyone who uses the search engine clicks directly on suggestions; what about people like me who just type something in and hit enter? (Ok, I also use the URL bar, but I couldn't resist the parallel structure.) --BDD (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the point you are making, but redirects that are exact matches (case, diacrtitic and punctuation insensitive) prevent people from getting search suggestions (results): they go straight through the redirect. So if I typed in "Arkansas state park" I would not get a list of search results even if I wanted it. Si Trew (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Redirects for pluralization variants are not merely allowed but encouraged. Rossami (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep any notable park should appear in the list, so it is working properly -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

علاء الدين[edit]

At least some of these Neelix redirects must be nonsense. Can someone use the tools that come up in the RfD listing to check if these are actually used somewhere or where just pulled from his head. Note there is also a DAB for this name. Legacypac (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment first one is the actual Arabic spelling of the name (though note that the target states: "No Arabic source has been traced for the tale"). Beyond that I'd say the transcriptions are roughly in order of decreasing plausibility, until Alad Din and Alad-Din which are just plain old random space-insertion misspellings like Ha-rold or Mi Chael. Definitely delete the last two, which are Japanese. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep the first, plus the next three which match the pattern 'Ala' ad-Din with different diacritics, delete the others. At least those four are valid WP:RFOREIGN redirects, the rest are implausible variations. I'm not sure if this has affinity for Japanese but I don't know why it would. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep the first. Even though Aladdin is essentially a faux-Arabic topic, it's a strong enough connection for me. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all. The first one, علاء الدين, is given as the Arabic name in the intro to the target article. The next three are variant vowel versions of the spelling used in the Harvard Classics, 'Ala-ed-Din (see volume sixteen), and Arabic being written with an abjad, the vowels tend to be fluid; see Romanization of Arabic as well as Osama bin Laden#Name. Finally, all the rest are vulnerable to other issues of this sort, so they shouldn't be nominated together; my "keep" for them is procedural, as I'd suggest that instead you nominate them individually. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm disinclined to nominate closely related redirects separately as other find that annoying. Feel free to comment on specific ones, and as noted I don't believe all should be deleted but they should be looked at together. Legacypac (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete the katakana one (アラジン: No special affinity for Japanese; the Japanese title is jp:アラジンと魔法のランプ. Si Trew (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Chikan Densha: Chōhatsusuru Midara Shiri[edit]

Plus:

  1. Suggestive Indecent Hips
  2. Monzetsu!! Densha Otoko
  3. Monzetsu Densha Otoko
  4. 痴漢電車 挑発する淫ら尻
  5. Chikan Densha: Chōhatsusuru Midara Shiri
  6. Chikan Densha: Chohatsusuru Midara Shiri
  7. Chōhatsusuru Midara Shiri
  8. Chohatsusuru Midara Shiri
  9. Monzetsu!!
  10. Monzetsu
  11. Monzetsu!
  12. Monzetsu! Densha Otoko
  13. 悶絶!!電車男
  14. Chikan Densha: Otakuna Kaikan
  15. Otakuna Kaikan
  16. 痴漢電車 オタクな快感
  17. オタクな快感
  18. 悶絶!電車男
  19. 悶絶
  20. 悶絶!!
  21. 悶絶!
  22. 挑発する淫ら尻

I'm not seeing the need or justification for this string of Neelix redirects to a short article on a Japanese porn film that seems to be about sexually assaulting women on trains. Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Iana Matel[edit]

Neelix nonsense misspelling of a name for no reason Legacypac (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Misreading an "i" for an "l" in a foreign name is a plausible typo. Keep. Rossami (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Artificial objects[edit]

Wikipedia has a series of articles about artificial objects in various places outside earth making this a partial title match. I'm not sure this is the best target, Neelix redirect Legacypac (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Hm? What does earth have to do with it? And if you've found something that's artificial but not man-made, even if it's in space, alert SETI! I suppose this phrase is meant to distinguish artificial objects from natural ones. I don't know if that's correct, or if it's a concept we really discuss anywhere. --BDD (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. I know the title of the target may be a bit surprising for some readers, but I think this is the best target available at the moment. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:RFD#D2 confusing; lots of things are artificial objects (real or conceptual) that are not covered by this rather short article. Let the search engine do it. Si Trew (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Михайлович[edit]

Should we put the Russian? version of every name in Wikipedia? Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete given the outcome at the RFD on the Latin-alphabet version of this. We don't have any useful target for this particular patronymic (current target doesn't mention it, no one uses it as a surname, and we don't do set-indices on "middle" names), so search results are the best thing we can offer. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was going to suggest retargeting it to Eastern Slavic naming customs, as it makes sense, but this string of characters doesn't appear there (Миха́йл appears only in the section for first names), so redirecting this there would confuse someone not familiar with it. Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Sun lounges[edit]

Sun lounges are furniture not rooms. Not sure how the term made it into the "also known as" section but I've removed it. Legacypac (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  • delete per WP:REDLINK and as Neelix junk. I was somewhat inclined to redirect to chaise longue but we would need a section on the later as outdoor furniture first; also, this seems to be a peculiarly Australian term. Mangoe (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Akira: Tetsuo's Edge[edit]

A redirect created for an unreleased video game adaptation of Akira, which appears to be speculative information. After doing research on the game via Google (there were only promotional posters on the web which also appear to be false information) and going through this difference on the film page, I believe that it is reasonable enough to say that not only that there are no notability via significant coverage by third-party reliable sources to cover this information, but it fails the general notability guideline and the no original research policy, as well as the crystal ball section of What Wikipedia is not. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The video game is not mentioned in the manga's article, so the redirect is practically useless. If we have no sources, there's no reason to mention it and redirect it. Delete ~Mable (chat) 07:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Alberta Law Enforcement Response Team[edit]

This is a real thing, but the teams are formed from 6 different police forces, of which the Alberta Sheriff is likely the last ones to be called in (sheriffs in Alberta are quite different then the American versions). Mentioned at target, and linked to the redirect creating a loop. Delete to encourage article creation? Legacypac (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  • delete per WP:REDLINK. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:REDLINK as this is likely to be a notable topic in and of itself. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Note: I have started a draft article on the proper subject at User:Jkudlick/Alberta Law Enforcement Response Teams. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

February 7[edit]

Raphael Schumacher[edit]

Redirect to a list which the person does not even qualify for either. Original page was deleted previously due to not being notable. This redirect is not of any value. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  • This person is in headlines all over the world and they are investigating for possible manslaughter charges. It's a perfectly valid redirect, and will prevent someone from recreating the page when they see it already redirects to info on the event. МандичкаYO 😜 22:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
He is no longer on the page redirected to because he was not notable, as per the top line of the page. We do not list every murder, death or suicide if something notable comes from his death then it would be more value to create the redirect then.WP:BLP1E.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
No, you took him off the page because you've decided he was not notable. The media coverage of his death disagrees with you. There are people on already the list who are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia page. What is your particular obsession with deleting anything about this guy? МандичкаYO 😜 22:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • keep - I was considering making the same redirect. Removal from the list is irresponsible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Removal from the list was irresponsible? or your change to the list criteria without discussion? McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy procedural close - content disputes should be settled on the list's talk page - it's not fair to editors watching the article to make decisions about its content in a separate forum. Decide on whether or not he should be added to the list first, then we can deal with the redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Entries on a list shouldn't be redirected to the list in this situation; the list ought to contain only notable people, not nonnotables whose names get redirected there. Or if he is notable, delete per the top of WP:REDDEAL; having the redirect retards the creation of an article. Nyttend (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Procedural close per Ivanvector; settle the content dispute first. Si Trew (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Double-direction[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 G6 Neelix housekeeping deleted Legacypac (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Without the "sort" in the title, these redirects are WP:RFD#D5 nonsense; Delete all or just possibly retarget to Bidirectional, a DAB page. None has any internal links, stats below bot noise level. See also #Happy hour sort, below, to the same target. Si Trew (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2016 (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.

2022 Summer Youth Olympic Games[edit]

Delete, event does not exist. There will be Summer Youth Olympics in 2018 and 2023, but not 2022. -- Tavix (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete Can it be speedied as a Hoax? Legacypac (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It is much too premature to have that title at Wikipedia. (And if it weren't too premature, WP:CRYSTAL allows (slightly) forward-looking articles, not redirects. Rossami (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • To be fair, this isn't a WP:HOAX. At the time these redirects were created, the 2023 Youth Olympics were scheduled to happen in 2022 — according to their article, the decision to shift it from 2022 to 2023 didn't happen until about 1.5 years after somebody tried to create a premature Wikipedia article about 2022. So it was a good faith and fully honest creation at the time, albeit WP:TOOSOON and hence replaced with redirects instead, which later got rescheduled to a new year by a decision of its organizers. Given the change in circumstances I don't see the redirects as hugely necessary anymore — although redirecting them to the 2023 event, on the grounds that some users might be genuinely confused by the interval from 2018 being five years instead of four, would also be an option — but they're a thing that was going to happen exactly as the title states and then got rescheduled later on, not a hoax. Either delete, or retarget to 2023 to prevent possible confusion. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete both per Bearcat as WP:RFD#D2 confusing to redirect 2022 to 2023. Neither has any internal links beyond this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete both since the event won't happen in 2022. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete both -- won't happen, and therefore meaningless. -- The Anome (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to 2023 Summer Youth Olympics - given Bearcat's explanation, someone coming here to find information about the 2022 event will find that information at the 2023 article, which explains the postponement. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget {{R from former name}} per Ivanvector -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Happy hour sort[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 all deleted by User:The Anome. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This purported name for the algorithm was added in 2005 and removed in 2013 as a "hoax". Giving the creator the benefit of the doubt, I suspect he created this redirect merely because its title was in bold and did not already exist. There are no Google Groups hits for the quoted phrase, and only two Google Books hits. Both books are from 2008, were published in India, and at least one may have been self-published, so they may have gotten the name from Wikipedia. In the absence of a supporting reliable source, I suggest deletion. PleaseStand (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as Neelix did not put much thought into a lot of his redirects. Good job tracking down where it came from :) Legacypac (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Unsurprisingly perhaps, there are variants; I added them. See also #Doubledirection, above. Si Trew (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment. More oddly is whether the target is actually called a cocktail sort. I know I am getting decrepit in the computing game, but I have never heard it called that. I presume it comes from the idea of some ingredients sinking, and others rising, in a cocktail; it would be nice to have a reference to this in the article. I am going to check the Knuth reference, but I only have the first edition (the article refers to the second). Si Trew (talk)
Knuth has çocktail shaker sort, I've added that as RS to the target. My search for just "cocktail sort" leads to no RS; most roads lead back to Wikipedia (fair play to rosettacode.org and Wikia for attributing to Wikipedia). There are some other examples in Java called either ShakerSort, CockTailSort, or CocktailSort, but not from very RS. @Legacypac: You're good at these: a WP neologism? Off-topic cos this is about the target not the R, but I'd be inclined to RM to "cocktail shaker sort" if there is no RS for the shorter name. Si Trew (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Not an area I know anything about, but it should be at the most common name. Creating an article at WP soon results in dozens to hundreds of sites "confirming" what that phrase means. Seen that lots of times with Neelix invented terms. Legacypac (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2016 (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.

Now i am become death, destroyer of worlds[edit]

"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds" is a quote from the Bhagavad Gita, but it's perhaps more famously used by J. Robert Oppenheimer. These are possibly plausible variants on that quote. The quote is mentioned at both places, so I ask: which place, if any, is more appropriate for these redirect variants? Deletion per WP:XY or as an implausible search term is also possible. I note that the full, grammatically correct version, "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds" is currently red. -- Tavix (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's a well-known quote, and if you search for any of the versions, you're presumably trying to figure out what it's from. This being a quote, searchers perhaps aren't sure where the punctuation goes or how many words are capitalised; using Special:Search will overcome the latter, and the existing punctuation variants will overcome the former. Redirecting it to a famous reuser, or to its famous use in Trinity (nuclear test), wouldn't be a horrid idea, but neither one is as good as keeping the current target. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment we could stub up an article about the phrase, since it is famous -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. We shouldn't circumvent the search engine. I am become Death -> J. Robert Oppenheimer#Trinity, by the way, something I found with the simple expedient of searching for "Now I am become Death the destroyer of worlds" with no punctuation. Si Trew (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to J. Robert Oppenheimer#Trinity, which, while not the original source of the words, tells how this phrase came to prominence in the English-speaking world. -- The Anome (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget as specified. That's what people are probably looking for. But if target to the Bhagavad Gita, the redirect would be Bhagavad Gita#Appraisal, which is where the information is. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but this is bugging me, but the grammatically correct version is "Now I have become Death, the destroyer of worlds". Considering that there is no way on Earth the Bhagavad Gita was written in English, the use of am is a mistranslation, since the authors of Bhagavad Gita certainly didn't use what was archaic language in their day, so it should not be translated as archaic English. End rant. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Have you never seen this usage in late modern English? "I am become X" is not an error in English. It's called poetic diction. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Tropicana Boulevard[edit]

Proposed to delete. Redirect created from a state highway project list using incorrect street name suffix. Only one inbound link, the aforementioned list, which was corrected upon discovery. LJ  02:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. In the UK, at least, the street name "suffix" is important; in Cambridge there is, for example, Park Street, Park Avenue, Park Terrace, Park Road, Parkside and Park Crescent. I believe that in the US and Canada this is less common,, and that the "suffix" is often omitted. Si Trew (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Googling "Tropicana Boulevard" turns up a number of places using the term to refer to Tropicana Avenue (likely due to confusion with Las Vegas Boulevard). It's incorrect usage, but it's a plausible search term and there doesn't seem to be another notable Tropicana Boulevard that it could be confused with. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 14:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment. My results must may vary, but my Gsearch gives me mostly places that are at the Tropicana – Las Vegas Boulevard intersection; perhaps it is better to retarget it there? The website for a Howard Johnson hotel actually says its address is at 165 East Tropicana Boulevard as its address, even though the map shows it is clearly on Eat Tropicana Avenue. Weakening mine; we can tag it as {{R from incorrect name}} or somesuch. Si Trew (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - Even though it's incorrect, it's a plausible search term. Remember, redirects are cheap. Dough4872 16:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
"Redirects are cheap" is neither an argument for keep nor delete; it's "cheap" in terms of computational resources to keep them, delete them or retarget them. Stats are 32 for the last 90 days, and on only one day was greater than 2; below bot noise level. It may, in theory, be a plausible search term, but hardly anyone (if anyone) actually clicks through this redirect.
The real question is, if kept, does it get people to where they are likely to want to go; it's probably not far off, but could it be better? If it didn't exist, what would the search engine suggest? The top results from search in article space are to Tropicana, a DAB; Tropicana Las Vegas; Tropicana – Las Vegas Boulevard intersection (to which Tropicana - Las Vegas Boulevard intersection is an R); Excalibur Hotel and Casino and, in fifth, Rainbow Boulevard (Las Vegas). So, if deleted, the reader gets a choice of quite relevant search results; sometimes that can be better than throwing them into an article – with no hatnote – that doesn't mention "Tropicana Boulevard". If I look for Oxford Road I don't get sent to Oxford Street. WP:RFD#D2 gives the example that 'If "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion.' Just because Google Maps, for example, doesn't care and thinks Tropicana Boulevard is actually a lane to a trailer park in Jensen Beach, Florida (even though that is called NE Boulevard Lane), does not mean we should follow suit.
I realise this is a long reply, but I should hate it to be thought of me that I didn't do WP:BEFORE and perhaps wanted to keep my usual verbosity under control. Si Trew (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

February 6[edit]

Reductively[edit]

Not defined at target, not going to help the reader understand. Maybe redirect to a witionary entry or just delete? Legacypac (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - Seems like a clear-cut case. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as the adverb form of "reductive." In fact, at the article for Reductionism, the caption for the picture says: "Descartes held that non-human animals could be reductively explained as automata". -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Per above, it's the adverb form. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Notecardforfree.Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Daojia[edit]

Huang-Lao isn't really equal to Daojia C933103 (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Based on a number of edits in the history behind the redirect, people seem to disagree. Most of the arguments to merge were made by anon editors (and reverted by bots) but eventually an established editor stepped in and confirmed the redirect.
    I don't have the content knowledge to determine if that redirect was correct or not but if it wasn't, the proper fix is to revert to one of the pre-redirect versions. Deleting would lose that history. So keep but not necessarily as-is. Rossami (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • On the surface these look like the same thing, the most prominent school of thought in second-century China, but I don't know why they would have different names. I don't think he's very active these days but pinging Simonm223, he knows this stuff. Keep for now, it may have important history. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The term "Huang-Lao" is an abbreviation for the thought of "The Yellow Emperor" and "Laozi", and has traditionally been a term for Daoism as it existed prior to its becoming a bona fide religion in the 1st millennium AD, though it may have been more of an independent school of its own. "Daojia" is one of the two main Mandarin terms for "Daoism". I don't think redirecting it to "Huang-Lao" is wise, just send it to Daoism.  White Whirlwind  咨  07:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Be star[edit]

Be stars are distinct from B(e) ones. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The current situation isn't very satisfactory, but what arrangement do you think would be better? There is only one article for B stars with emission, and that article doesn't really explain very well the differences between them all. Maybe straightening out the article, possibly splitting it into two, would be the best thing to do first. Then any remaining redirects would become obvious. Lithopsian (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Maybe targeting the broader concept of B stars, such as by going to Stellar_classification#Class_B, is most helpful? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep I'll happy defer to experts in the area, but it seems it's currently aimed at the best available target. If/when someone changes the target article or creates a separate Be Star article then they can do whatever is appropriate with the redirect. Just put a note on the target's talk page that the redirect exists and that the article should be improved or split. Alsee (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment we should write a set-index at B star that lists all the subtypes of B with articles. We could then retarget there. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the same place as B-type star per CoffeeWithMarkets, and add a comment about Be stars.[4] Praemonitus (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There have been suggestions to keep, retarget to Stellar classification#Class B, and to write a (set index) article, with not much consensus from any of the suggestions. Perhaps someone could write a draft of what that would look like?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hook Mountain and Nyack Beach State Park[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 speedily deleted by GB fan. --BDD (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

These are two separate but adjacent state parks; redirect exists from a time when Hook Mountain State Park did not have an article and so this redirected to Nyack Beach State Park. This was used only to link a designated natural landmark that spans the two parks; that list has since been modified to link to both pages now that both articles exist. This redirect is no longer used and can be confusing as an autofilled option in the search box. Antepenultimate (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom - I created the redirect back in the day I believe dm (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D5 confusing. @Dmadeo:, you can ask for it to be deleted at WP:CSD as WP:G7 author requests deletion. It got eight hits on 21 December 2015, otherwise at noise level; no internal links (outside this discussion). Si Trew (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2016 (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.

Alaskan rivers[edit]

The singular forms of each of these ("Alaskan river" and so on) are being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 28#Alaskan river. I imagine the outcome(s) there will be reflected for those here. I don't mind if the listings are combined, but they're three days apart. In the meantime I've marked them all as {{R to list}}. Si Trew (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment the singular and plural for nearly all 50 states and a few other places were created by Neelix all in a row. I felt the plurals were OK, if a little silly, but the singular implies a single river. In fact many rivers share names with places, and not necessarily the place they are located. Columbia River is not in Columbia. Legacypac (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – There is an obscure but notable other use of "Alaskan rivers", though it's technically "Rivers". The term was used during the 1950s to refer to Ralph Julian Rivers and his younger brother Victor Claudius Rivers, who grew up in rural Alaska and were involved together in a number of major political causes and efforts until the latter's death in 1959. There were times when "rivers" and "Rivers" were deliberately confused for dramatic effect, such as a speech which compared the two brothers to the Yukon and Kuskokwim rivers in somewhat comedic fashion. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 10:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, unlike the singular forms which imply one river, these imply multiple rivers. These redirects targeting a list of rivers is therefore perfectly reasonable. -- Tavix (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Slightly weird relist here - I think there's incentive to put this entry and the "singular" entries below in the same place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Alaskan river[edit]

We did not like Frog of China or Borneo frog etc because they imply there is an official frog or only one frog Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_17#Uruguay_frog These Neelix redirects seem similar to me. There are dozens, I'm presenting a few as an example. Legacypac (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Follow-up comment: after reading the comments below, I have become convinced that there is a good chance that readers may be looking for a specific river (e.g. Uruguay's Santa Lucía River), so I am going to go ahead and change my vote to delete. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The alternatives noted by Notecardforfree are fine, but these imply specific rivers of these names. Yes, they have lowercase Rs, but keep in mind that many search methods are case-insensitive. Note also that "Saint Lucian river" could create confusion with Uruguay's Santa Lucía River or Australia's St Lucia Reach, of the Brisbane River. --BDD (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, for example, Canadian river (→ Canadian River) is not a river in Canada (it's in New Mexico). None of the rivers at the DAB at French river (→ French River) is in France. Si Trew (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually that makes a good case for testing the waters: see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_31#Canadian_river. Si Trew (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per BDD. The singular implies one river of this name, not a list of rivers. This is why Missouri river does not go to List of rivers in Missouri, but to one river. -- Tavix (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, they are confusing redirects that should only go to an article on 1 river. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per BDD. The minor potential for harm in these is in having someone think that there is a river called "Alaskan River" (certainly plausible) and we just don't have an article about it yet. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Iphone 7[edit]

Term is not mentioned ta the target. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep since RS are writing about a release date within months and new features and specs. This topic should be added to the target carefully. if we delete it will be recreated within days anyway. Legacypac (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as a typo for the iPhone 6 or a search for the next gen iPhone, this will result in information illuminating the person searching, with either information about whether or not a new iPhone is in the offing, with whatever reliable info is available, or a link to the mistaken phone. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and because we can't predict the name. Windows 8 was followed by Windows 10.Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Maybe there should be content about the rumored iPhone 7, but that would be putting the cart before the horse. --BDD (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

List of black ice hockey players[edit]

While the NHL is certainly the world's premier hockey league, it's not the only one to have had black players. There's another page, Black players in ice hockey, but it only mentions select players. I suggest deleting these unless we actually have such a list somewhere. --BDD (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm inclined to retarget to Black players in ice hockey. While it's not a list in the classical sense, most sections list some of the more notable black people to play in that league/region. It could definitely use some clean-up though, so I'll inform WP:NHL and see if anyone has some ideas of what to do with it. (On a semi-related note, I've opened an WP:RM for List of National Hockey League players of black African descent. Comments are welcome on the talk page.) -- Tavix (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete the first two. The way these redirects are phrased, I actually thought the redirects referred to hockey players who play on black ice. But, then again, black ice usually isn't thick enough to use ice skates anyways, so this type of sport even existing would be next to impossible. (For the last three, I have no opinion.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Black players in ice hockey per Tavix. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Vine Deloria, Jr[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 fixed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This redirect goes from a talk page to an article. It was requested for G7 speedy deletion by the creator but then Opabinia regalis contested that speedy deletion. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't intend to "contest" it, I just didn't notice it went to the article instead of the talk page. I don't get this, though. Why not just... fix it so it goes to the talk page? Am I missing something? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, it is too unimportant to spend time thinking about. I made a mistake (I wanted to redirect Vine Deloria, Jr instead of Talk:Vine Deloria, Jr). Deleting the redirect (which will never be used), or redirecting it to the talkpage or ignoring it completely all has the same result. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2016 (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.

Corlo terrorita[edit]

I'm pretty sure this is a corruption of the lyric "con los terroristas," but doesn't seem like a plausible search term to me. -- Tavix (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Search engines tend to be equally nonplussed, some suggesting the colocolo as a good match. Si Trew (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTLYRICS or WP:RFD#D2. Bad in so many ways: as a search term, first you have to use the wrong language, then misspell both words (neither of these are actual Spanish words), and then who's to say you intended on this target? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Irish Messi[edit]

From a quick online search, I'm seeing a lot of players that seem to use this name, including Zak Gilsenan and Alan Judge. Perhaps a disambiguation page is in order, or maybe retarget to an appropriate section for Lionel Messi since so many players are called the next Messi. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I looked at this before creating the redirect. Zak Gilsenan isn't notable enough for Wikipedia - he fails WP:BLP1E, being only known for signing for a football club.
Thus, there are 2 players that use the title, so hatnotes are preferred (I meant to add them, but didn't).
Of the 2, I think Hoolahan is given the nickname more often in reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I note that being referred to as the "Irish Messi" is apparently so significant for Wes Hoolahan that it isn't even mentioned anywhere in his article. Unless reliable sources have talked about him in these terms (I haven't checked) I say we just delete the redirect altogether.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Sources: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. And I'm sure I've seen Sky Sports use it before. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - media nickname, not needed on the article and not a likely search term for a redirect. GiantSnowman 18:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and hatnote based on the information provided by Joseph. Media nicknames, BTW, absolutely should be included in articles and redirects when widely used. And, also, BEAST MODEEEEE! Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

February 5[edit]

Re-introductory[edit]

I found this series of redirects by Neelix pointed at an article called Reintroduction, but the article is all about putting animals into places they used to live - a very specific use of a very general term. The long time mistitling of the article confuses search results for me. To solve this mess:

  • Action taken: I've just moved the target to Reintroduction of a species
  • Recommendation 1: We delete all the "Re-" variations as spelling mistakes.
  • Recommendation 2: Someone build out a meaning + DAB on Reintroduction or Reintroduce because it is not a good redirect (even from a page move) to the renamed article. We can reintroduce a bill in government, reintroduce a product to market, reintroduce people that have not met for a long time and tons of other uses. Retarget all the remaining variations at the DAB
  • Recommendation 3: Someone build a DAB on Reestablish Businesses/governments/countries/dynasties/brands etc can be reestablished. Retarget all the remaining variations at the DAB Legacypac (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as inaccurate. Softlavender (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    • (This vote happened while I was consolidating, formulating and writing the nomination. Legacypac (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC))
  • Delete - they're inaccurate and unnecessary. Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete the lot per above, Nonsensical crap. –Davey2010Talk 01:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete the pile, although I have no objection to the listed recommendations if someone is motivated to build some sort of DAB. Alsee (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all. All but one are double-redirects which, if fixed, would point a common english word with multiple meanings to a single very narrow usage of that word. No objection if someone would rather soft-redirect some or all to Wiktionary. I see no potential for a Wikipedia article on the generic concept of "reintroduction" or "reestablishment", though. (Note, however, that the "re-" variants are not necessarily spelling mistakes and even if they were, they wouldn't reach the threshold of implausibility.) Rossami (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Whoah! Keep/retarget reintroduce, reintroduced (not nominated here; nominated by me at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 31#Reintroduced), and reintroduction to target Reintroduction of a species: lots of articles link through these and are currently WP:NOTBROKEN, but we will break their links if we deleted them. I believe exclusively meaning animal reintroduction. Though I think Species reintroduction or animal reintroduction may have been better places to which to move the article (there don't seem to be any uses for other kingdoms of living things). The others have fewer if any internal links. Si Trew (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep what Si said (and fix double redirects, or the bot will) and I'll throw a WP:RFD#K5 on top of that: they're obviously useful, in use, and refer to this usage. Delete the others though. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Re-introducing, Reintroducing, Re-introduces, Reintroduces, Re-introduce, Re-introductions, Reintroductions, Re-introduction, and Reintroduction per WP:RPURPOSE as "closely related words". I have no opinion on the rest. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This got a bit messy; it would've been better to attempt one thing at a time, but we've crossed the Rubicon now. We could have "Reintroduction" red with an article at "Reintroduction of a species"—that's not as bad as if we had the article at "Reintroduction (species)" or something. But it seems suboptimal. I might also move Reintroduction of a species to Species reintroduction, in case that affects anything, though I'll wait for this to resolve first.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment. I'm in favout of the simpler title "Species introduction". Lots of reliable sources use it, such as Scottish National Heritage,[sr 1] the International Union for Conservation of Nature[sr 2] and the National Wildlife Federation,[sr 3] so it's not as if we'd be inventing it. Si Trew (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Radical Mongoose[edit]

Non needed redirect CrashUnderride 12:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep - Rose tweeted recently that he is now going to use this as a nickname. I'm updating the ref in the article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't mean it needs to be a redirect to his page. CrashUnderride 03:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it does, that's one of the main purposes of redirects, to get readers to the information they're looking for when they search for alternate titles. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ivanvector. Steel1943 (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, as creator I added this because people may only be watching clips of WWE or hear slang reference to 'radical mongoose' but not know the wrestler, this helps them easily find him Ranze (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

*Delete Radical Mongoose, just something Adam Rose says in Twitter. Not a wrestling nickname. Rose wants to be known as Radical Mongoose, it doesn't make it into a nickname. Also, the source was unreliable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

    • Forget it. WWE calls Rose Radical Mongoose. It's fine for me. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Iron Man of the WWE[edit]

Non needed redirect. CrashUnderride 12:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - not an alias. The only instance of "iron man" in the article is a reference to an iron man match, a type of professional wrestling match. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Too easily confused with Iron Man Match and not synonymous with Ambrose.LM2000 (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as creator. @LM2000: this doesn't seem confusable with the match, the root noun in describing those is "match" not "man". I also believe it is synonymous with Ambrose, since that's what announcers are presently calling him. If a reliable source can later establish other wrestlers were called this by voices in the WWE then it could be adapted into a disambiguation page. Although I've seen other people like Cena called this, this was by fans in forums, so it's not on the same level as Michael Cole calling Dean this. @Ivanvector: it actually is an alias for Ambrose. I added it but someone removed it, so I will add it back and cite more thoroughly this time. I supported it with sources which recognized Cole doing so. Ranze (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Well if it is notably his alias then obviously keep. If it's just something that some people sometimes call him, then it seems more like a vague comparative, and I'm not so sure. I didn't see it when I searched, but I'll have a look at what you come up with. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Note: That the creator, Ranze, has a habit of adding unverified "nicknames" to article and then arguing for days when they are opposed. IF it's used as a nickname keep it in the article, same with Rose, but the redirects aren't needed. No one is gonna type www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Man_of_the_WWE or www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Mongoose when they could just go to Dean Ambrose or Adam Rose quicker. CrashUnderride 00:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Strong ad hominem attack there, ever heard of arguing the topic and not the person? In this case I've provided 3 reliable sources supporting the 'Iron Man' nickname in WWE. If you can do so for someone else in WWE then I'm all for changing it to a disambig but until then it ought to be a redirect. People will not type out a name if they don't know it. Sometimes people view only clips of shows. Like if you watched Adam face off against Titus tonight shouting "I'm the Radical Mongoose, the UNIVERSE named me the Radical Mongoose" all you are hearing is RM and not AR. Not everyone watches the entire episode, sometimes their attention wavers, they step out, etc. Ranze (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Nicknames don't need to be redirects, as I stated previously. Anyone that knows a nickname will know the wrestlers (oops, I'm sorry) sports entertainers name. Therefore they would be able to come to the article without having to use the redirect. CrashUnderride 06:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - the sources do indeed confirm this is a name that he goes by, or at least a plausible variation of it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Ambrose called himself the Iron Man of the WWE. We can't include every time a wrestler calls himself "the XX of WWE". The sources only includes the promo and Saxton and Cole comentating a match (Commentators say a lot of thing). However, at WWE.com, Iron man of WWE doesn't redirect to anywhere.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Why can't we include every time a wrestler goes by some other alias? Redirects are cheap. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

(Far from) Home[edit]

This redirect seems to exist solely so the song title isn't a redlink. A link to the band might make better sense on the Far from Home disambiguation page if needed. But a search of the wiki doesn't bring up this page unless you use the brackets. 🍺 Antiqueight chat 05:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a redirect because the song itself wasn't notable, so I BOLDly redirected it to the album from which it came rather than AFDing it. I have no objection to re-redirecting it to the band. Or to scrapping it altogether and having the DAB page merely point to the album as its one bluelink. DMacks (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've added {{R from song}}, and redirects are cheap. The article Tiga (musician) indicates the song charted on UK and AUS singles charts. The parentheses in the title are unlikely to be confused with other entries in the dab Far from Home. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Animalparty. Unlikely to be confused with another topic nor to confuse readers searching for Far from Home; saves some users a click. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment Honestly? It confused the heck out of me - But if it makes sense to all of you, then let it be. 🍺 Antiqueight chat 15:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
What you said - "a search ... doesn't bring up this page unless you use the brackets". So it's reasonable to assume that a user searching using the brackets is looking for this song title, otherwise why would you type the brackets? As such, it's reasonable to send that user to a page about the album the song appears on. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. Does not seem unreasonable for someone to search by an exact title; I imagine many readers would guess that the song would not be at Home. Si Trew (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:REFORMWIKIPEDIA[edit]

This is essentially a relist of the discussion for this redirect that happened a week or so ago. The last discussion was closed to "no consensus" when the redirect's target was Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia. As one can now see, that is no longer the case: The former target was userfied as a result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete both per consensus at MfD that this does not belong in project space. These are now cross-namespace redirects. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as they are cross name space redirects.Mrfrobinson (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete both the community was clear that this essay should not be in project space. These redirects are a back door way to refer to it as if it still is. The creator has already tried to quote the "reforms" at ANI [10] and to imply an editor could be subject to a weeks/months long block [11] to chill discussion. With these, or any project space redirects, they can still make such bullshit claims and a naive editor may believe them. JbhTalk 12:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete (both) - normally pseudospace shortcuts from project space to user space are not inherently harmful (WP:XNR generally applies to redirects from reader spaces) however this is an instance where one is being used in a deliberately harmful fashion, to intimidate users based on an editor's non-consensual opinions. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Not only are they cross namespace redirects (which are allowed is some cases - see WP:1AM), but this and this show the clear intent of one of the primary authors of this essay to use it as a club during disputes. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep both. If cross-namespace really was a hard policy no-go[citation needed], then redir to another related traget in WP: namespace. --.js[democracy needed] 23:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @.js: Do you have a recommendation of where these redirects should be retargeted? Steel1943 (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Steel1943: Perhaps one of these:
  • Keep both first or retarget. There is no policy against using them. There is a disagreement whether Wikipedia needs reforms. I have seen numerous user essays with redirect shortcuts. QuackGuru (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Updated comment. QuackGuru (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
While it may be true that there is disagreement over whether Wikipedia needs reforms, there is strong consensus that your proposed reforms are profoundly misguided, if they are even possible (which in some cases they are not, at least without changes in the law). Guy (Help!) 01:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I do not see any disagreement that WP needs reforms, only disagreement what reforms. But here is the place for discussing a redirect only. --.js[democracy needed] 01:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
It appears the reason behind deleting the redirects is that JzG has a disagreement with the essay. That's not a valid reason to delete the redirects. QuackGuru (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
This were all deleted save one retargeted. Being fair to QuackGuru and the other authors, I don't think there's any proposal to re-create those. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ivanvector. If they are to be retargeted, Tavix' suggestion makes the most sense, but I don't see the value of doing so; "cheap" as far as I understand it is just a warning not to base a suggested course of action on the consequent size of the database. Si Trew (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Reform which is more appropriate, encompasses all the possible targets, and isn't a cross-namespace redirect.Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Telling lies to children[edit]

The target article is not at all about this subject. Rather it is about a neologism from a fantasy novel. Sammy1339 (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It may be relevant to know that the target article itself is likely to soon be redirected as it fails GNG. See here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The actual practice of lying to children seems like a legitimate subject for a future article. This phrase is about a completely different concept (it's actually about simplifying, not lying). Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Then it should point to Pedagogy.—Odysseus1479 08:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget. This should be redirected to Psychological manipulation, shouldn't it? It's a form of it. Hdjensofjfnen (Is something wrong?) 01:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I suppose we could retarget, but if so it seems like we could justify any "telling lies to [group]". Seems unnecessary, and I agree the current target doesn't make sense. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

February 4[edit]

That place where they killed Cecil the lion[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 snow delete, and R3 speedy delete. Even if this were a likely search term, it could lead to varous places, such as Hwange National Park. --BDD (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Unlikely, and possibly insulting to Zimbabweans who may feel offended by the implication that their country ought to be known primarily as the place where this event occurred. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - This seriously is a highly unlikely search term. People are going to just go right to Cecil the lion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not an atlas or gazetteer. Si Trew (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. While this is information, this shouldn't be a redirect. Also, this is partially natural activism on the creator's part. Hdjensofjfnen (Is something wrong?) 04:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete if anything it should redirect to the animal article. But the animal article is already called "Cecil the Lion" so this redirect has no advantage -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2016 (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.

Cassowaries in popular culture[edit]

This title was merged to the target article, but this was the extent of it. The section no longer exists, and since "In popular culture" sections are discouraged, it's not likely to again. --BDD (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - no info at target, nothing from the former article's content in use on the project. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's part of the article history. And while I am very glad that the consensus is finally starting to turn away from the "in popular culture" sections, we must acknowledge that the consensus is not solid and could even be reversed. There is no good reason to delete that history. Rossami (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. The "history" argument implies we can never ever delete – or change – content (redirect, article, section, whatever) with incoming links, because they're not linking to the page as it was at the time the link were created. That's against WP:NOTFINISHED. The only way around that would be either:
  1. for editors to use versioned links in articles (I am not sure if we have a template to do this)
  2. an option that, when retrieving an old version of a page, the links on it are to the other pages as they stood at that time (including links to deleted pages). That would be really useful, a kinda WikiWikiWayback.
I doubt the first would ever happen (or is desirable), the second I guess is possible except for deleted links. (For admins, I guess even that is possible too.) Si Trew (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is no wrongdoing in this. Hdjensofjfnen (Is something wrong?) 04:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as misleading. Despite what the redirect implies, our readers will not find out about "Cassowaries in popular culture" at the target. The redirect needs to be red to reflect this lack of information. -- Tavix (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • It's helpful. Who was this made by, anyway? Hdjensofjfnen (Is something wrong?) 04:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Why do you feel this is helpful? Someone searching this is going to be disappointed because there isn't any information on the subject. -- Tavix (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh oops! I didn't know there was no info at the redirect... 0_0 Hdjensofjfnen (Is something wrong?) 04:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DSTSOLUTION[edit]

WP:SOAPBOX/Wikipedia:Advocacy: This seems like an inappropriate redirect from Wikipedia space to an essay on a user page urging political activism ("Persuade Congress") for activities unrelated to building an encyclopedia.

The content on the user page probably should go as well per WP:UP#GOALS

Toddst1 (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - inappropriate redirect from project space as-is. As for the target, that should be a different discussion. I don't think it's very serious anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirects from the Wikipedia space to a userpage essay are not merely allowed, they are sometimes encouraged. That said, the essay should have some connection to the project. This is a personal rant against Daylight Savings Time. That's over the line even by our loose standards. Delete. Rossami (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I thought essays were used for this purpose? And what project? Hdjensofjfnen (Is something wrong?) 04:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Like WP:SOAPBOX says. It's fine to have an opinionated essay ábout Wikipedia, it's not a general-purpose blog. There's always quite a lot of opposition to daylight savings, e.g. the Western_Australian_daylight_saving_referendum,_2009, and opposition to Double British Summer Time. By project I presume is meant that this is redirect is in WP pseudo-namespace, where WP stands either for Wikipedia or WikiProject. Si Trew (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Good evening, Hdjensofjfnen. "The project" is Wikipedia. And while I stand by my categorization of this essay as a personal rant, I don't consider that a pejorative statement. Rants have a valuable place in social discourse and are protected free speech. Rants can passionately expose issues and build motivation to address them. But this particular issue has nothing to do with making or improving the encyclopedia. So even though I actually agree with your opinions about DST, that's why it doesn't belong here. Rossami (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "This is a personal rant against Daylight Savings Time." --Rossami That's a little (ahem) harsh. Hdjensofjfnen (Is something wrong?) 04:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
    • No. That's exactly what it is. Toddst1 (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
      • You don't have to be so rude. Hdjensofjfnen (Is something wrong?) 01:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
So you're saying Rossami is harsh and I'm rude. It's rather ironic that you're using Wikipedia as a platform for your political opinion, yet folks who politely comment on it are behaving in an inappropriate way. Toddst1 (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Cdebootstrap[edit]

Current target is certainly unhelpful, unsure about whether the topic is notable. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per 70.51. The subject of a redirect does not need to be notable. Apparently defined by the target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget as above. Si Trew (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Guanin (Fish)[edit]

Delete, as this redirect makes no sense. Guanin appears to be an accentless version of Guanín, a pre-Columbian Taíno Bronze medal; there are two articles about it nominated for merging. Guanine is an amino acid and has nothing to do with fish in particular. Anomalocaris (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak keep - this source describes guanin as a substance "extracted from scales of fish such as herring, for manufacture of PEARL ESSENCE, has also been used for conversion to CAFFEINE." It appears to be the same substance as what's described at guanine, especially described in the "other uses" section. The redirect is unusual, but also seems to be harmless and correct. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak deleteor retarget to the DAB at Guanín, as Guanin does as an {{R from title without diacritics}}; Guanine is listed there. I know in a sense as an R to DAB it is useless but not very harmful; although in the past I have argued that needless (disambiguation) redirects are slightly harmful as suggesting that we have a more-specific topic when we don't.
I've noted this over at the merge discussion at Talk:Guanín#Merger_proposal. Even if the two topics at the DAB were merged over it (Guanine is the third at the DAB), we can simply hatnote the merged article to Guanine. Si Trew (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Huh? Neither topic listed at Guanín has to do with fish. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment Guanin (fish), Guanín (fish) and Guanín (Fish) are all red. Si Trew (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Weak keep. Guanin is a variant spelling of guanine, and some fish scales and other body parts are known to be rich in guanin. (e.g. example). The parenthetical "(fish)" moots a retargeting of Guanin (Fish). --Animalparty! (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Nakshal (film)[edit]

this page is not necessary and redirect to wrong page. see other related page Naxal (disambiguation) Bongan® →TalkToMe← 18:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Naxal (disambiguation) - this seems to be a close phonetic match and there are two films listed on the dab page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Where Sinners Meet[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. Ivanvector is right; see RM. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

CSD'd this, since none of the existing sources in the target article refer to the film by the target article's name, but by the name of this redirect. Was declined since the lead sentence (as it was then written) referred to film by the wrong title. In addition, contemporaneous sources all agree that the title of the film is indeed Where Sinners Meet, and that The Dover Road was simply a working title, since the source (Milne's book) was titled that. Would like this deleted so that the film's article can be properly named. Onel5969 TT me 13:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep - this is a move request. Since speedy was declined, it can't be considered uncontroversial, and as such the redirect currently points to the correct target. You'll have to do a requested move on the article's talk page. Please see WP:RM. Let us know if you need help with the request. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2016 (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.

Cibuntu[edit]

Absolutely unrelated topic to target. WP:REDLINK because there is id:Cibuntu, Cigandamekar, Kuningan. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Two separate search engines find no connection between Cibuntu and Ubuntu. Agree to redlink it. Rossami (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Cibuntu, Cigandamekar, Kuningan, which I just created from the Dutch Wikipedia. We don't have very many articles on West Javan villages, but there are a few. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Ivanvector; thanks for making the stub. Not sure you need the entire postal address as the village's title, but that's another matter. Si Trew (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I was going by the style of the few other Indonesian village articles that we have, which are named this way. Although now that I look at Category:Populated places in West Java, it seems I may be mistaken. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The article titles are all is different formats, having looked at the category, but we need a fixed format. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 09:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • retarget per Ivanvector --Lenticel (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

February 3[edit]

Palestinian terrorists[edit]

Per WP:TERRORIST Spirit Ethanol (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete ambiguous as to what target. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see that policy as forbidding or even arguing against the redirect. For one thing, redirects are intentionally not held to the same standards of NPOV as article titles or content. For another, the article itself deals with exactly the ambiguity Champion worries about. I can think of no better destination for this redirect. Finally, the redirect is coming up on 10 years old. Even if you successfully orphaned it (unlikely given the several articles where it is used), there would still be a high likelihood of external links. Keep. Rossami (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment successfully orphaned. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom Gbawden (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:TERRORIST, and WP:NPOV. Not every person involved in political violence is considered a terrorist, this goes for other nations as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep See WP:RNEUTRAL. Furthermore, the lede says the article is about "acts of violence on terror". NPOV means we don't call people terrorists in article text, but readers don't necessarily abide by NPOV, and that's no less reason to serve them. Compare to Israeli terrorism. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD. It's an actively used redirect and points at the correct target. Orphaning the redirect was probably a good idea but there's no need to delete it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as per the arguments above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Gotta go to work[edit]

Deletion, because there is no sign of the redirect name in the target article. An IP-editor 70.59.72.188 with experience in the subject of the target article made a request ([12]) to remove the redirect. DVdm (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOOT[edit]

Is this really the best target for this shortcut? From what I have seen, "moot" in discussions essentially means "consensus will not matter in this discussion since my close's result will happen anyways". With that being said, I don't know if the current target is the best target for this shortcut. (This shortcut has existed for a little over two years and has less than 10 pages with incoming links.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete Along with the verb "table", "moot" has differing meanings in different varieties of English, to the point of being an auto-antonym. See wikt:moot. Without an established usage of this shortcut, I'd discourage the term's use at all in Wikipedia discussion, though I've certainly used it myself. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Steel1943: This policy used to say that "Wikipedia is not a moot court", but someone changed it so that it now reads as "Wikipedia is not a quasi-judicial body". The redirect page was created before the words were changed. Jarble (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm half-tempted to suggest retargeting to Wikipedia:Snowball clause, but that's not quite right either. And besides, the section on that page which describes the meaning I ascribe to this actually points back to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing per WP:XY. A handful of links, stats average one hit every other day. One use at Talk:New_York_v._Strauss-Kahn/Archive_7#Moot court facts discusses the meaning a bit. Si Trew (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. The "wikipedia is not a moot court" (and its attendant shortcut) had a long history before being reworded to the clumsier (but slightly less jargony) "not a quasi-judicial body". There is no good reason to break all those links throughout the entire history of the project. Rossami (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, along with Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a moot court. There really isn't much of a history to these redirects, and definitely not a "long" history (2+ years). While it's a true statement, it's no longer described there and I prefer the current language at the target. I agree with Steel and BDD's sentiments regarding the word, and that it should be discouraged due to the confusion. That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to an essay on the topic so I can see benefits to deletion from a "redlink" point of view. -- Tavix (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to WP:SNOW, I like Ivanvector's idea. The snowball clause states that there is no point in continuing a discussion that is going to end up going in one direction anyways so in essence a moot point. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Santorum-Savage neologism campaign Google bomb problem controversy[edit]

Delete, completely implausible search term. It reminds me of those tags that are sometimes put at the bottom of news articles... it's nothing more than a list of just about every term associated with the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - extremely unlikely as a human-typed search term or wikilinked redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nobody's Google-fu is that weak. Guy (Help!) 01:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I concur. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Mud nest builders[edit]

These birds aren't referred to by this term at the target article, nor are they the only ones who build mud nests, based on a quick Google search. Apparently alligators do too. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  • 'Delete many things build nests in/of mud -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague. There's a lot of animals that build their nests out of mud --Lenticel (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Further/sandbox[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 both to Template talk:Further. Creating "Template talk:" redirects that end with "/sandbox" or "/testcases" to their respective root "Template talk:" page is an approved function of AnomieBOT that it carries out at least once a day. Even if these redirects were deleted, AnomieBOT would recreate them to point towards the target I mentioned above. So, this close is essentially "moot'. (BDD, I'm sort of WP:SUPERVOTE-WP:IAR'ing this discussion due to the "moot"-ness of this discussion's result. If you have any concerns, I would recommend bringing them up to the bot's operator Anomie.) (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:See was moved to Template talk:Further, making the latter page no longer redirect to Template talk:Further2, so the redirects should be retargeted to Template talk:Further. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You can just retarget them, no need to come here, unless I'm not understanding what you are looking for. Legacypac (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Huh? Delete, so the subpages can be used as normal. Why would you have subpages of a talk page just redirect to the talk page? --BDD (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2016 (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.
  • Thanks for clarifying, Steel. I don't like that, but I'll leave the template-makers to their work. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Marcs[edit]

Many people and things on Wikipedia referred to as Marc. MARC, Marc's. Can't see anything just Marcs, so maybe delete as nonsense. Target has nothing about Marcs. Legacypac (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as this is particularly unlikely. SwisterTwister talk 00:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. More Neelix game-playing. Softlavender (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 17:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Marc as plural of names listed or mispelling of the listed "Marc's" -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per 70.51... Rossami (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Marc's as {{R from modification}}. I'm adding a hatnote there back to the dab. At a glance, this could also refer to MARC Trains (more likely "MARCs") or some of the units of the Apothecaries' system. Neither of those seem especially likely to me, but I wouldn't oppose retargeting to the dab. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

אלבטרוס[edit]

WP:FORRED. Albatrosses have a broad distribution and an Arabic etymology, lacking any sort of close connection to Israel or Hebrew. This was first created as a misplaced, Hebrew-language article, presumably about albatross. --BDD (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as per BDD, no affinity to Hebrew; I don't think simply etymology would count anyway, or we'd have stacks of Latin, French, German and Greek redirects. Si Trew (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. General topic with no particular affinity for any language -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per abovementioned comments --Lenticel (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Jiggle[edit]

Not convinced the target was the best choice for this Neelix redirect. Yes the target has the word Jiggle but so do a bunch of other articles. Jiggle could be a dab or even an article on it's own. [13] Legacypac (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

--Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  • delete or point to Wiktionary The entire first page of GHits for the word are dictionaries. I don't see DABbing a bunch of partial title hits. Mangoe (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Jiggles probably wouldn't be a WP:PTM, but it would be a surprise since it's a strip club (is that place even notable?). -- Tavix (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIC. I don't like Wiktionary redirects, they hinder readers who actually want to search for articles containing the word, as Wiktionary does not link back here for search results. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: Never mind; what I was going to do is already built in the template. There is a link at the top of the template that allows the reader to search Wikipedia for that term if they are not looking for the dictionary definition. Steel1943 (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yeah, after your comment I went to check. I guess my comment here is invalid, then.
  • Target to Wiktionary per my previous comment being proven incorrect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Oku sama kitsune no go konrei[edit]

WP:NOTDIC although the term is mentioned there, it would be a useless target as it is not what the reader likely in looking for, and an implausible search term anyway. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep - I don't really see any reason why this should be deleted. A redirect from an episode title to a page about a TV series seems reasonable. While this redirect isn't likely to get a lot of traffic, that is more just because it is an old show and not because it is a useless redirect. If anyone did type this, I would expect the anime is what they are looking for (perhaps because they saw the episode somewhere and aren't sure what show it was a part of). I'm also not sure how WP:NOTDIC is relevant to this redirect. Calathan (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is an episode title and therefore not a "useless target" or "an implausible search term". ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
This is a romanisation, not the original title, if someone is likely to search for something, it is the native script, not a romanisation. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I would have thought it far more likely an English speaker would use the romanisation rather than the native script; beyond cut-and-paste, most English-language installations don't have the input method editors for Far Eastern scripts. Si Trew (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, I've added the section to this nom, and added {{R from episode}} to the redirect and left a comment per WP:RSECT at the target, as usual without prejudice to this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The nominator's stance of a non likely search term seems to be on target. Take a look at the view history for this redirect: [14], it really doesn't convince me that this redirect is helpful keeping in mind that this is an episode title, not a series title. Is there other data out there that shows a different picture? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as creator, as Si Trew pointed out, searching romanizations is more common in English-speaking anime fans than searching script. Romanizations are especially more popular for something which has no unique English equivalent. In this case (and similar for pretty much anything else based on previous works, like everything in this GFT anime) "The Marriage of Mrs. Fox" could easily lead someone to The Wedding of Mrs. Fox rather than the anime adaptation. Ranze (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Super Bowl 55[edit]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, there isn't information about this specific Super Bowl yet, so someone searching for this is going to end up disappointed. -- Tavix (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Creator is misguided: if the link to this page in the infobox at Super Bowl LIV links back to the general article, readers will be confused. It's better for it to be a dead end until there is actually notable info about this event. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. per WP:CRYSTAL and per reasons stated on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 February 8#Super Bowl redirects. Pages should only be created once verifiable and reliable information for future Super Bowls becomes available. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Once information is available, an article can be sustained. This really also does not meet WP:NOTE guidelines. RES2773 (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)RES2773
  • Delete - The article can be sustained once official reports are released. In other words, we do not know where that Super Bowl would take place.Yoshiman6464 (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nomination and previous comments. Safiel (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless we are currently living in 2021. Steel1943 (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2[edit]

Association of College Unions International[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. --BDD (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Barely mentioned at target article (1 sentence); should have own article; is not a student center or an association of student centers (it's an association of student union organizations – someone has confused "student union" with "student union building"); and the organization is principally notable as a sport governing body of various intramural competitions, including BCA collegiate/university pool championships, and college bowl trivia competition, among others. Restoring this to a redlink is liable to encourage article creation.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Procedural close, please, I've converted this to the article by splitting the paragraph out from Student center. The paragraph in there was rather an island since it was not mentioned in, and did not mention, anything in the surrounding text.
I noticed when creating the text to put the {{old rfd}} notice on that the talk page had been previously deleted – I assume the same for the article page. However I did not catch when it was deleted, nor have been able to find when this para was introduced into Student center (in case the two correlated). Si Trew (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's used on a large number of talk pages about indoor games, which suggests it's used in {{WikiProject Cue sports}} and perhaps others? Si Trew (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, was in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cue_sports/To-do as "(bad redir)". I've removed it there. Si Trew (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2016 (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.

Banana (film)[edit]

Delete. Non-existing film, unused and useless redirect, not mentioned in the article, nor in the IMDB filmography of the actor. Apparently there were some rumors about a film with this title starring Abraham back in 2013, but such a film was never produced. Cavarrone 22:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Disagree, I think such a redirect would fell under WP:RFD#D2. Statistics are at normal bot-only level actually ([15], [16]). There are other films with similar titles, eg. Bananas!*. Once the redirect would be deleted, Bananas (film) would be the fourth option in search results for "Banana (film)", just below other titles with similar names [17]. As long as Allen's film was never referred to as "Banana", I think it's virtually safer to let the reader who typed Banana (film) to overview the multiple titles which include Banana in the title or have similar names, instead of deciding what they were searching. Cavarrone 08:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

National action plans[edit]

A National Action Plan is a type of Government program, at least in Canada. You will not learn that at the target. Delete to encourage article creation? Legacypac (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The singular form was used in National Renewable Energy Action Plan, which makes it clear (in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE) that this term is used by the European Commission as well, and implies that it is not the EC's only type of National Action Plan. I've changed that to use the redlink National Action Plan, without prejudice to this discussion (it's simply misleading in that context). Si Trew (talk) 08:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Of these, only the last is listed at Nap (disambiguation), to which NAP redirects. I have proposed a split of that DAB (at Talk:Nap (disambiguation)#Proposed split to NAP), since "NAP" and "Nap" seem not to be used interchangeably. Si Trew (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
National Action Plan is used in List of energy abbreviations and Human trafficking in the Republic of Macedonia. Si Trew (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I boldly changed it in the list to National Renewable Energy Action Plan, since that seems obvious from the context. I suppose it could refer to energy policy in China, though. Si Trew (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate across the many National Action Plans listed here and others. Or section-redirect to nap (disambiguation), though that page will have to be expanded with some of the examples here. Rossami (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 20:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Convert to WP:SIA / disambiguate with items suggested above. I'm drafting an SIA beneath the redirect National action plan. Deryck C. 20:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Create a disambiguation page at National Action Plan, taking its content from what Deryck Chan's done, and Retarget both these redirects there; refer to it from the DAB at Nap (disambiguation) and remove duplicate entries from there. Si Trew (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. This section, after the relist, doesn't show up on my Android tablet. I wonder why that would be; I came here on my laptop as I thought I had left the above comment but couldn't see it. (I don't think any relist does.) Si Trew (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Logo1114677515.jpg[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 deleted by RHaworth per {{Db-redircom}}. Commons page now exposed. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Unused redirect from generic name that does not describe the target. LukeSurl t c 18:02, 2 February 2016 (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.

Sargın İnşaat ve Makine Sanayi Ticaret A.Ş.[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. 21:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Article was created in the last day or so, so no incoming links exist. Article was created under a Turkish name that simply is not a plausible English redirect. I moved the article to the simplified English name as given by the companies own English language website. Safiel (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2016 (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.

File:Logo238.54.jpg[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 deleted by RHaworth per {{Db-redircom}}. Commons page now exposed. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Unused redirect from generic name that does not describe the target. LukeSurl t c 17:45, 2 February 2016 (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.

File:Print.png[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 deleted by RHaworth per {{Db-redircom}}. Commons page now exposed. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Unused redirect from generic name that does not describe the target. LukeSurl t c 17:20, 2 February 2016 (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.

IGAS[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. This has been converted into an article on a French government agency. I'll hatnote IGas Energy. --BDD (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This is an extremely far-fetched acronym. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 17:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep , it's used several times in the article (although not in theWP:LEADSENTENCE); that's easily fixed but to do so now might prejudice the outcome here). Si Trew (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep in some form. It's a valid redirect, but my searches overwhelmingly bring up IGas Energy. I wouldn't be opposed to a retarget there, probably as an {{R from stock symbol}}. -- Tavix (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm happy with that, we can hatnote. IGas also redirects there, but not Igas. Si Trew (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to IGas Energy per above. It appears to me that the use of IGAS as shorthand for the game show is simply poor writing style and should be fixed; I'm not seeing evidence that the show was actually referred to by this shorthand. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
If you look at the referenced links etc., most of them use "igas", and it would seem highly probably that in some contexts it would be referred to that way (like ISIHAC, ITMA and so on: not just insider jargon). But, anyway, the text runs better simply by removing its use in most cases, and replacing it with "The show" in others: I've done so with this change. Si Trew (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2016 (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.

File:Image.x3.jpg[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 deleted by RHaworth per {{Db-redircom}}. Commons page now exposed. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Unused redirect from generic name that is not descriptive of the target. LukeSurl t c 17:16, 2 February 2016 (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.

File:Logo23.PNG[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 deleted by RHaworth per {{Db-redircom}}. Commons page now exposed. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

File has been moved to more descriptive name and all uses of this redirect have been replaced. Unused redirect from a generic name that does not describe the target. LukeSurl t c 13:28, 2 February 2016 (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.

File:Company Logo.PNG[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 deleted by RHaworth per {{Db-redircom}}. Commons page now exposed. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Unused redirect created after file move from a very generic name that is not specific to target. LukeSurl t c 10:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Well, sort of ... as long as it can meet the criteria listed in {{Db-redircom}}. Steel1943 (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2016 (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.

File:Logo-193.jpg[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 deleted by RHaworth per {{Db-redircom}}. Commons page now exposed. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Unused redirect from name that has no connection to target. LukeSurl t c 10:43, 2 February 2016 (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.

Mahummoud[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 deleted, see below. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't appear this spelling is ever used, for Muhammad or anyone else. Google had very few results, none about the prophet, and assumed I meant Mahmoud, and even Google Books gives zero results. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I've blocked the user for one day and deleted the redirects. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2016 (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.
  • Late comment the other 60-odd deleted redirects can be seen here. Some (e.g. Mehamed) are coincidentally in widespread real-world use (not sure if that one's an actual variant of Mohammed, or rather Mehmed, but on the whole it looks like the creator was just cycling through every possible M(?:e|a)h(?:a|e|o|u)m*(?:a|e|o|u)d. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 07:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Please also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Helmsman Tom Paris. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

February 1[edit]

Fight Club (book vs. film)[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) 15:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

redirect that serves no purpose but conflates two articles (book and film) Widefox; talk 23:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's part of the history of the target article. The history shows that there was a debate about a comparisons section that was eventually turned content moved ... well, I haven't been able to fully trace it yet. But wherever the content ended up, we shouldn't be making it even harder for future editors to unpuzzle it by deleting unharmful redirects and the history they contain. Rossami (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as misleading since it implies a comparison between the book and film, which we don't have. This is also a classic WP:XY situation and we can't retarget to both Fight Club (film) and Fight Club (novel). -- Tavix (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Yup, it is exactly XY. I wasn't even aware of WP:XY. We do have much rule-ness. Widefox; talk 22:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - this was a content split from Fight Club starting with this revision 7 Sep 2006, and was merged back in this revision, four days later. It was always comparing the film to the book and always belonged in the film article, if anywhere. It was eventually trimmed out but it lasted quite some time, I haven't found where it was actually finally removed. I don't think a history merge is possible. However, since none of the short-lived comparison article's content is currently being used anywhere, I think it's safe to delete in terms of attribution. The content was built in the film article (and that history survives) and there were only a handful of edits to the comparison article anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the WP:XY problem, as pointed out above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2016 (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.

Fuck in different languages[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) 15:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete as misleading, because of the implication that there is a translation list somewhere on the page, when there isn't, nor should there be per WP:NOTDIC. There is a few foreign-language words in the etymology, but they are to show the evolution of the word; they aren't necessarily 1:1 translations. -- Tavix (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep as redirect per old AfD decision. Rossami (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. The AfD showed no consensus for redirecting anyway; that was merely a unilateral action by the closer. Even if there were consensus, it's been 10 years, and Wikipedia:Consensus can change. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete wikipedia does not and should not provide the answer to that search string. Legacypac (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a translation service. Furthermore there is no list of same-meaning foreign-language epithets on the page, so readers searching for this will be disappointed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:NOT - WP:DICT or translation service. Widefox; talk 22:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per the opinions expressed above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2016 (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.

More equal[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) 14:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe this is likely to astonish. "More equal" is usually used in terms of equality (eg: after the Civil Rights Movement, blacks became more equal). I could see this vaguely referring to Primus inter pares, probably from a critical viewpoint. Thoughts? -- Tavix (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - it's just as likely as a reference to Animal Farm, I think, wherein the pigs espoused equality for all of the animals, but also proposed that they were more equal than the others. I think it's more of an allusion to benign dictatorship, but then again I'm not a literary critic. It's vague, I wouldn't be sad if this were made more deleted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
It's definitely a reference to Animal Farm, although it's only part of it. The full quote is: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Several non-vague variants of that quote redirect there, and I'm fine with all of them but this one. -- Tavix (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
That being said, I would have thought its current target is the most likely: but then, anyone knowing that derivation is more than equal to the task of searching for "Animal Farm", and anyone not knowing it can find out from a search, where currently Animal Farm sits as the fourth result (I don't know how much that is influenced by the redirect's presence). We don't have more-equal, fortunately. Si Trew (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
For weak search topics like this, a wikipedia redirect+mirrors heavily influences Google results. Legacypac (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I meant a Wikipedia Special:Search; I didn't make that clear. Si Trew (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2016 (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.

3pac[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) 14:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete, aside from name similarity, 3pac has nothing to do with Tupac Shakur. 3pac was the pseudonym of YouTube rapper Ryan James Harryman. Here's his Know Your Meme. He's notable in the meme world for his feud with Eminem and rapping about Ebola. He ended up dying from a Water Polo incident a few months back and made the news. [18] [19] I think an article can be written about him and I'm pretty sure that someone searching for "3pac" is looking for an article about Harryman and not about Tupac Shakur. Therefore, this should be redlinked to show that we have no information about 3pac. -- Tavix (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. Probably also BLP1E as people who were not notable in life are typically not notable for their deaths. YMMV. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 3 pac 2 pac 1 pac none.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2016 (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.

The Hubert Humphrey School of Public Affairs[edit]

  • And the other 22 found here [20] incorporated by reference.
    23 redirects to this target by Neelix in a row seems like way too many - kind of beating it to death while introducing erroneous versions of the name into the wild. I've not nominated the school's long form name (with and with out The). Legacypac (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment does the school use or once use these names, or does the public? -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • School goes by Humphrey School of Public Affairs (the article title, not part of the nom IP 70), or Humphrey School with a website of https://www.hhh.umn.edu/ Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Delete all those with "Policy" in the title. The school is not entitled with "Policy", and "policy" is only mentioned once in the article, in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE. No opinion (yet) on the others. Si Trew (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all. They are not obviously wrong or confusing to readers and there is no reason to bloat the database with unnecessary deletion transactions.
    Having said that, Si Trew, would you please elaborate on why you believe that the school is not entitled to include "policy"? Public Affairs and Public Policy are synonyms, are they not? Rossami (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
      • I did not say they were not entitled to include "policy"; I said that the school is not entitled with "Policy"; i.e. that "Policy" is not part of their title. So it is WP:RFD#D5 nonsense to call it something which it is not called. Si Trew (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Deletions are simple and don't bloat the database. Incorrect names spread over the internet from Wikipedia. They make the right information harder to find by presenting a confusing array of options, which is the opposite of what redirects are supposed ro do. Legacypac (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, Legacypac, but that is not true. Deletions do in fact add to the database. Granted, it's a small bloat (and considerably less than the debate we're having about it) but unless the redirect is harmful, they're unnecessary. Re: incorrect names - that is not a valid reason to delete a redirect. All redirects are "incorrect" by definition. If that were the right title for the page, that's where we'd put the main article. Furthermore, redirects are generally (though not always) suppressed by the websites that clone and/or scrape Wikipedia. And even the patently "wrong" redirects immediately take the reader to the "right" title. That is exactly what they're supposed to do. Rossami (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect names absolutely spread error on the internet. See [21] which took 2 seconds to spot on the Neelix list. See the discussion here [22] and especially comments by User:Sphilbrick about the lack of damage deletion does. Legacypac (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Tupac Shakur Tattoos[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) 14:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete as misleading, since the article doesn't mention anything about tattoos. -- Tavix (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless someone adds information about his tattoos to the article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete' as above (WP:RFD#D2 confusing). Si Trew (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Of course adding info about the tattoos in the article is okay --Lenticel (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2016 (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.

Young Women's Christian Association Women of Distinction Awards[edit]

As the article on YWCA says, they no longer use the old long name. They stopped long before the WOD awards were started in Canada. These redirects are just part of the Neelix redirect nonsense around Tara Teng (she was once nominated for the Vancouver version of the YWCA award). They are misleading and overkill. Legacypac (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete all, there should not be any links or redirects to the "Women of Disticntion" award. This is just Neelix COI spam. Softlavender (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep all. Directs people to where they should go (as far as I can tell), and are all R's to section discussing it (I've added the section links in the nom, above). If the root of this is the Women of Distinction redirect (to same place) then we should tackle that: but that's not under discussion here (not even by reference). Si Trew (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh there are a bunch more redirects by Neelix along these lines [[24]]. I just picked out the Young Women's Christian Association ones for the reasons above as the silliest ones. Legacypac (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Not all in that list are by Neelix. For example, Agnes Blizzard was created by yourself in December 2015, even though its only use is in the target. Si Trew (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Never said they were all by Neelix, but the YWCA WOD ones are all his. Blizzard founded YWCA Canada. Legacypac (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom "no longer use the old long name. They stopped long before the WOD awards were started in Canada." I don't see why we direct an award-name that seems like a non-obvious search-phrase to an award that has never existed. DMacks (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

NAPCHT[edit]

Part of Neelix's walled garden to promote anything Tara Teng got near. This abbreviation is not correct. National Action Plans are fairly common and get abbreviated as NAP-xxx Legacypac (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. NAP-CHT foes to the same target, and this is just {{R from incorrect punctuation}}. Si Trew (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. On the one hand, I can't think of anything else these initials could point to. On the other hand, even Acronym Finder doesn't have them listed. Nor does Google return any non-Wikipedia-based hits (well, except for the chat group about napping). That leads me to conclude that this and the hyphenated variant are neologisms. Rossami (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added NAP-CHT to this nom. My research confirms that Neelix appears to have made these up, and given that sex trafficking is a favorite advocacy topic of his and he has invented dozens of other sets of initials, it is quite likely these are made up to. I'm taking it out of the article as unsubstantiated. We should delete these as Wikipedia is not the place to coin new terms. Legacypac (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep the first as an obvious, unambiguous acronym. Weak delete the second, since hyphens aren't typically included in acronyms. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep NAPCHT and delete NAP-CHT as the former is a plausible search term CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Is there any evidence at all that this acronym is actually used? If not, no matter how plausible it is, it's a neologism. And even by the loose standards we follow for redirects, that's a step too far. Rossami (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I could only find one use in a parliamentary record of one of these being used, and that was not official. It sure appears Neelix invented these, like so many other new words and acronyms. Legacypac (talk) 08:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:UT[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 disambiguate. Deryck C. 15:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This redirect has been retargeted a few times in the past, because the pages it previously redirected to either no longer exist or are no linger relevant. I recently used this, assuming it would go to something regarding User Talk pages, but instead it goes to a WikiProject that has been inactive for several years. There are only a few incoming links so cleanup after retargeting would not be overly cumbersome. The main question is exactly where to point it now? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as not needed and a surprise. Legacypac (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to WP:TP or disambiguate if there are other potentially expected targets. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Utah - I was going to say keep per WP:IFITAINTBROKE but looking into this it seems it's more broken then it appears on the surface. I was wondering if this would make sense as a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Utah, and then discovered that project is currently using WP:UTA, which surprised me. We have UT = University of Texas at Austin, and UTA = Utah. It's backwards. The former target (see previous RfD) is no longer valid, it was merged into a different project several years ago. Therefore I think retargeting to the active WikiProject Utah is the correct action. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
(after ec) I also oppose creating a dab page for this. We don't normally do dabs in project space, and especially not for pseudospace shortcuts. If there are competing usages, the standard course of action is hatnotes. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Well that's a good point. I've retracted my opposition to dabbing; I don't support it per se but it would be fine. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2016 (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.

Super hard[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. (non-admin closure) sst(conjugate) 03:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Also include Super-hard and Superhard These seem super vague. Math is super hard and so are plenty of other things like climbing Everest. Neelix inventions. Declined at CSD so bringing for discussion. Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep - this is shorthand for material engineering nomenclature. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment. Is that true? I realise this is subjective, but I worked in materials science for several years and can't recall ever hearing of a material being called "a super hard" on it own (in the way we may call the cue ball in snooker just "the white" and not "the white ball"), or a superconducting material a "superconductor"). I'm inclined to think this is confusing, but my gsearch seems to suggest the term is more commonly used to describe an erection, and while WP:NOTCENSORED the term is not at that target and I feel a retarget there could be an unwanted WP:SURPRISE; but then, retargeting it to the current target is perhaps a surprise for those wanting information about erections . Si Trew (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • From the few university courses I did in materials engineering, "superhard" is certainly a descriptor for materials exceeding a certain hardness (the article defines it), and within the context of the course we did refer to them as "superhards" at times. That might be overly specific context, but I think probably safe. As for your Google search, internet results for things which may be pornographic terms are often very badly skewed toward the pornographic use rather than the real picture, so I would tend to discount that finding. Besides, in that context, "super hard" is entirely subjective. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. While "super hard" can sometimes be idiomatic for "very difficult", it is a term of art in materials science. No one needs a link to explain "very difficult" but a link to the materials page will be very helpful when that's the context. Rossami (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. Without prejudice I've marked them as {{R from adjective}}, and tagged and added the two others mentioned to the nom. Si Trew (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2016 (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.

Volkswagen T2[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 all. Deryck C. 14:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  1. Volkswagen T2a
  2. Volkswagen T2b
  3. Volkswagen Type 2 (T2a)
  4. Volkswagen Type 2 (T2b)
  5. Volkswagen T2 Microbus
  6. Volkswagen T2a Microbus
  7. Volkswagen T2b Microbus
  8. Volkswagen T2 Minibus
  9. Volkswagen T2a Minibus
  10. Volkswagen T2b Minibus
  11. Volkswagen T2 Kombi
  12. Volkswagen T2a Kombi
  13. Volkswagen T2b Kombi
  14. Volkswagen V2 Microbuses
  15. Volkswagen T2 Microbuses
  16. Volkswagen T2a Microbuses
  17. Volkswagen T2b Microbuses
  18. Volkswagen T2 Minibuses
  19. Volkswagen T2a Minibuses
  20. Volkswagen T2b Minibuses
  21. Volkswagen T2 Kombis
  22. Volkswagen T2a Kombis
  23. Volkswagen T2b Kombis

I'm not an expert on this van. Do these redirects all make sense? They all target the same subsection of the article. Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This may be the "exception that proves the rule". These vehicles were indeed known by a variety of names around the world. The plural ones are a bit silly, I could see zapping those, but the singular ones are pretty much accurate. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep everything from Volkswagen T2b Kombi and up as valid synonyms (per Beeblebrox), delete the rest as unnecessary pluralizations which pollute search results. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • See RFD#KEEP 7. Redirects for pluralization are not merely allowed but often encouraged. They do not "pollute" search results. Rossami (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
      • I think you mean WP:RFD#K6, keep 7 refers to something else. I'll give you that one, it is true that we used to recommend that plural redirects should be created. I disagree with that advice as I think it's counterproductive to have 23 slight modification redirects to one topic, but it's community advice nonetheless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
        • Yes, consensus can change; we also used to have advice for adding {{R from other capitalization}}s, and I think there's still advice for adding {{R to diacritics}} (which doesn't seem necessary any more, although I don't know what collation order WP uses for its search). I can see the point in adding redirects for plurals that don't form in the basic +s or +es way (e.g. Greek or Latin plurals) but, ad abserdem, it would mean having a redirect for every article title that is a common noun. Perhaps we should start a thread (at [[Talk:Redirect}}?) about deciding if this is still consensus. Not to delete existing ones, but not to encourage creation of new ones. Si Trew (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
          • Not a bad idea. Might be a good idea to have that discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) so that folks with more insight on the workings of the search engine can see it and weigh in. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
        • My error. I did mean #K6. Apparently I need to get my glasses checked. I don't think it's appropriate to change that advice, however. It has nothing to do with search and everything to do with capturing the links created by editors who don't know that you can link with word-fragments (like a trailing s) outside the brackets. Letting those links turn red frustrates new users and results in the creation of unnecessary duplicate articles. Rossami (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - These vehicles do have a large amount of confusingly different names. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2016 (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.

Fuckingly[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 deleted Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Previous RfDs for this redirect:

How do people feel about this batch of Neelix redirects? I'm good with trashing them as this is not the Urban Dictionary. Legacypac (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2016 (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.

Unlawful possession of ammunitions[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 both. In the latter part of the discussion, it has been shown that the double error of *ammunitionsmunitionsweapon is so much that it is not in the best interest of the reader to keep these redirects. Deryck C. 14:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

These were speedy deleted as part of the Neelix cleanup, but now restored at the request of an editor. Sending for full discussion at RfD They are grammatically incorrect to start with. Legacypac (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. As I pointed out in the request to which Legacypac refers, these are plausible misreadings of phrases like "Illegal possession of munitions", which is a recognized, contemporary criminal offense. (See, e.g., [2], [3], [4].) "Munitions" is a less common word than "ammunition", and the misuse is quite plausible. It's one thing to scour Neelix's hordes of synonyms for "hooters" from Wikipedia; it's quite another to indiscriminately remove anything he might have written without properly checking its appropriateness. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • keep both - no policy-compliant rationale for deletion has been presented. "They are grammatically incorrect to start with." is not a justification; many redirects are from typos, grammatical errors etc. and that is just fine. Redirects are cheap and are there to help readers find the information they are seeking. Plausible search terms. WP:RFD#HARMFUl describes our policy. Just Chilling (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep both as plausible search terms. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Ammunition is not equal to weapon. Legacypac (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and BDD. Besides all the technical errors, these are also factually incorrect, as ammunitions /= weapons. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per BDD's points. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, "ammunition" not being at the target.
Ammunition can be considered as a weapon in some jurisdictions, just as can, say, a projectile such as an egg: but then we don't have Illegal possession of an egg. Whether something is a weapon is often a question of criminal intent (e.g. is a knife a weapon?), and a question put to the jury; it's not the possession but the (intended) use that makes it a weapon (and we don't have Criminal use of an egg either).
I think the previous argument was largely about sending the more-general "possession" to the more-specific "criminal possession"; not about sending a more-specific weapon to a more-general one. It's better to split those two arguments out. Si Trew (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2016 (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.

Exoticisations[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 deleted Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

No way these words or made up words all refer to this target primarily. Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2016 (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.

Exotical[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 deleted Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense I think. Legacypac (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2016 (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.

The Apprentice 15[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 withdrawn by nominator, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Appears implausible, recently created: would be interested in opinions on this. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep, probably. It's supposedly also known as "The Apprentice 15", and that title is not ambiguous with any other show as far as I know. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The term is in the first sentence as Also known as. Correct? Don't know. Legacypac (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. I added this redirect due to the wording of the article's first sentence. Also, I watch this program regularly and have heard other viewers refer to the show as The Apprentice #. Lord Laitinen (talk) (requests) 22:29, 1 February 2016 (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.

Masterbates[edit]

These are all misspelled AND stupid. Legacypac (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Masturbational[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 deleted Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

These represent Neelix playing with words - not good search terms. Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2016 (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.

Wankstain[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 deleted Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay, honestly, these are getting rejected for speedy deletion? What the actual fuck? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I did not submit for speedy because even more stupid terms do get rejected at CSD and because there is still a post at the top of ANi slamming me about my supposed vendetta against Neelix so the community can look at this stuff and form a consensus. These show we are not done the cleanup yet cause his wank stains remain all over the project. Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Someone pull the trigger on these, please. What a waste of our time. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2016 (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.

Cut up[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 deleted Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

These look like nonsense, sending a common English phrase at a special technique most people have never heard of. Even Cut up is not meaningful in this context without the word technique, except within a discussion of the technique. Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2016 (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.

Fish bowling[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 deleted Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Makes no sense to me, Legacypac (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2016 (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.

Aquaristical[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 deleted Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Neelix word play Legacypac (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2016 (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.

Chokeholder[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 deleted Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

What is the purpose of these Neelix wordplay redirects? When rarely used they refer to figurative holding of something mobilized, like the government or a drug caertel, not the target. Legacypac (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2016 (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.

Christmas shops[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. An actual article on the idea of a Christmas shop would be an improvement, however. --BDD (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a store(s) that sells Christmas stuff. Better target? Legacypac (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as inaccurate and misleading. Softlavender (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Christmas market is closer. That article currently implies that all such markets are transient - a statement that I think is not true but will have to research before correcting. Either way, it's less bad than the "economics of" page. But even the "economics of" page is better than a redlink. Rossami (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I believe these were created as variations of "Christmas shopping" which also redirects there. I don't think the current target is "bad," you'd learn about Christmas shops there, though it's certainly not perfect. I think the status quo is better than Christmas market, since that article deals with a German tradition. -- Tavix (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Interesting history on Christmas shopping: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christmas_shopping&action=history Neelix targeted that page to Economics of Christmas too at I believe the same time, which gives me no confidence that it is a good precedent for these two. Legacypac (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2016 (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.

Ignacio Polanco[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. Thanks to Ivanvector for starting an article. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Soft redirect: "Soft redirects to non-English language editions of Wikipedia should be avoided because they will generally be unhelpful to English-language readers." Fram (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

FWIW I agree - foreign-language soft redirects are generally unhelpful. and possibly harmful assuming a reader of English Wikipedia reads only English. But roughly machine translating these is sometimes a better option, if they're notable topics. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2016 (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.

Socio-technically[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. There's weak consensus to do so, and no agreement on where the terms could best point. If they're reestablished, as redirects or dabs, it might be easier to have a "clean" discussion on them, without the Neelix context. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest a soft redirect to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sociotechnically Not sure how to do this. Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Social engineering (political science), where sociotechnician and socio-technician go. Although considering the listing below, perhaps they shouldn't, but instead to sociotechnical system (i.e. essentially switching the targets of these two redirects and the two below). Si Trew (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment on the other hand, sociotechnics and Socio-technics, and their singulars, all → Social engineering, a TWODABS with (political science) and (security) as entries. These were all created on 18 April 2013 by Neelix as redirects to sociotechnical system, and retargeted by the nominator at 05:30 on 23 January 2016 (today), a couple of hours after this was listed. Si Trew (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment these are all quite rare or coined compound words that mostly seem to have poorly defined meanings. When writers use them they are talking about the intersection between technology and society in some context and feel the need to roll out a fancy word. I got a whole bunch of the worst (like 8 google hits) deleted at CSD. Given the speed of creation and non-existence of some of the terms I'm sure he simply pulled them all from his butt with no research. Therefore please don't use the targets of some of these words to justify how others should be targeted - let's start from the assumption they are all wrong until proven correct. Legacypac (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would it make sense to discuss Sociotechnician and Socio-technician here also?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2016 (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.

Occasional[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. The general consensus is that there isn't a best target and we shouldn't create disambig / soft redirects for every real word. Deryck C. 14:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Occasional does not mean occasion except in one sense. Better target? Legacypac (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Notecardforfree, it was you who suggested retargeting away from there! Si Trew (talk) 06:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Ha! Wow! I can't believe I forgot about the earlier RfD ... it's only me, it's not my mind, that is confusing things. I've struck my vote and I'm going to change it to a weak keep (out respect for my own vote at the previous RfD), though I think that creating a DAB page could would also be a good idea. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
But is it? A redirect trumps search results, and I think those results are more useful. To get the search results one must summon up Special:Search, but none of the UI "search" elements does that, at least for me. Si Trew (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Si Trew, see this. Steel1943 (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware that {{Wiktionary redirect}} includes a WP link search, but that is one click farther than without the redirect at all. At some point we do have to just say "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", disappointing though it may be to some readers.
For naive readers who expect WP to be a dictionary, it is I guess more surprising that for some words WP has this "suggest Wiktionary" and for others it doesn't (i.e. "just" brings up search results). Those readers could well not be aware that the behaviour was coded for each individual word-form (i.e. as a soft redirect). What could be nice, maybe, is if it were automatic for WP to include wikt search results for exact matches, in the same style as {{wikt}}, at the top of the search results. (A bit like how some search engines do sponsored links – prominent but not in-yer-face). But that would need a change to the search front end, I guess: something for the village pump maybe. Si Trew (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
A fair question for VPP maybe. If we did decide that Wiktionary redirects are useful, it would likely be a simple thing to program a bot to create them for every word in the dictionary which doesn't have an article already. For an example, see this Twitter bot which tweeted every word in the English language over the course of seven years, or this one (possibly NSFW) which is tweeting one particular word in front of every other one. But would that be beneficial? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Si Trew. I think search results could be meaningful for readers here, and I think we're better off resorting to Wiktionary only when that's not the case. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2016 (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.

Disney collusion litigation[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. (non-admin closure) sst(conjugate) 06:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Google search reveals one headline that uses this in addition to this Wikipedia redirect. Not a logical search term and even if it was this would not be the logical target. Mrfrobinson (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the Twinkle failure but should every lawsuit that Disney is hit with have a redirect? Especially a lawsuit that was just filed. Google searches for "disney collusion" do not yield anything tangible. This is a redirect in lieu of an article based on a 24 hour news cycle. Wikipedia is not a news source and shouldn't be treated as one. Mrfrobinson (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with your sentiment, but the information on the lawsuit is in fact in the article, at the section targeted by this redirect. A redirect's purpose is to get readers to the information they're looking for. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Section redirect of a topic covered in reliable sources. Meets RPURPOSE, and redirects are cheap. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 21:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ivanvector and James. I've marked the target as {{R to section}}, and added the section to the nom above. Si Trew (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2016 (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.

WikiProject Med Foundation[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. (non-admin closure) sst(conjugate) 06:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Pollution of namespace, confusion with Wikiprojects. Not noteworthy enough to warrant even a redirect, and redirect article James Heilman does not even have a section on the Wikiproject, only some minor sentenced comments that are trivial at best. Aeonx (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete: In addition to the nom, likely to cause confusion to those not familiar with the Wikipedia: namespace. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Softlavender. This is an entity external to Wikipedia and is discussed at this target. It is unfortunately named in a way similar to a prominent on-wiki usage (for WikiProjects) but we can't control that, nor should we try to. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. It's not ambiguous because we don't have a WikiProject by that name: Wikipedia:WikiProject Med Foundation. -- Tavix (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I will also mention that in the article, "Wiki Project" is two words. I couldn't find it at first because I was searching for "WikiProject." Probably doesn't affect the redirect, but noting in case anyone has the same problem. -- Tavix (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2016 (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.

One horse[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 deleted Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I expected one horse town but there are plenty of things that are one horse. Legacypac (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as incorrect and misleading. There are many vehicles involving one horse. And also "one-horse town" and so on. Softlavender (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2016 (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.

Good ale[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 deleted Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

No one should search for Good ale (a quality drink) to get to a surname. Legacypac (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2016 (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.

Gabbling[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 deleted Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Neelix word play. These terms have quite distinct meanings. Legacypac (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2016 (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.

Middling[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 deleted Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Neelix word association game. Don't think this is a very good match. Any better choices? Legacypac (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as completely inaccurate and misleading. Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2016 (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.

China National Highway 228[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 accept draft. Renaming the existing article is a possible further step; I'll leave that outside the scope of this closure. Deryck C. 10:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:REDLINK there is no article on the current corresponding highway. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Stubbify otherwise someone will try moving China National Highway 228 (1981) to the primary, which just generates confusion. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - oh my, is it ever hard to find information on this! Wikipedia and its mirrors are certainly polluting the Google results here. Basically I can't find any information at all on China's 2013 highways plan, except what might be a source in Chinese but I don't read it and can't get Google to translate it. That said, even if we could stubbify it, none of the other proposed new routes in the plan (basically G228 and up) have articles, because there's no info about them. So I think it's best to leave this target as it is for now. WP:REDLINK doesn't apply if there's not an article possible on the topic, in my opinion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment I did a translation of zh:228国道 at Draft:China National Highway 228. It's not a great stub but there seem to be some more sources available if you search for that Chinese title in site:gov.cn, I'll keep expanding it over the course of this week. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep or reverse the redirect. Until an article is written on the subject, the 1981 Highway remains the primary topic on Wikipedia, even if it isn't the primary topic in real life. Deleting this redirect would only make it harder to find the 1981 highway. --Tavix (talk · contribs) 16:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Move the draft over the redirect—and much thanks for that, IP. And while not exactly related to this discussion, I'd say move the current target article to China National Highway 228 (Taiwan), which is a more WP:RECOGNIZABLE disambiguator. "1981" is oblique. I assume it's the year it was proposed, but that's not included in the article now. Looking over Highway system in Taiwan, the actual Taiwan wouldn't have a highway 228 anyway, and we can always hatnote there. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2016 (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.

Svenska[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 Swedish. (non-admin closure) sst(conjugate) 06:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Improper redirect target. The word svenska can refer to the language or to a female Swedish person, and it can also be used as an adjective. Retarget to Swedish. Stefan2 (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

:warning: retargeting this will require a lot of changes to articles that have etymology, probably. Si Trew (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there was only one use in mainspace, in the infobox at Active Worlds; I've changed that to WP:USEENGLISH here (and for Hungarian, Italian and Spanish; the other languages were already in English). Si Trew (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2016 (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.

January 30[edit]

Now i am become death, destroyer of worlds[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 7#Now i am become death, destroyer of worlds

Miss Sunshine[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 move Miss Sunshine (song) over redirect. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I expected this redirect to point at Little Miss Sunshine the children's book main character in (Mr. Men) not the unrelated Movie Little Miss Sunshine, but I also found at least one song [25] by R.I.O. called Miss Sunshine that was the cover track of one of their albums and charted in every German speaking country in Europe according to our article. Therefore this is an XY partial title match for two things and an exact title match to at least one song, and is therefore not helpful. Legacypac (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2016 (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.

Henry Ryecroft, The Private Papers of[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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Appears to be a directory-like search term that is unlikely to be typed. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. I figured I'd find a goodly number of results for this, but Google gets just seventeen, and most of them are false positives such as Les Carnets d'Henry Ryecroft (The Private Papers of Henry Ryecroft. Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, this isn't even a proper {{R from sort name}}, because sorting occurs by surname, not by forename. If anything, it'd have to start with "Ryecroft." -- Tavix (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete if no one is using this incorrect phrase on the internet it is no a plausable error redirect. Legacypac (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2016 (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.

Tea tea[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 deleted G7 at the request of the creator. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused about the purpose of this redirect. "Tea tea" isn't mentioned in the article, and it's tagged as a page from an alternative language, even though "tea" is an English word. My searches for "tea tea" shows nothing to do with Masala chai, so this is WP:R#D5, nonsense. -- Tavix (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. "Teas'Tea" is a brand, "Tea tea" is nonsense.Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh, a learning moment! This is what I've heard called "contrastive reduplication", though you'll find it here at Contrastive focus reduplication. Used this way, you could logically talk of "tea tea" to contrast it with something that's called tea that doesn't derive from Camellia sinensis, such as herbal tea or rooibos. I think you certainly could make something like masala chai without proper tea leaves, but that's not the usual way you'd do it. If I had to guess, this was created as a snarky variant of the common phrase "chai tea", since "chai" itself simply means "tea". (As a side note, I also love the term "reduplication", because it seems like a linguistic joke. Duplicating something creates two—shouldn't reduplicating create three or four, depending on whether you duplicate the full product or just the original output?) All that said, I don't think this is a useful search term. --BDD (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep I created this redirect because I have seen the redirect target being described as "tea tea"; people may get confused, so it is a good idea to point them back to what it referred to. sst✈ (speak now) 06:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I have also heard it used to mean Tea (drink) instead of Tea (meal) as a reduplication (yes, nice linguistic joke!). I think it's WP:XY, then. Si Trew (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
High tea is a meal. We drink tea there too. Legacypac (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2016 (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.

Christsakes[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 "Christsakes"; retarget Christ's sake to Christ's Sake. Deryck C. 22:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Not helpful to the reader. Legacypac (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2016 (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.

By goners[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 deleted --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This looks like Neelix nonsense. Any better ideas or just delete them all? Neelix work so they can be G6 by any Admin.Legacypac (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2016 (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.

Dearling[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 8#Dearling

Kitchen tea[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 both. Deryck C. 22:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems excessively vague and is not mentioned at target. Legacypac (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as incorrect, inaccurate, and misleading. Softlavender (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2016 (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.

Mother Teresa the Saint[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 refine to Mother Teresa#Sainthood. Deryck C. 22:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

She is not a Saint (yet) and even if she was, this redirect will not assist the reader in finding the target. We don't add "the Saint" to other saints. Neelix invention Legacypac (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep she was described as a living saint when she was alive, so seems viable -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Were she a saint she would be called Saint somebody (presumable Saint Teresa of somewhere), not this. A Gsearch reveals no use of this phrase (without any intervening punctuation). She's already in the "See Also" at the DAB page Saint Teresa. Si Trew (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - If she were already canonized, this would be unambiguous (because "Mother" is present), not harmful, and not incorrect, so I would be at a "Weak Keep". It has been announced she will be sainted, it is notable and almost certain to take place, so this isn't a WP:NOTCRYSTAL violation. Though information is given in the lead, Refine to Mother Teresa#Sainthood would be appropriate, as not to give the impression the subject is currently a saint.Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • What Godsy said. Which means keep though not as is, by the way. Rossami (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - the church has already declared she will be canonized, they just haven't set a date. That makes the fact of her sainthood essentially current. I imagine she will likely be known as Saint Theresa of Calcutta (or similar) rather than this title, but this is unambiguous and close enough. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2016 (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.

Paltry[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 all. The consensus is that "paltry" means "trivial", which is not synonymous to "trivia". Deryck C. 22:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

These are related terms but not the same. They are related to trivial, not trivia. Legacypac (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2016 (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.

The fiftieth day[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 8#The fiftieth day

Gentleman-farmers[edit]

No help for the searcher at the target. Last three of these constructions are wrong too. Delete this Neelix nonsense? Legacypac (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I endorse redirection of Gentleman farmers but think we should delete the error ones. Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
There's no error in any of the four. Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Gentelmanfarmers is not a word. Si Trew (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

White-man[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. I apologize for the irregularity here; this had also been added to the nomination at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 29#White-guy, where there was consensus to delete. But there's consensus to keep here. Make of that what you will, but I'm re-closing this one as keep, with no prejudice against speedy renomination given the mix-up. But as often, think twice before renominating. --BDD (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This one got lost on the RfD page. More Neelix nonsense shoving English words together with dashes Legacypac (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2016 (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.

Salut!-mobile[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. JohnCD (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Another Aldi brand (see discussion for Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_29#Willow Woods which is not mentioned at the target; WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Si Trew (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. possibly speedy delete as promotional G11 . DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as not at target so confusing. Better to give the reader nothing and let them search Google. Legacypac (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2016 (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.

Unsinkable[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. JohnCD (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This used to be directed at RMS Titanic, which was rather famously described as such (of course, before it sank); it was later blanked by User:EEng as "absurd" and redirected to the current target by User:Malcolmxl5. I think that redirecting from a phrase commonly used (however incorrectly) about ships to a relatively obscure military concept about islands is rather confusing, and is very likely not what the very small amount of people viewing it are looking for. As its only incoming link is an old DYK nom, I think it can be safely deleted. ansh666 04:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You sure won't hear any complaint from me. EEng 05:00, 30 January 2016 (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.

Reductively[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 6#Reductively

Pre-figurative[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 all. JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

None of these terms mean what the target DAB is pointing to, even though they are different forms of the same root word. Legacypac (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete all per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. None is linked within EN:WP. Si Trew (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2016 (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.

Prefigurational[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. JohnCD (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Very rare word dreamed up by Neelix (top google result is a dictionary that does not define it). Makes a poor redirect to a two item DAB that does not define it. Legacypac (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak delete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense (I've marked as {{R from adjective}}). No internal links, but if it is to go anywhere, the DAB seems a reasonable target. Si Trew (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually Wiktionary doesn't have this formation, so I'm strengthening my delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. Si Trew (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2016 (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.