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. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect.

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 can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's 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]

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 "" 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.

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:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply in some cases.)
  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 criterion R3, 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.

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. or the pageviews tool can also provide evidence of outside utility.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.
  7. The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and deleting the redirect would prevent unregistered users from expanding the redirect, and thereby make the encyclopedia harder to edit and reduce the pool of available editors. (Unregistered 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]

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]

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 you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the rfd tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination
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|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.
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]

June 28[edit]

Template:Riley family tree[edit]

Cross-namespace redirect, unlikely that anyone will type this in. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment this used to be a family tree that was transcluded into the article [1] , but has since been taken apart. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 15:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


Delete per WP:FORRED as I have found no strong affinity between this Polish (previously German) city and Sicillian, Latvian or Latin respectively. There is a notable and sizeable Polish community in Latvia, particularly south eastern Latvia near the border with Belarus, which would argue towards the inclusion of Polish language redirects to Latvian topics, but not vice versa. Poland is not mentioned at Latvian diaspora, where Latvians in Poland redirects. I've not been able to find any connection with Sicilian at all. Thryduulf (talk)

  • Keep Gedanum. I just created another redirect at the adjectival form Gedanensis. Latin is a special case. It was used as a learned language throughout Europe and likely to be used in monumental inscriptions, in archival sources, and in the titles or publication details of many older publications (e.g. this search). --Hegvald (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 15:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep the Latin one per Hegvald. The other two look, at least at first sight, deletable. – Uanfala 09:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


No clear connection to target Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Akos Agardy[edit]

per WP:XY; multiple potential targets; previous precedent set for deleting these types of redirects Joeykai (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Akil Adams[edit]

per WP:XY; multiple potential targets; previous precedent set for deleting these types of redirects Joeykai (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


Shouldn't this point to Template:PrefixIndex instead? (Note: this currently has no transclusions.) feminist 01:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Dried citrus peel[edit]

I think this redirect can be misleading. Many dishes utilize dried citrus peel and Zest (ingredient) can also be dry. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me) 00:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

June 27[edit]

Bae Yong[edit]

In my understanding, it doesn't make any sense to split the hyphenated portion of a Korean name, leaving these redirects as making no sense. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Big Walnut Middle Dchool[edit]

Propose deletion. Clear typo, not a plausible misspelling. Shows up in suggested search results for 'Big Walnut.' Ejg930 (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


"DIRECT-MS" is not mentioned at Swank diet. Deli nk (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Best Bet Diet (multiple sclerosis)[edit]

The subject of "best bet diet" is not mentioned at the target article, Management of multiple sclerosis. Deli nk (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


Delete Per WP:RCAPS. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment this seems to attract about 9-20 views a month. Is that enough to keep around? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - There is no need for this. Without this redirect, the user will still find what they were looking for. - Richard Cavell (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - We have precedent for getting rid of these sorts of redirects. Even if this is a little bit helpful, I still think that we should get rid of it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per nominator - 20 hits a year is reason enough to keep a redirect that is pointing to the correct target, this redirect gets five times that figure. Thryduulf (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 16:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete onsite or Google search deals with this better. ALL CAPS just makes it harder for the reader to find the page. Legacypac (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


Delete per WP:RCAPS. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment this had a small surge of views (90-100 in a month) in April and May 2017. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - There is no such thing as GEOCITIES. Keep the Geocities redirect and delete this one. - Richard Cavell (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per [2] it was stylised in all capitals at the end of its life; one of the main geocities archivers is exclusively stylised in all caps, together meaning there is a clear connection between the subject and the capitalisation thus meeting WP:RCAPS. Additionally, the redirect received over 200 views between January and May this year meaning that people clearly find it useful - WP:RFD#K5. Thryduulf (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Thryduulf above. When a topic is (or was) frequently referred to in all caps, WP:RCAPS does not require, or even sugest, that a redirect from such a form be deleted. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 16:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hamilton Wyoming High School[edit]

I haven't found evidence that Wyoming High School in Ohio has ever used "Hamilton" in its school name. -- Tavix (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Chinese mars exploration program[edit]

Capitalization error on Mars, and the correctly-spelled redirect Chinese Mars exploration program points to a different article: confusing when searching. — JFG talk 17:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding Chinese Mars exploration program to nomination as that redirect's fate is being discussed as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 13:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget "Mars" and Delete "mars" – Agree that Chinese space program#Mission to Mars and beyond would be a better target for the generic descriptive title "Chinese Mars exploration program". Then, I don't see the point of keeping an equivalent redirect with only "mars" spelled lowercase, so delete that one. — JFG talk 16:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

SpaceX reusable orbital taxi[edit]

No mainstream use of this term to designate the SpaceX Dragon capsule. Term is no longer mentioned in target article (apparently it was in 2014 when this redirect was created). Misleading for readers who search for "SpaceX reusable…" — JFG talk 12:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - the word "taxi" is problematic here. It's not up to us to legitimize the word being used in this way. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- agree. This term has not come into widespread use, even though it was in the article cited in the section this redierct pointed at when the redirect was created. I was the original creator of the redirect. Think it is no longer useful. N2e (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Jimmy Nalls[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

Lists of reptiles of the Dominican Republic[edit]

Points to a completely different geographic location - obvious error. PRehse (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. This was obviously created in error by somebody who confused the two countries. As such, surely it meets {{db-error}}? — Smjg (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Pinging RHaworth in case he wants to respond. -- Tavix (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


Too unlikely Carl Fredrik talk 11:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


Propose retarget to Commercial software -- (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nomination as Business software is not an antonym of freeware. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - vague. Non-freeware is a large galaxy of things that are not commercial software. What about shareware, adware, FOSS, postcardware, .... Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment should this go to Freeware as an {{R from antonym}}, as with unfriend? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to freeware - I agree with AngusWOOF. No other target is a definition of "non-freeware", so let's give them what freeware is. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Regarget to Commercial software. If a person is searching for "non-freeware", I think it's more likely they are actually wanting to read about commercial software. That coupled with the fact that non-freeware very closely matches the idea of Commercial software convinces me. I see nominator had already retargeted. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 19:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with either a retarget to Freeware per Angus or deletion per Ivanvector. Shareware is a good example of non-freeware that's not (necessarily) commercial. -- Tavix (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I also think that going to 'Freeware' makes sense as that article goes into detail about what does and doesn't qualify. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retargeting to Freeware seems to have received the most traction so far, but there seems to be room for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 11:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete – Useless and not well-specified in the industry. Readers can use "freeware", "shareware", "free software", "business software", etc. Why should we have "Non-X" for every "X" when the "Non-X" term is not widely used in WP:RS? — JFG talk 13:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hater Shit[edit]

This name isn't explained in the targeted page, and so seems needlessly offensive. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete The term hater is very common in rap music, so this redirect seems vague and useless. It could also be meant or seen to be an offensive reference to the group or their music. lNeverCry 03:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It appears that 'Hater Shit' is a name of a track on the Purple Reign mixtape (contrary to the nominator's claim, this is mentioned in the target article). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
    It's listed as the name of 6th track so it seems quite clear that this was intended to be offensive.-- (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
    Inside the Mattress (4th track) and Perkys Calling (11th track) also redirect to this article, while 'All Right' (1st track) is mentioned at Alright (disambiguation). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Hater Shit" is a song on the album Purple Reign. It's perfectly reasonable to redirect a song title to the article about the album on which it appears. Peacock (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

June 26[edit]

Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism[edit]

Obvious joke. KMF (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep it was obvioudly not a joke, it was the actual original title of the article and the concept is thoroughly discussed there. Nominator presents no other case to answer. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Enigmamsg 03:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - It is true that squirrels can disrupt a power grid or computer network. But they are not sponsoring terrorism. The term is obviously humorous, but it's not up to us to create and propagate it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete the word "sponsored" is what is inaccurate. Squirrels don't sponsor any such activities, nor are deployed to do as such. Original article was created on June 6. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Owen Vaccaro[edit]

Redirect was blanked by Albertod4 with the rationale "Owen Vaccaro should not redirect to Daddy's Home. He's been in other films (e.g., Mother's Day)". Since the blanking was obviously improper, I'm taking it here for them. Unless I comment otherwise, I'm neutral. -- Tavix (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete actor is not strongly tied to this film. Should Owen meet notability later, an article can be created. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per AngusWOOF, non-notable actor who has now appeared in more than one film. Sro23 (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Compulsive Wikipedia Editing Syndrome[edit]

Delete, seems to be WP:MADEUP in order to make the user template {{User CWES}}. I'd like to see all links removed rather than piped to Obsessive–compulsive disorder as I don't think it's appropriate to connect a made-up "syndrome" with a serious mental disorder. -- Tavix (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Lego online game[edit]

Delete, could point to various thing, withunder Lego Minifigures Online, not useful this way. Lordtobi () 14:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Disambiguation pages - can you find any valid targets other than Lego Universe and Lego Minifigures Online? Of the top 6 you've listed, only one needs to be kept, since Wikipedia will handle the alternative capitalizations automatically. For the seventh one, I suggest moving to Lego MMOG. For the last one, Lego Worlds also seems like a valid target, and I'm not familiar enough with the games to comment on whether some of the action-adventure games would be too. = Richard Cavell (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep some for Dabify I see a Legends of Chima as a former MMO as well. Suggest dabify / set index. I would Keep Lego mmo (this is what would show up in main typing), Lego MMO, LEGO MMO, and Lego online game. Remove the other ones as distracting, especially on the Wikipedia app. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 07:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of Lego video games. There's no need to create and maintain a separate disambiguation page when you've already got a list that contains all the information necessary. -- Tavix (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 18:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Human disturbance[edit]

Vague, humans can disturb other things besides Earth's environment. -- Tavix (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. But give us other WP articles that discuss those possibilities. Unless there aren't any, I would assume that whatever links here is also expected to silently imply ...environment. -- Kku (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Superficial survey shows that most articles containing the lemma refer to the current meaning. I could also envision a redirect to disturbance (ecology) -- Kku (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't think that the term "human disturbance" is specific enough to this target. I'm not sure what is meant by someone typing this into a search box. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Anthropogenic effect[edit]

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 16#Anthropogenic behaviours. I would imagine if "behavio(u)r(s)" and "activity(ies)" are too vague, then "effect(s)" would also be. I do want to stress that the last discussion had a few "because Neelix" !votes, but Anthropogenic effects is NOT a Neelix redirect (although he did edit it). -- Tavix (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete both - because of what I said last time - these terms are grammatically incorrect. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Young Vitruvius[edit]

Delete as WP:GAMEGUIDE, or else it could easily link to The Lego Movie, or a respective character list, if there is. Lordtobi () 20:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Lego indy 2[edit]

Delete, unlikely search term. Lordtobi () 20:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep helpful shortcut for the game or media title. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 07:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

LGBT liberal politics[edit]

The redirect does not make sense and there does not seem to be an appropriate target available. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Irish tea shop[edit]

Perhaps at least some people using this redirect may be disappointed when they are redirected to a political article instead of one about tea? What's the likelihood of this being a real spelling error? AmaryllisGardener talk 00:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment It needs a better connection than someone commenting in a tweet. [3] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Not sure whether Fry's satirical joke has encyclopedic value, but WP:BLP should be enforced. Must be cautious about redirecting the page to either Stephen Fry or Leo Varadkar. If neither is a suitable target, not sure about tea house#Europe, which doesn't mention Ireland. If that won't work, then delete without prejudice to re-creation to another target w/o retargeting to the same page. George Ho (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - here's evidence of journalists reporting on Stephen Fry's quip: Daily Edge and Evoke. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • If something like this is to be covered on Wikipedia, Fine Gael leadership election, 2017 may be an appropriate location. feminist 02:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


Delete. Terms do not appear in target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak keep seems to be an affiliated developer for the series. [4] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Developer actually made at least three of these games according to MobyGames. Per Angus' link, another unrelated game was in development hell before getting canceled. Perhaps delete to encourage article creation? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I'm not 100% convinced that this company is notable, though I wouldn't be opposed to keeping this redirect if info about the company was added to the target article. FYI, Taldren, Inc. is a redirect that sends readers to the same article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete under G7. xplicit 07:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Average Call Hold Time[edit]

While this phrase is certainly used in calculating the amount of switching capability in a phone system, I think it's more often used to measure how long a customer must wait on hold before talking to a rep. I think a retarget is in order. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as misleading. The phrase, in plain English, means the amount of time a caller must hold on average. It does not need an explanation and is an unlikely search term. Legacypac (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - I also don't think that it's a likely search term. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Call_centre#Evaluation as the term Average Hold Time or Average Handling Time is discussed there as well as Erlang. The Erlang article itself is a bit too technical and talks more about loading of networks rather than the time it takes to wait on hold. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

June 25[edit]


Propose retarget to Evil. (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom since that has a separate article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

April 9, 2011[edit]

Retarget to Portal:Current events/2011 April 9 per Tavix's reasoning at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 13#October 10, 2010. Delete if redirects to portal pages from the article namespace is redundant. Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget as nominated. There is nothing wrong with going from article to portal, as both areas are intended for readers. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


Delete. Iknowitwouldbereallygreatnevertohavetousethespacebarortheshiftkeybutithinkitisgoingabitfartocreateredirectsonthatbasis. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - #deltaairlines (with capitalized variations) is a Twitter hashtag that is getting some usage, partly in relation to a dog bite on a Delta plane 4 days ago. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP and Richardcavell. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • ok, I've editied it to make clear it is the hashtag. But I would comment that we normally only {{R from hashtag}} when the tag appears in the target article (it does not in this case). Every possible hashtag would undoubtedly be WP:COSTLY. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Every possible hashtag indeed would be costly, but we are not discussing every possible hashtag we're discussing this specific one. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 09:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - I'm wary about this, but I feel like redirects from hashtags do indeed make sense when they're used explicitly by reliable news sources, which appears to be the case here as stated above. One example by Arab News is here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete no one needs a this redirect to find the airline. It sets a bad precedent. Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Atlantic tropical cyclone naming lists[edit]

Is it better to keep the current target, or target to List of retired Atlantic hurricane names? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep - Tropical cyclone naming provides the list of names currently being used in the Atlantic, while the List of retired Atlantic hurricane names is names that have been used in the Atlantic but were removed for being too deadly/destructive/other reasons.Jason Rees (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep The current target is much more pertinent to the redirected titles. The list of retired names is by no means at all a complete overview of Atlantic tropical cyclone names.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as it pertains to both North Atlantic, South Atlantic, and current ones. AngusWOOF (barksniff)

18:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep groig (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

What links here[edit]

What links here Rarely visited cross-namespace redirect. groig (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

June 24[edit]

Fancy Pants (Lady Gaga song)[edit]

Not mentioned in the article or in List of songs recorded by Lady Gaga. Peter James (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - A bit of search appears to state that this is an officially unreleased song done as a kind of collaboration, and no widespread publication is planned at this time. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Revolution (Beyoncé album)[edit]

This was a redirected article about an unofficial album that is not mentioned here or in the Beyoncé discography. Peter James (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

That One[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

CSS filter[edit]

Delete. Inaccurate redirect. Although "CSS filter" is a term for the techniques described at CSS hack, CSS filter now is more likely to refer to this: User:GKFXtalk 20:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. The page was at this title for more than a decade, and the term is used to describe these techniques. Until there's information about the other usage of the term, I don't see a problem with the redirect at this time. If the other usage becomes more significant, consider hatnotes and/or a disambiguation page. -- Tavix (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 11:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Principality and Diocese of Monaco[edit]

where should these point? Monaco - the article on the principality (country) or Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Monaco - the article on the (arch)diocese (where Diocese of Monaco redirects)? "Principality and Diocese of Monaco" is the title of the article in the Catholic Encyclopaedia, and both got an above noise level of hits last year (13 and 49 respectively) so I don't favour deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a title in the Catholic Encyclopedia, so that's why it's there. I think it should stay and keep pointing to Monaco. JASpencer (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The Catholic encyclopaedia article covers both the political and ecumenical areas in one article, Wikipedia covers them separately (see also WP:XY). Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XY since Wikipedia treats these separately. They could equally refer to the Principality of Monaco (the country) or the Diocese of Monaco. -- Tavix (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, if I'm correct in assuming that the diocese is coterminous with the country. If that's the case, I could just imagine a reader thinking this was the country's name and thinking it might need some sort of disambiguation. XY deletion would be my second choice; I don't see benefit in retargeting to the diocese. --BDD (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 14:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • SIA (1st choice) or keep (2nd choice). So far the discussion has shown that this is a reasonable and unambiguous search term, used primarily by Catholic sources, to give a title to the place Monaco. This is more like a case of Dave Carter and Tracy Grammer than illness and death. The fact that Wikipedia doesn't cover these topics with a different article structure means that we should point readers to the right place by having either a set index or a redirect. I've drafted an SIA under the RfD template for consideration. Deryck C. 09:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss the full range of options that have so far been put on the table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 09:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete both only used in that Catholic Encyclopedia, which would favor Diocese of Monaco. Not a common term used in other books on the subject. It doesn't seem to be a formal title, but if it is then redirect to Diocese of Monaco. The second term would open up a can of worms with search terms like "America, United States of". Alternatively, you could do something like Diocese of California, although that SIA two different possible dioceses and also links to California. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete both - Although, I'd be alright with the first staying and going over to 'Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Monaco' instead. The latter sets up a bad precedent as stated above. Pretty sure that it should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


Delete: "Inchoate" is a perfectly good adjective for anything, meaning "embryonic, in the early stages of being formed." Its secondary usage in legalese should not be made dominant. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep as it already has a "redirects here" kind of hatnote. Add dictionary infobox. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - We have other matches besides 'Inchoate offense' that use extremely similar wording, including 'inchoate lien' and 'inchoative verb'. Deletion seems like the right call. I've seen direct matches in terms of songs and albums, though, but then none of them appear to have Wikipedia pages. That might warrant more searching. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
At least three musical artists seem to have this specific name, but I'm not seeing any of them rise to a particularly significant level of notability. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:PTM, not a likely way of referring to an inchoate offense on its own. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

June 23[edit]

List of Velamas[edit]

List of Velamas was a largely unreferenced list that was redirected to Velama in January 2015 by Sitush "where there is a very short section for notables." However, even that short section was removed a few months back for failing WP:V. If we're going to have redirects of this nature, there needs to be a list of notable Velamas somewhere, otherwise these redirects are misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

You cannot file a tax return without giving up your Fifth Amendment rights[edit]

Delete. Very long prose redirect that is a very unlikely search term. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Lego universe factions[edit]

Delete, unlikely that this will be searched for. Lordtobi () 14:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


Delete, unnotable entity name, could point to a lot of things (also, the section redirect is broken). Lordtobi () 14:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Lego video game[edit]

Delete, we do not need mass amounts of these kinds of redirects. Lordtobi () 14:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep: I don't think there's any good reason for deleting all of these redirect pages. Deleting these pages would contribute to the problem of link rot, and it would otherwise serve no useful purpose. Jarble (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Video games (Lego) and Lego video game. I express no opinion about the others. Could an admin please fix the capitalization of the redirects, please? - Richard Cavell (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
    @Richardcavell: The first item you want to keep does not seems to exist (You spelled out "Video games (Lego)", rather than "Video Games (LEGO)"), do you think the redirect with this capitalization is useful and should be kept? Lordtobi () 19:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
    There is no need to capitalize the 'g' in "games", and although Lego is widely used in capitalized form, by the company itself and others, it is properly written as Lego. So I say fix the capitalization. - Richard Cavell (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
    Said redirect only had 22 views, ever. You are considering a move without leaving a redirect, right? But do you think it is worth it for this certain redirect? Lordtobi () 20:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget the Bionicle ones to List_of_Bionicle_media#Games as some of the titles are not necessarily related to Lego. Keep Lego video games, delete the rest as vague and redundant. There isn't a separation between "computer and video games" from "video games" AngusWOOF (barksniff) 06:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Conservative – LIberal Democrat coalition[edit]

Per WP:RTYPOS, the capital I in "Liberal" renders both as implausible. --Nevéselbert 16:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I have to disagree with the nominator here. Holding down the Shift key for a keystroke too many is not an uncommon mistake, and does not seem to be covered by the essay the nominator points to. I'd say delete based on how unlikely I, at first blush, find these search terms to be, but if they're in fairly common use - which the stats seem to suggest as they have upwards of a dozen hits in the last day or so - then keep both. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 12:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If in the search bar you hold down the shift key and there is no redirect, you still get to the target. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Dr .Martens[edit]

Delete Mis-spaced period makes this a very unlikely redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Dr Martens also exists so it's covered pretty well. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, transposing keystrokes happens to the best of us from time to time. It's also just one typo. I think both are covered under WP:RTYPO. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 12:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - this title has no more affinity for the error than any other individual "Dr. X" making it costly. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - I fail to see who could ever search for "Dr .Martens", Pointless redirect IMHO. –Davey2010Talk 19:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Saraiki history[edit]

Vague term that could easily refer to several topics, neither of which is currently covered on wikipeda: the history of the language/dialect (current target), the history of the region (Saraikistan), the history of either the loose ethno-linguistic grouping that is nowadays the primary topic for the term Saraiki people, or the group of mainly Baloch tribes that were historically the primary bearers of that name. – Uanfala 10:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Pings to users who've edited the redirect: Narutolovehinata5, Irfan sanwal saraiki. – Uanfala 10:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had forgotten to tag the redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 13:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Saraiki people. Even though Saraiki has more options as a dab page, they seem to refer to the same group of people. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Teddy Natalia Noemi Sinclair discography[edit]

Created by someone who seems clueless with titles here, anyway we already have Teddy Sinclair and the BLP doesn't go by her middle names either so this redirect is pointless, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Teddy Natalia Noemi Sinclair[edit]

Created by someone who seems clueless with titles here, anyway we already have Teddy Sinclair and the BLP doesn't go by her middle names either so this redirect is pointless, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Mixing of stage and real name in non-notable combination. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

June 22[edit]

Rockstar Films[edit]

Delete, unnotable trademark registration. There are also trademarks for "Rockstar East", "Rockstar South", "Rockstar West" in parallel to the actually-existing Rockstar North, but we don'T have redirects for these either. Lordtobi () 19:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. 206 views last year, linked from The Football Factory (film). They've released at least five films and they seem to be primarily referred to as "Rockstar" rather than "Rockstar Games", so "Rockstar Films" seems completely plausible to me. Thryduulf (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - there are at least three different "Rockstar Films" channels on YouTube, all of seem like amateur operations, independent of Rockstar Games. lists professional productions by Rockscar Films and Rockstarz Films. I'm not sure whether Rockstar Games has ever published under the trademark "Rockstar Films", but people will search for it, and if they do, the relevant information that we have for them is at Rockstar Games.. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
    But, if people are searching for the specific channels on YouTube or any of those from IMDb, why would you think they are looking for Rockstar Games? Also, to answer your question, Rockstar has not released any films under that label (they have, though, released films as simply "Rockstar Games"). P.S.: I have updated your YouTube link to list only channels that quote this name. Lordtobi () 21:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep primary topic, plus it was a registered as a trademark in 2010. [5] There it says and were claimed, and those websites still redirect to Rockstar Games. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Spherical Worlds[edit]

List entry where no further information exists apart from publisher, year, platforms. No other such redirect exists for Rockstar North and as such should probably be deleted. Lordtobi () 19:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Restore article without prejudice to AfD. If AfD determines that it is not notable then a redirect to the list entry is exactly what we should have. Thryduulf (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - I also think deletion is the right call. This doesn't seem to be notable even in the limited context of looking specifically at the company. It's a minor release that's hard to find well-sourced information about. (No clue if the game itself is fun or not, although the name alone seems to make it 'not my thing'.) CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Deep Silver Vienna[edit]

Deep Silver Vienna is a later name of Games that Matter Productions, the most notable successor of Rockstar Vienna, but neither title is directly realted to Rockstar Vienna and no significant information is included in the article. Delete. Lordtobi () 19:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment there was plenty of information in the target article about Deep Silver Vienna, until it was removed in October by the nominator with the summary "Heavy cleanup" [6]. There is no discussion related to this, so I'm tempted to say "restore content and keep" but I'll await any reasons not to. Thryduulf (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf: Withunder in that heavy cleanup was removal of uncited material, which covered everything of Deep Silver Vienna. As stated above a successor to the company was Games that Matter Productions, which was acquired and renamed Deep Silver Vienna, however, the latter part has nothing to do anymore with Rockstar Vienna, wherefore we shouldn't redirect it there. If was that notable, we could make a new article out of it. The foundation of Games that Matter Productions itself, which was also sourced before, is still in the article with the same source and as such covered in the infobox. Lordtobi () 07:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Cyclobothra elegans (disambiguation)[edit]

Cyclobothra elegans is a possible synonym for 2 cases: Calochortus coeruleus and Calochortus elegans. Cyclobothra elegans should therefore be retargeted redirect to the first with a redirect-distinguish hatnote to the second. Disambiguation is not required per WP:2DABS, and Cyclobothra elegans (disambiguation) should be deleted. (Neither should redirect to C. elegans (disambiguation) which has dozens of entries and in this case impedes navigation rather than assists it). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Either would be fine. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Cyclobothra elegans (disambiguation). Retarget Cyclobothra elegans to Calochortus elegans with a hatnote. It's not "either would be fine" nor is it just matching the page that has elegans in the title. Cyclobothra elegans (Pursh) Benth. was published more than twenty years before Cyclobothra elegans Torr. (see dates here). Per the Principle of Priority, the name published by Torrey can not be used as a scientific name. In the extremely unlikely event that somebody is looking for Torrey's name, a hatnote will suffice. Plantdrew (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Cyclobothra elegans is an illegitimate name for Calochortus elegans, but it's been in the literature since 1857. What is Wikipedia's position on these things? Does Wikipedia include illegitimate synonyms because they are in the literature, or get rid of them because they are illegitimate? - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
There isn't any position on that, as far as I know. Redirects for synonyms are OK, but aren't usually (in the big picture) created. When synonym redirects are created, they often include illegitimate names. I don't think I've seen anything deleted on the grounds of being illegitimate (but a redirect might get retargeted on priority grounds). Plantdrew (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. If the Plandrew's reasoning for why one of the targets is correct but the other is not is correct, that seems too complicated for a layperson to understand, especially if both have been in use, notwithstanding any principle of priority. Redirecting readers to one or the other seems unhelpful with context that a DAB could briefly provide, which seems like a good reason to not follow 2DABS strictly in this case.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

List of Sorcerous Stabber Orphen Episodes[edit]

CSD G6 was undone recently. Episodes shouldn't be in caps. Article has moved to List of Sorcerous Stabber Orphen episodes already per MOS standards, and links to "Episodes" version have been removed. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - I don't see anyone triggering this redirect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Worst team ever[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy Delete.

You blew it[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy Delete.


Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy Delete.

Fat Granny Shaggar[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy Delete.


Retarget to Music after move - musics is the plural form of music according to Wiktionary. Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 21[edit]

Chaudhari (S.T)[edit]

The use of S.T is unclear, and the article does not help clarify. -- Tavix (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't know of any use of ST as a postnominal, nor can I think of any other likely qualifier. I suspect that S.T may be personal initials. It seems quite common in Indian English to place stops only between personal initials and not after the final one of the group. The qualifier is malformed for any redirect to a notable S. T. Chaudhari (there doesn't seem to be one). It would be malformed even if it were (S.T.) or (S. T.) - unlike Chaudhari, S. T. which would be fine, if there was a valid target. Narky Blert (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have a vague recollection of seeing a South Indian name where the initial followed the unabbreviated name, but that's irrelevant in this case: as evident in the redirect's history, the S.T stands for "scheduled tribe" (see its previous target: [7]). – Uanfala 23:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Good point on scheduled tribe - that can be a valid qualifier. But, I stand by my original proposal that "ST" and the like are confusing to anyone who doesn't know what one is, unless the target is precise. Narky Blert (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Is S.T the correct abbreviation? The scheduled tribe article uses ST. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Can we rename this to (scheduled tribe)? Are there other Chaudhari tribes that are not scheduled status? I found Chaudhari (tribe but that goes to Chowdhury. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Chaudhri looks like the correct target. Someone who knows more than me about the subject should decide on the correct spelling of each term, and then add hatnotes etc concerning disambiguation. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I appreciate all the extra information, but please remember that we're discussing the redirect Chaudhari (S.T). If someone thinks it worthwhile to create the correctly formatted redirects, they're welcome to do so at their own discretion, but that needs to be a separate action than the one we're discussing here (whether or not Chaudhari (S.T) should be deleted). -- Tavix (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. In apparent defiance of the last comment, and seemingly moving even further away from the effort to decide what to do with the redirect, I just note that ST seems to be uses as an abbreviation for "scheduled tribe" [8]. – Uanfala 21:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Commenting, hopefully more helpfully this time. The target is about no scheduled tribes, so this redirect is at best misleading. Add to that the awkward disambiguator (a remnant apparently of the creator's unawareness of formatting) and it becomes clearer that this should be deleted. The fact that between 2008 and 2010 it was the title of a stub article (that subsequently got moved several times before itself ending up as a redirect) doesn't give enough reason for keeping out of consideration for external incoming links rot. – Uanfala 21:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - The fundamental question of "Is it helpful?" seems to direct to a flat "No", and I guess we ought to just be rid of this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

List of kammas category[edit]

While the target article does have a (small) list, it is not a category. -- Tavix (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as confusing and an unlikely search term. Even List of Kammas would be no better - the target isn't a list article. The only list element in it is that usual, and short, "Notable people" section. Narky Blert (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Is it a list? Is it a category? Is it a list of categories? Doesn't make sense to me. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Blade Runner (2014 film)[edit]


Here is the next batch of "faulty crystal ball" film redirects. As these years have already passed, it's impossible for these films to be released that year. It's also implausible that someone would type these redirects in the search bar due to the incorrect year disambiguation. (raw list available on talk page) -- Tavix (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, I agree. In some cases, the target is not really the proper thing to give the user who searches for that term, and we don't have anything better. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:TNT loaded. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Luke Hemmings (Member of 5 Seconds of Summer)[edit]

Delete. This is unlikely to be useful due to the unwieldy and non-standard disambiguation. -- Tavix (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. This isn't a formal job title. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Reality Leigh[edit]

We typically delete first-middle name redirects. I haven't seen any indication that Winner is commonly known as "Reality Leigh". BDD (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

That was in response to the derivation of her name though. there is no evidence she is commonly called that outside of her family members. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 05:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
In the United States, children still get the surnames of their fathers in almost all cases, and I'm unaware of situations where children get surnames that don't belong to either parent. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I still don't see her having used this as her common name, not like Cherami Leigh (no relation) who uses first+middle as her stage name. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump–Russia relations[edit]

Facetious? It doesn't make much sense to cover "bilateral relations" between an individual and a country. And even if we did have an article to the tune of Donald Trump's connections to Russia, the election interference would only be a subtopic there. BDD (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. Valid link. Links are cheap. Existing link on discussion pages about topic. Sagecandor (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Links between Trump associates and Russian officials is presently being considered for deletion, but it looks as though it will be kept. I really think, though, that we have no good target for this redirect. The topic should really relate to Donald Trump as head of state of the USA, not as an election candidate. - Richard Cavell (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • There's also Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia. Sagecandor (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
    Exactly, Sagecandor. So why should these point to the election controversy over that, or the other article mentioned in this disucssion? See WP:XY. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
    Because it's the most common one they'll be looking for. And the search results thingy is clunky. Sagecandor (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
    So would you propose a hatnote, then? "'Donald Trump–Russia relations' redirects here. For business relations, see..."? --BDD (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I would create a disambiguation page given that we don't have an overarching article on Donald Trump-Russia, but have several in-depth articles on aspects of that relationship. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLPCRIME and BDD. At this point in time (1) no evidence has been presented that substantiates a crime has been committed by Trump; (2) it's mostly MSM hype originating from debunked anonymous sources, some of which has been retracted, resulting in RS being unreliable; (3) it's still an ongoing investigation, (4) partisanship is running rampant on both sides, (5) President Obama didn't think Russian hacking was urgent in 2016, (5) and neither did the DNC since they refused FBI help and (6) so much of it is politicized. As for Trump's business dealings with Russia, perhaps there should be an article about US trade with Russia, which in a properly weighted article would include Trump's and Clinton's dealings among many others. Atsme📞📧 17:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Trump doesn't have relations with Russia that is separate from the United States. The topic of Donald Trump and Russia is covered in numerous articles as does the U.S. relations with Russia. Choosing to redirect to a single article is not neutral POV and violates the main pillars of Wikipedia. --DHeyward (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Psycho (Borderlands character)[edit]

Not in target article, not even in the respective "Characters" section. Lordtobi () 10:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

  • If such a character exists in the game, then the pageviews given at the stats link suggest we should keep it and remedy the problem by actually mentioning the character there, provided the character is prominent enough to warrant being mentioned (which the stats on the redirect suggest is true). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 12:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. This was an article until two months ago when it got redirected by User:The1337gamer [9]. – Uanfala 13:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Borderlands_2#Psycho_and_Ultimate_Vault_Hunter_Upgrade_Pack. This seems to be the only title where it mentions Psycho which is actually a character class in Borderlands 2. It seems to be a character class in Borderlands in general, but as it is not mentioned, then this would be the better spot for now. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 13:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per AngusWOOF. Psychos are the one of most common enemies, in Borderlands, and a playable class in Borderlands 2 DLC. This is adequately covered at the proposed target section. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yellow people[edit]

Maybe not the best target. Prisencolin (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll also note the existence of The Yellow People and Yellow race to the same target. -- Tavix (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
There's also Lego minifigure /s--Prisencolin (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Color terminology for race is a very good solution, in fact the obvious one. Malays were subsumed under Mongoloid but I'm not sure they were also considered yellow, Blumenbach put the Malay race as part of his brown race. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Austin dickinson (vocalist)[edit]

Recommend this redirect for deletion (see [10]) as improbable and/or gramatically incorrect. Austin Dickinson (vocalist) as redirect already exists. Quis separabit? 14:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep There's nothing wrong with a lowercase letter. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep for the identical reason to User:Oiyarbepsy. What's the harm? it points readers to where they want to get. Narky Blert (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Zombi (2012 Video Game)[edit]

Delete as invalidly capitalized disambiguator; leftover from another discussion where it was errorously closed as "no consensus" (despite being at 3 vs. 2 at closure). Lordtobi () 17:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, these discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE. You can't just add up the numbers and because more people were in favor of deletion, that equals deletion. While I don't believe my closure was erroneous, I'm fine with this discussion being opened. Since it's unbunded, we might get a better discussion out of it... -- Tavix (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as Zombi (2012 video game) is correctly capitalized and covers this issue. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unless I'm mistaken, the page was started at this title in 2011, moved to the correctly capitalized version in 2015, and then moved to its current name in 2016. Since it's a longstanding {{R from move}} where the only difference is capitalization, I'm inclined to keep it. It got 134 hits in just under two years even discounting any hits from the recent RFDs, so it does get use as well.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
From what I can tell, the only time the article was at Zombi (2012 Video Game) was for two minutes on 1 August 2015‎. -- Tavix (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Patar knight: The title, just as the Zombi(2015 Video Game) one, were created within four minutes (22:08–22:11) by Aozz101x through undiscussed moves. The original title was actually Zombi U, which was corrected shortly after to the current title. Lordtobi () 19:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok right, I was looking at the wrong page. The rest of the comment still stands. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Patar knight and my comments in the previous discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
And as per previous discussion, I suspect the caps version attracted the searches for this over the lower-case proper version. We shouldn't make exceptions for (Film), (Video Game), (Song) AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


The connection to anti-psychology or anti-psychiatry appears to be original research. The inventors of this neologism object to this connection. The term is not notable as was already recognized. I see no suitable article to redirect to. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

  • delete per WP:REDLINK. This is a very specific coinage denoting objections to integrating psychology/psychiatry and Christianity, and all references to it go back to the original book and its authors. It also seems to me that things have evolved in a the decade since the last AFD to where an article could be written using secondary sources. Seyasirt (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
    Wasn't content from this article merged as a result of the afd? Pppery 18:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, nothing was merged. Antipsychology was defined as specifically Christian already, and then an IP rewrote the thing to eliminate any reference to that a year later or so. Just today it was redirected to anti-psychiatry, again without any merger. If there's any relevant material in the last, it's purely by coincidence. Seyasirt (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Psychology of religion as's definition [11], and that article seems to discuss mixing psychology and religion. Add non-neutral name given that it calls it "heresy". AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
This will not do. The proposed target is about analysis of religion from a (secularized) psychological viewpoint, whereas psychoheresy is about the religious problems of practicing psychology within a Christian framework. They are almost completely reversed from one another. Seyasirt (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Why? This seems to be covered in the subsection Psychology of religion#Religion and psychotherapy AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
... which shouldn't be there, but in a separate article. For all I know, it might even exist already, but this obviously doesn't belong in an article which says, in the first sentence, that it is about psychologial analysis of religion. Seyasirt (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Wally Grant[edit]

Wally Grant was a one-entry DAB page which I've turned into a redirect. I propose: swap the two pages round. Narky Blert (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Additional - to be consistent, Wallace Grant should redirect to the hockey player. I'm nominating Wallace Grant. I hope Narky Blert is okay with this. - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
@Richardcavell: Well spotted & absolutely fine by me - Grant isn't mentioned in the Virginia Tech article. Narky Blert (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

American Folkloric Tradition[edit]

Seems like an unlikely search term. The original text was migrated to American Folkloric Witchcraft which is itself currently at AfD. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and my suggestion at said AfD. DaßWölf 02:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete this is not a title that one would search on. The page should be deleted to eliminate confusing topics. DaßSmithriedel 11:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithriedel (talkcontribs)
I'd support the lower-case version of that. Striking above vote. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete The history of American Folkloric Witchcraft indicates that the contents of this article were transfered to the witchcraft page, and then this page was sloppily turned into a redirect. The only reason for keeping this page is to try to make legitimate the phrase "American Folkloric". It's not a phrase in common usage and isn't likely to be searched. If a user starts to type in American Folklor... then they are offered the choices that finish the page name. We don't need a redirect to a page that the user would find anyway. Why isn't anybody mentioning WP:FAKE? — Myk Streja (who?) 07:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Lohengrin: An Opera[edit]

Unlikely search term and unused variation of the work's title, apparently created to make a WP:POINT in an unrelated discussion at Talk:Trump Tower: A Novel#Requested move 20 June 2017. — JFG talk 06:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, agree this seems of little use.TheLongTone (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, it should not been created just because I made a red link to show that it makes no sense. It concerns several hundred operas, I hope they will be spared. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a "point" action. Saw a redlink and thought the user was indicating it was a useful link that wasn't made yet. No objections if the community doesn't find it useful. Either way is totally fine. Sagecandor (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

June 20[edit]


Delete. This is a continuation of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 7#Katolikismo. All these Esperanto redirects were created because they are headwords in the Enciklopedio Kalblanda, but the subjects themselves are not related to Esperanto. Gorobay (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep - I would keep all because they do no harm, and there is only one possible target. In fact to be consistent, create Ĉilio -> Chile. Lutero is also Italian and Spanish, and it might have some legitimacy outside of Esperanto as a reference to Martin Luther (who worked in Latin). Keplero is also Italian. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete – Using redirects to implement dictionary translations is abusive and potentially confusing. Besides the English WP:common name, we should only have redirects from variants of a person's name in their own language or in a language they used (e.g. Kopernikus and Koppernigk are fine, even though the second one hasn't even been created; Koperniko is not, because Esperanto didn't exist in his time, and the astronomer is not connected to this language in any plausible way). — JFG talk 06:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FORRED and per JFG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thank you for following up on that, Gorobay. I got to a couple redirects that I wanted to look up to see if they were useful, and then it slipped my mind to complete the nomination. For example, I thought it was possible for Italy to be "Italio" in at least one of the regional languages of Italy, but I haven't been able to find evidence of that. Unless someone finds a compelling connection between any of these, I'm going to default to delete all. -- Tavix (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Serious sam (character)[edit]

Delete or retarget, no sufficient information at given target, Serious Sam (video game) would be a more likely target, but ultimately I think deleting is better in this case. Lordtobi () 15:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete a single line saying there's a character named Serious Sam doesn't help anyone. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Serious Sam (game engine)[edit]

Delete, there is no engine by this name. Lordtobi () 15:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Refine to Serious Sam#Development which discusses the game engine. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - I have no idea why I created this, it is weird. Maybe it was a redlink or something at the time, but I don't see much use for it now. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ugh Zan III[edit]

Delete, WP:GAMECRUFT/WP:GAMEGUIDE. Lordtobi () 15:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No character list or setting section that could provide any useful information for this. Ugh Zan III is mentioned briefly in the video game article, but hardly worth a redirect as there is no development or character description. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Lego Island 3[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

The Brickster[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep


Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget


As far as I can tell, this is not the current or former name for the city in any language. The edit summary on creation was "REDIRECT heh heh" which makes me think it wasn't an entirely serious addition, combined with the only link being from Wikipedia talk:Lamest edit wars/Archive 3#The Memory hole, which references this 2004 edit by Pakaran which used the format [[Gdansk|Gdan]][[Danzig|zisk]] and the (hopefully tongue in cheek) edit summary "The correct name is Gdanzisk - you must be a communist nazi terrorist edit warrior! I should list you on VFDA or maybe just on here!". Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Somebody's ephemeral joke; just eliminate it.Wetman (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 15:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete No reason to preserve jokes. Plantdrew (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 28#Dànzica

Template:Riley family tree[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 28#Template:Riley family tree

Iceland–Switzerland relations[edit]

A redirect to an article which doesn't mention -- at all -- any relation. Calton | Talk 03:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep Added an mention of Switzerland in this edit.--Snaevar (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
It's still worthless, since according to the paragraph you ginned up to save this redirect, there's no significant relationship between the countries nor do they even have actual embassies in each other's capitals. --Calton | Talk 15:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
That argument is clearly bogus. Many countries lacking embassies have significant relations. I wouldn't go around deleting all the international relations redirects for Taiwan, for example, which doesn't have official embassies with countries in the world for reasons that have nothing to do with, for example, Uganda. And I consider their common membership in European trade organizations as a significant relation. Keep as redirected. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
That argument is clearly bogus. Many countries lacking embassies have significant relations.' [citation needed], especially your misleading use of the adjectives "clearly" and "many": Taiwan is a unique case, given its delicate political status -- it and others countries maintain the figleaf of mutual "associations" and "trade offices" because to have official diplomatic recognition would upset China -- as I'm sure you very well know. So how about listing those "many" countries -- and no, North Korea doesn't count for similar reasons -- why these are "significant relations" despite the absence of direct diplomatic interaction, and how that applies to Iceland and Switzerland. --Calton | Talk 13:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Calton is correct. Gaming the Wikiedia system has always appealed to a small minority.Wetman (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Wetman & Calton: "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones" (engish proverb). For others happening to look at this discussion please note that EFTA, which Switzerland and Iceland are a part of is a four nation association.--Snaevar (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Does that "english proverb" have some radically different meaning in Icelandic that it doesn't in English? Or do you believe that making random meaningless connections -- like your EFTA reference -- is somehow meaningful?
And speaking of random meaningless connections, please note this. --Calton | Talk 05:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that "Many countries lacking embassies have significant relations". --Calton | Talk 05:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 15:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Ashley Cheng[edit]

Delete, not mentioned in target article. Lordtobi () 15:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 15:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only merged content was an infobox entry for the fact the Cheng was a producer [12] and that's too little to require attribution. Restoring the article doesn't seem to be an option as this brief discussion from 2009 shows that he's not notable. The only information that the original article contained was a list of games that he had produced at the time. Given that he's listed as a producer in several video games articles, that same information is easily accessible via the search results. – Uanfala 11:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[edit]

I was unable to verify if this is Sailer's website as it appears to be down. The article cites -- Tavix (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment It appears that this used to be Saier's website, but the registration on it has expired. I looked on the way back machine and randomly picked a snapshot from February 2011 which says "For technical reasons, I'm no longer blogging at this website. I am now blogging at:" which was still current in May 2014 [13]. I'm uncertain whether this means we should delete the redirect, but I'm leaning towards saying we should. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete and consider creating iSteve (blog) or iSteve Blog instead, which would be more useful for dab purposes. But yes, it was his website briefly, but he doesn't use the .com in his personal branding, at least not anymore. [14] Also the blogspot one has not been updated since 2014 except for a single archive reposted article in May 2017, but it has a ton of his writings. UNZ seems to be his latest blogging site, and there he calls it "iSteve Blog" [15] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: involved relist in order to close the June 4th log
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree with the above arguments. This doesn't seem particularly right. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:American Heritage Dictionary representation[edit]

Project-to-mainspace redirects are not useful. The target article was moved from project space per an MfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: Do you think you could close this now? All participants except the OP agree that the redirects should at least not be deleted, and two of them agree where to retarget the latter two, which can be changed boldly anyway should there be a disagreement. Nardog (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Evil Bob[edit]

Not mentioned at the target page. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Saraiki history[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 23#Saraiki history


deletion, name is a misspelling with an incorrect diacritic dot. The term is spelled without that diacritic, following standard Pali dictionaries such as the PED. Since people are unlikely to use this as a search term, it should be deleted. Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC) See this link for the Pali-English Dictionary's entry on Anussati and Buddhānussati, to check the correct spelling.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as an apparent typo that is quite unlikely as a search term. – Uanfala 11:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

June 19[edit]

Ascent (font)[edit]

I don't know much about printing. Ascent is not mentioned in the article target. Where should this redirect point? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Neelix nonsense/misinformation. There is no font called "Ascent", and "ascent" is not a word ever used in typography or printing. Softlavender (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't go that far. Ascent is a term used in typography, see Typeface#Font metrics. That wouldn't make it a font, however. -- Tavix (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Tavix: I stand corrected. I nevertheless still recommend Deletion for both, because there is no font called "Ascent" or "Descent", which is what the redirects directly imply. If someone wants to create redirects called Ascent (typography) and Descent (typography), and redirect them to the section Typeface#Font metrics, that would be fine. Softlavender (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I've bundled Descent (font) as they should be discussed together. -- Tavix (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Would it be useful as (font) as a shorthand to (typography)? Or better to just move these to typography? It can then be added to the dab page. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Typeface#Font metrics. I don't see the (font) bit as particularly confusing: parenthetical disambiguators don't necessarily indicate precise categorical membership, they're just pointers to the relevant subject area. Group (periodic table) isn't a periodic table, and neither is Transitivity (grammar) a kind of grammar. If the redirects are seen as unsightly, they can at most be tagged with {{R unprintworthy}}. – Uanfala 13:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Boss Tweet[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted, G7.

Kaley Ronayne[edit]

Delete (or perhaps create a genuine article), Not helpful redirect, just one episode of many in different series she has done. IMDB: [17] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. Can't be created as an article with two sources only. The Hollywood Reporter - 1. - 2. I have seen other editors creating redirects on actors with no available source. Captain Assassin! creates many many redirects of actors, producers, directors redirected at the movie page. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Marvellous Spider-Man: WP:OSE is not a valid argument. -- AlexTW 17:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I am fully aware of WP:OSE, be neutral and use same policy for all redirects. When I was a new editor, I saw him creating redirects of actors and actresses towards movies and nobody nominates them for deletion. I did this after seeing his edits, I think I discussed this in your talk page before. Only his movie redirects get nominated for WP:RFD by other editors. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Marvellous Spider-Man: "because Captain Assassin! did it" is a horrible excuse to use; upwards of one-hundred of his redirects have been deleted at RfD in a given week. Putting that aside, I'd like to know why you think it might be a good idea to redirect Kaley Ronayne to Wrath of the Villains: Mad Grey Dawn over all the other articles she's mentioned in, including but not limited to: Wrath of the Villains: Prisoners, Wrath of the Villains: Into the Woods, Brad Raider, Northern Borders, and Quarry (TV series). -- Tavix (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Tavix: I don't create this type of redirects nowadays, when others like AlexTheWhovian were objecting. I mentioned above that as a new editor I tried to edit like Captain Assassin!. His user talk page has WP:RFDs about upcoming movie titles, but many of his actor, actress,director,producer redirect don't get noticed. I am not going to make a WP:POINTy nomination of his redirects, as that would be harassing him. But if you see his mass redirect creation of actors which is going now also Jon Bass (actor), Leila George, Richie Merritt, Tremaine Brown Jr........... and there are perhaps hundreds of such redirects as Philip Zhou, Ian Colletti, Dennis Iliadis, Molly Gordon, Jessie Ennis, Tess Haubrich...I can go on with the long list..... I think you know the difference between movie name redirects and actor/actress redirects. His edit summary for such redirects is "for now".

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @AlexTheWhovian: in this page see his specific edit summary "for now". I can see many actor redirects to movies. WP:OSE is not a good excuse when you can't explain how he is creating such actor/actress redirect with edit summary "for now", and you ignore them. Marvellous Spider-Man 01:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

"For now"? What does that mean? "For now" would indicate that the creator make those redirects with the intention to expand them into articles at a later date, but some of those redirects are well over a year old and have never been expanded. So, what exactly does "for now" mean, and why does it make those edits acceptable? These redirects should all be listed for deletion, and creation of such redirects of a person to a piece of their work should be no longer allowable. Just because they were mass created, that does not make it any more acceptable. If anything, it's disruptive and spamming editing. -- AlexTW 08:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've been diving into Captain Assassin!'s contributions for a long time now, nominating the "bad" ones at RfD in large bundles (~40) since there's simply too many of them to list. I'm still only about halfway through June 2013, and it seems like most if not all of the actor redirects were created later than that. But please, if you'd like to help out in the clean-up process, feel free to nominate any spammy redirects you've found. -- Tavix (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:TOOSOON to have a page and she isn't so strongly attached to this guest role to redirect there. If she becomes notable then she can be created in draft. But a bunch of episodic guest roles won't cut it. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Checking the two latest "for now" on that page, I´d say The Book of Life 2 is ok, but Leila George like Kaley Ronayne would just annoy me as a reader and should be deleted. Unless it has something to say about the actor/actress, following the wikilink is just a waste of time. Pinging Captain Assassin! since I prefer to talk about you behind your back in front of your face. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per above reasons. -- AlexTW 08:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:XY per my response to Spiderman. I'm too involved to be able to close this now, so I might as well !vote. -- Tavix (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted, G7, by RickinBaltimore.


I'm not certain that an art designer and an art director are the same thing Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete some hyphenated search items aren't useful. Redirect the rest to Art as with Art design. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect per AngusWOOF. Neelix special creations. Legacypac (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment note that Art and design redirects to graphic design, although that may be too specific as there are many "art and design" schools that cover both topics and not just graphic design, so it's a bit of an WP:XY. Another redirect option is Design#Design and art. But it isn't specific to the leading position of an art director. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 27#MCDONALD'S

Five Satans[edit]

May be a plausible mis-spelling but seems offensive PRehse (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure but how does that reflect its power as a search term for the current target or even as a general search term.PRehse (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete those views are just background noise. Legacypac (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Certainly this should not redirect to The Five Satins. Is it a plausible misspelling? Dubious; in any case, I don't think the The Five Satins would appreciate the redirect. I changed the target to Watcher (angel)#Five Satans.
    A little history: In 2004, an editor created a stub for each of five "fallen angels" mentioned in certain passages of the Book of Enoch (example). A few months later I consolidated those into a single article, Five Satans. In 2009, another editor converted the article to a redirect, since the phrase "Five Satans" isn't explicitly used in an English translation he consulted. However, "Five Satans" is a term of convenience used in secondary and tertiary sources that predate the Wikipedia articles (e.g., 1, 2, 3) The new target anchors to a list of these "Satans" in the Watcher (angel) article. —Ringbang (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Supreme Leader of the People's Republic[edit]

Began as a hoax article, redirected for some reason. No proof that this title is used in this fashion as it gets no results on Google. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete it's also a vague title that could redirect to a number of choices under Supreme Leader. That no news articles have used this title for any of these cases leads it to be useless. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - this could apply to Paramount leader of the PRC, as well. Keeping this gives undue prominence to North Korea. - Richard Cavell (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2017
  • Delete stupid search term. If you want to learn about North Korean leaders you would search for North Korean leaders. Legacypac (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per all the above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambig as the leaders of China and North Korea are referred to using this title. It's also used by some right-wing commenters to refer to a Bernie Sanders presidency but I don't think this would make a good entry on the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

List of Lego games[edit]

This could either refer to the list of video games or the board game series "Lego Games". Lordtobi () 14:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget both to Lego Games as the board games are primary topic for this. There is also a hatnote on top for the Lego video games list. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget both per AngusWOOF. Thryduulf (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep both - I respectfully disagree with AngusWOOF. If any person types those terms into the search box, it's far more likely that they're looking for the video games than the board games. We really should have a good article on Lego games generally, but in the meantime let's make games the default and add a hatnote. - Richard Cavell (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I would have favored the video games but because Lego Games has a specific branding, and that there's a physical list for Lego Games, it should stay there. The hatnote will redirect those looking for the video games. . AngusWOOF (barksniff) 06:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep both per Richardcavell. Definitely don't think Lego board games are the primary topic for Lego games. It's much more likely to be the video games. This is especially the case, because these redirects do not capitalize "games", which is capitalized in the proposed alternate topic. A hatnote there would be appropriate though. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep both - I agree that the capitalization makes a difference; someone typing in Lego Games is a different case. I also think that the many varieties of video games are far more known than that specific product series. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Ancient human[edit]

These redirects from Ancient to archaic seem problematic. Ancient doesn't usually refer to the early species and subspecies of what would later be modern humans, but the early recorded history of modern humans. I think a retarget would be appropriate here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete X1 as Neelix redirects that are improbable. If someone finds them useful they can recreate them as needed. Ancient is a term very dependent on context and prospective. I seem Ancient to my kids some days. Legacypac (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambig as the current target is equally plausible to the nominator's suggestions, Early modern humans, List of human evolution fossils (where prehistoric hominin redirects), Prehistory (where Prehistoric people redirects) and probably others - Ancient people (which should also point to this dab) currently gives some useful search results for listing too. Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • suggest possible retarget to Ancient history as I agree the pre-prehistoric target makes less sense. Seyasirt (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambig or retarget to Human evolution. Ancient is an ambiguous term, but in context ancient humans is a common way to refer to our fossil ancestors and is a reasonable search term [18][19][20][21]. I doubt people are going to be looking for ancient humans as presumably most are aware that classical era people were physically no different to you and I. However, archaic humans is an inappropriate target because it has a specific meaning in palaeoanthropology (later species of the genus Homo). We should retarget to a more general article (I'd suggest human evolution) or, if one can't be agreed upon, disambig. – Joe (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


LeafyIsHere is not (at least not anymore) mentioned in the target anymore. Per consensus here, only YouTubers who are notable and have their own articles should be included on the list of YouTubers page. Therefore, this redirect no longer serves a purpose and should be deleted. Everymorning (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, Draft:LeafyIsHere was deleted under G13, and should be evaluated to determine notability. TheDragonFire (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


This targets a section of an article that no longer exists, and the word isn't mentioned in the article. I'm not clear if this word counts as an Indefinite pronoun or not, but if it does, it deserves a mention there and a retarget. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete one of the 60,000 useless Neelix redirects. Legacypac (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. A band related to Thomas Feiner comes up in the searches but Feiner does not even have an article in EN wikipedia. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - "Anywhen" appears to be the name of a somewhat notable project by French artist Philippe Parreno, and it's mentioned on his page. Retarget? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Fantasyland (West Edmonton Mall)[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

June 18[edit]


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 27#GEOCITIES


This was previously redirected to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site (WP:NOTMEMORIAL). However, it was changed to WP:Deceased Wikipedians in 2008; the last edit prior to the nomination was... 2008. I used the "What links here" tool and found that many user talk pages use the "WP:Obituary" to refer to the previous target, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. No other pages refer it to the current target, deceased Wikipedians. Also, I notice that Wikipedia:OBITUARY was created in 2014, yet it was used just once to refer it to WP:NOTMEMORIAL (implicitly). Therefore, I propose either retargeting both to WP:NOTMEMORIAL, or disambiguate one with at least two individual pages and retarget two others to the dabpage. George Ho (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC); amended, 06:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I added just "WP:OBIT", which is used in different pages to refer to either one, usually the NOTMEMORIAL. All others look too different, and they are not named either "Obituary" or "OBIT". Better to treat them individually, Piotrus, than to bundle all others into here, especially when each of them may have different meanings but somewhat different from "OBIT(UARY)". George Ho (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Redirects to Wikipedia:Good articles[edit]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 9#Redirects to Wikipedia:Good articles was closed as:

Endorse deletion without prejudice to further discussion at RfD

Cunard (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete in line with previous discussion. Deb (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
    • @Deb: Note that the previous discussion deleted them because they were cross-namespace (article → Wikipedia), the new redirects are not cross-namespace so "per previous discussion" is not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
      • I understand what you mean, but I feel this discussion is a bit of a backdoor way of getting what the creator wanted (not that I doubt Cunard's motives). Deb (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to English Wikipedia#Wikiprojects, and assessments of articles' importance and quality (where the current target is transcluded from) as this is an encyclopaedic treatment of the topic and there are no competing encyclopaedic uses I can find. Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Somewhat dubious. I'm not out-and-out opposed to this redirecting within the article space, but how likely is it that someone typing in "Good articles" wants to go to the section of the English Wikipedia article on article assessment? A secondary concern is that I think that the English Wikipedia article is massively self-indulgent, but I could probably look past that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC).
    • Delete, after thinking on this for a couple of days, I don't see that these meet any of the criteria at WP:RPURPOSE. "Good article" is a term of art that is not widely used outside of this project, and I don't see that anyone who didn't already know about our good article programme would type it in expecting to get a section on Wikipedia quality assessments. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC).
  • Weak Delete. As I mentioned in the DRV, this does solve the original problem of cross-namespace redirects, but upon further consideration, I've come to the conclusion that it solves it in the wrong way. We should not be excessively introspective. Obviously, we should have some articles about ourselves; i.e. nobody is going to suggest that Wikipedia be deleted. But, the term Good Article, as used in this context, is really a wikipedia term of art, and as such, should be discussed in wiki-space. As I mentioned in the DRV, WP:Navel-gazing talks about this. Putting it another way, if WP:X redirects to Y, the problem is not that X is in wikispace; the problem is that Y is in mainspace. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and Retarget as per Thryduulf. While this is a term of art on Wikipedia, Wikipedia is large enough and significant enough that its major terms of art are somewhat notable -- enough for a redir, in any case. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping, but I have no strong feelings one way or another. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not delete - After failed re-creations, somewhat unresponsive and inactive admins, multi-page deletion review, and another reincarnation, I think deleting all of the pages again would be less and less productive. If deleted, one or more of the pages can be re-created over and over. No opinion on which to target as long as all of them are retained as redirect pages to whatever target it is, mainspace or cross-namespace. However, due to WP:R#DELETE, one of which normally discourages cross-namespace targets, I guess we are left with nothing but mainspace as a chosen target. Whatever the target is, I would be pleased if all of them are "kept as is". However, I'm convinced by others that the current target may not be the best target possible. Even when not the best, not being the "best" target is not a good reason to delete them all. We can't violate WP:CRYSTAL by moving to a nonexistent topic or an article that doesn't mention "good article(s)", but we can predict that someday a movie studio can create a film called Good Articles... maybe someday. Nothing wrong with redirecting the pages to their one current target; let's treat it as stopgap until something else happens. --George Ho (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • keep as proposed by Thryduulf Contra Lankiveil I suspect someone typing this in _is_ looking for our good articles (either WP:GA or WP:FA or some other notion of what a good article is on Wikipedia). As such, it seems like a reasonable redirect. (so basically per DES) Hobit (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep in some way because this term as an encyclopedic topic exclusively refers to the class of Wikipedia articles. feminist 16:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget


Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Iceland–Yugoslavia relations[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Damien Darhk Wikipedia[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

June 17[edit]

April 10, 2011[edit]

Delete - The page redirects to the year but the date mentioned in the redirect's name is not mentioned on the year page. 2601:584:100:E310:5C77:12BC:F26F:B4D (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

iPhone 7S[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Joseph Vodvarka[edit]

A redirect with four incoming links. I propose deletion to encourage article creation. Narky Blert (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. Fail to see how WP:REDLINK would apply to someone who's only claim to notability is failing to win a party's nomination for an election, and this name seems unique enough. If you can provide a draft to show how they would meet notability standards, I would change my !vote. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per nom, or failing that retarget to United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 2016. From a cursory search there seems to be a decent amount of coverage of his campaigns, especially relating to the lawsuits and ballot access questions surrounding his 2016 campaign ([22], [23], [[24], [25], [26]). See here WP:BASIC, which is clear that politicians who've been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources but do not satisfy WP:POLITICIAN may still be notable. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 2016 for now. We can always expand the redirect into a full article later, but in the meantime, I think its best to send readers to the article that has the most information about this individual. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete to reveal search results since he's been a candidate in multiple elections. It'd be better for a reader to be able to choose between his 2010, 2012, and 2016 elections rather than being funneled into just one of them .-- Tavix (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Haitian Standard French[edit]

Delete. Resulted from a controversial page move without discussion (Dinglebat500, 319 edits; currently blocked) to a term that is "nonexistent" describing "Haitian French"; unlike the "standard Haitian Creole (which does). This move was swiftly overturned by editors. "Standard French" (from France) is taught in school as well as spoken in Haiti. A variety while spoken, there is no official standard to be able to bare such a title. There are no sources to provide evidence for this claim. According to History, Society and Variation: In Honor of Albert Valdman (Valdman Albert, J; Clements Clancy), there is even a divided consensus on whether or not Haitian French even exists in Haiti. (It does however) and it ranges differently among its speakers. So a Haitian "Standard" French is impossible to determine and such terminology is unfounded. Opposing parties please provide where this term is in usage. For the sake of WP:CONSISTENCY, we do not have a: Swiss Standard French, Belgian Standard French, Quebec Standard French, Louisiana Standard French, Aostan Standard French, and Meridional Standard French as redirects either. Thank you for your consideration. Savvyjack23 (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC) To add: A side-by-side comparison between "Haitian French" and "Haitian Standard French" from 1 July 2015 - present virtually shows no hits for the latter, except during the time of creation and redirect activity (from edits and views from cached). [27] Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Jessie L. Embry[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Regno Unito[edit]

Delete per WP:FORRED. There is no affinity between the United Kingdom and Italian, Spanish, French (incorrectly and correctly hyphenated), German or Dutch. The German and incorrectly hyphenated French redirects were discussed in August 2015, both discussions were closed as no consensus. The participants of those discussions were @GZWDer, WilyD, Mathrick, Rubbish computer, Tavix, DGG, BDD, A D Monroe III, BU Rob13, Steel1943, and Just Chilling: and SiTrew (who I will not ping as they are currently topic banned from RfD). I will also notify the UK Wikiproject. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC) I forgot to sign first time, so those pings will not have worked, so trying again: @GZWDer, WilyD, Mathrick, Rubbish computer, Tavix, DGG, BDD, A D Monroe III, BU Rob13, Steel1943, and Just Chilling:. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep because from time to time someone translates an article from German and leaves intact links that say something like this: [[Vereinigtes Königreich|GB]]. I cleaned up a number of those when I created that redirect, and just now I found two more that had been created and cleaned those up as well. That will probably recur from time to time. Maybe the WP:FORRED policy should be adjusted to take this into account. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    • In that situation I would say that the redlink would indicate the presence of an error such that it would be cleaned up much quicker without misleading people that they can find information in German on en.wp. Thryduulf (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete the relink serves a better purpose. Legacypac (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Almost none of the rationale for deleting these redirects under WP:FORRED applies here, because these all unambiguously refer to the UK. There is no possibility of confusion or conflicting definitions, and the original language Wikipedia should be very prominent if not first in search engine results, which have gotten much better since 2008 when FORRED was written. These are also low maintenance, because they shouldn't point at any other page. The only question remaining is relevance to English. In this case, the name of the country as opposed to some random dictionary word, would be of increased prominence, and all of these redirects are from major European languages spoken in countries which have all been major rivals of the UK. This means that not only are they more likely to be encountered in everyday life, they will also be more likely to be encountered in primary sources in that language. At the very least, the French ones should be kept because it is a language used in some of the official titles of the UK's head of state – Elizabeth II is "Reine du Royaume-Uni" via the Crown of Canada. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep all. I don't think it was wise to bundle these when there were long, separate discussions in the past regarding a couple of these, so I'll default to keep all. I've argued to keep both redirects in those previous discussions, and I'll defer to my previous comments there. -- Tavix (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Third Kingdom of Norway[edit]

This seems to be a neologism, as it gets zero hits as an exact phrase in Google (for that matter "Second Kingdom of Norway" finds 2 results, neither relevant), nor can I find any sources that suggest numbering of Norweigian regimes is common (unlike the French republics) - the official name of the country is just "Kingdom of Norway". Looking at the History of Norway article, it doesn't seem obvious how the figure of the post 1905 (or possibly post 1945?) monarchy being the third monarchy was arrived at (different Kingdoms seem to have started or started including present-day Norway in at least 872, 1397, 1524, 1814, 1905 and 1945). Thryduulf (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - I think that we can just get rid of this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment First Kingdom of Norway redirects to Kingdom of Norway (872–1397) and Second Kingdom of Norway redirects to Kingdom of Norway (1814). If numbering of Norwegian regimes isn't common, perhaps it'd be best to delete all of these. -- Tavix (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
    • "First Kingdom of Norway" gets a lot of hits from what I remember, so I wouldn't support deletion of that. I didn't spot that "Second Kingdom of Norway" exists (I was only looking at redirects to the Norway article) but I would support deletion of that redirect per my comments above. Thryduulf (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Additionally, "First Kingdom of Norway" seems to be unambiguous, unlike the others. I'll agree you that the First Kingdom should be kept, and the other two deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Bandana in sex[edit]

These strike me as a bit vague and possibly misleading. The handkerchief code might be considered an example of bandanas used in sexuality, broadly construed. But the target article isn't really about their use in sex (i.e., in sexual intercourse, which I think the term implies). --BDD (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - I completely agree. - Richard Cavell (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep searchers are looking for the topic instead of something that could be considered WP:XY. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, although the redirects are vague, they are plausible search terms for the article in question. Kaldari (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. If there were a sexual practice that involved the use of a bandana or handkerchief in sex, and it was discussed in the encyclopaedia, then there would be a risk of confusion, but to the best of my knowledge no such practice exists. I think these are plausible search terms primarily because the handkerchief code isn't necessarily widely known by that name (as the lede of that article, which contains four bold-face terms, suggests). It may be the case that people are familiar with the practice and want to read about it, but don't know the name, and so might enter a slightly vague or awkward search term such as these. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
    I'm sure they're widely used as blindfolds. --BDD (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
    Quite possibly – and perhaps for bondage purposes in lieu of rope; certainly other garments can serve that purpose. But so long as those uses aren't mentioned in any Wikipedia articles, I think the current target is the best option. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Ireland (region)[edit]

No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Senagalese parliamentary election, 2017[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete' per WP:CSD#G6 and WP:CSD#G7

Justice League Unimited (comics)[edit]

Implausible typo that barely gets hits. Unnecessary redirect. Delete, though I'd also support a rename without redirection to Justice League Unlimited (comics), which is the correct spelling but doesn't exist. Anarchyte (work | talk) 15:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Justice League Unlimited article as it does mention a line of comic books based on the TV series. "DC Comics created an ongoing monthly comic book series based on the TV series, as part of its Johnny DC line of "all ages" comics." Move to Justice League Unlimited (comics) and Delete the typo version. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. There's no need to move redirects around without good reason. Redirects can be created at any editor's discretion if they feel the need for a redirect. In fact, I did just that. -- Tavix (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

5774 (year)[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete


Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: move without redirect to Wikipedia:WM-US-CO.

June 16[edit]

Oops ouchskies[edit]

Another redirect from an article that should have been deleted instead of redirected. Here's what that article looked like. This is absolutely not a significant catchphrase, or otherwise. -- Tavix (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. No mention of this phrase at the current target and not a notable phrase. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as obscure/trivial term at best --Lenticel (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

BMG Interactive[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Rockstar Limited[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Aaron Garbut[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Interesting facts of germany[edit]

Delete, similar to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 29#Interesting Facts of the Bible. Facts about Germany aren't necessarily interesting, and I wouldn't consider it a plausible search term (and if so, I'm not sure what someone would expect). -- Tavix (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - we should force the user to search again. It is a grammatical error, and Wikipedia should not have articles on trivia/fun stuff. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not so sure about Richard's point. If it were a plausible search term, there'd be no reason to "force the user to search again"; a dumb but helpful redirect is still a helpful redirect. But, as Tavix says, it's not a plausible search term, so that doesn't matter. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete both - I agree that these don't seem helpful. As well, it seems to be a bad precedent if these sorts of redirects end up staying. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

SüngerBob KarePantolon[edit]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. The language I hit on was Turkish. -- Tavix (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Plastic induration of penis[edit]

This redirect is way too precise, and Wikipedia has nothing even close to what the redirect is suggesting. The target article doesn't mention "penis", nor can I find the phrase "plastic induration" anywhere on Wikipedia. Plastic induration is red. -- Tavix (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

List of Deadwood's Famous and Infamous[edit]

Delete due to the opinion-like title since there isn't an official list of "Famous and Infamous" in the Deadwood universe. Should have been deleted instead of redirected in 2006. -- Tavix (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: That still doesn't satisfy my rationale for deletion. That section simply lists people who have lived in Deadwood, and makes no effort to note whether they are "famous" or "infamous" (which would be editorializing). -- Tavix (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Famous and infamous just means notable. It can be tagged as a non-neutral name. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but can you imagine someone searching using this phrase? If so, what would they be looking for? I don't think a list of residents of a town in South Dakota would be satisfactory. -- Tavix (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Angelo Pergolito[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Khadija Saye[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

TEa Leoni[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Anthropogenic behaviours[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 26#Taldren

June 15[edit]

LGBT liberal politics[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 26#LGBT liberal politics

Mr long legged cleggy weggy[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Conservative – LIberal Democrat coalition[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 23#Conservative – LIberal Democrat coalition

An Taoiseach[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Snow keep,

Dr .Martens[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 23#Dr .Martens

Hawaiian cone[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete


Delete due to the lack of space and the miscapitalization of "hobby". -- Tavix (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete housekeeping. Properly formatted redirect already exists, so this is useless. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - the spacing error makes it fall under the things described at WP:RDAB, which means the costly capitalization error is icing on the case for deletion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


A fairly obscure meme that originated from a sound a character on the show made. Here's the Know Your Meme article on it. There's no further information on Wikipedia on the meme though, so it should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia isn't a repository for memes. Not a notable catchphrase like D'oh! AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Anse aux Sauvages[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Irish tea shop[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 26#Irish tea shop

June 14[edit]

Commonweatlh Stadium (Edmonton)[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Nelson A. Rockefeller Center[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget


Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Zach Gage[edit]

Zach Gage was a/the programmer for Ridiculous Fishing, but ultimately, they are not related. He also worked on other games, such as SpellTower, Tharsis (WP:XY). Furthermore, the Ridiculous Fishing article holds no significant information on the redirected subject. — Delete. Lordtobi () 09:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to SpellTower, the game for which he's best known. (I wrote that one years after RF.) "Ridiculous Fishing article holds no information on the redirected subject." Then you didn't search, as his name appears five times. I have plenty of sources for an article on the developer at User:Czar/drafts/Zach Gage (they're also in the page history) had you asked. Going overboard with these repeated noms. I am no longer watching this pageping if you'd like a response czar 15:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Search results are better in this situation as they're able to give articles on several games he's worked on, rather than funneling our readers into just one game. As Czar has shown that he's likely notable, this would also have the added benefit of WP:REDLINK deletion to encourage article creation. -- Tavix (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
"Just one game" for which he's best known... I don't see how removing the redirect does the encyclopedia any good, or how creating a redlink in place of a redirect somehow stimulates article growth. czar 18:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Let's say someone searches "Zach Gage". Right now, there's a redirect in place and they are redirected to Ridiculous Fishing. There's nothing inherently wrong about that set-up, our readers will be able to find out three basic "facts" about him: 1) Gage was the programmer (from the infobox), 2) Artist Greg Wohlwend moved in with iOS developer Zach Gage to work 14-hour days on the game. 3) Gage was part of a four member team at one point in development. That's great, but now let's say this redirect is deleted. If someone searches "Zach Gage", instead of being greeted by Ridiculous Fishing, they'll instead get search results. Search results work really well here because all the top results are the games he's been a part of. Among the top results are Really Bad Chess, TypeShift, SpellTower, and Ridiculous Fishing. A reader would then be able to make their own decision about what game or games they'd like to read about instead of being funneled into a single article. As for your other inquiry, having WP:REDLINKs indicate where an article should be created. A redlink tells someone "this article should be created!" and perhaps they'll take the suggestion and do just that (there's more detail on this phenomenon at WP:REDLINK and it's a reason for deleting redirects). I hope that helps! -- Tavix (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Eirik Suhrke[edit]

Eirik Suhrke was a/the composer for Ridiculous Fishing, but ultimately, they are not related. He also worked on other games, such as Super Crate Box, Nuclear Throne, Downwell (WP:XY). Furthermore, the Ridiculous Fishing article holds no significant information on the redirected subject. — Delete. Lordtobi () 09:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. Again, this isn't an "XY" if he isn't covered in the other articles, and the redirect will not confuse any reader. While I'd consider him best known for his work on Spelunky and wouldn't mind retargeting there, that article doesn't mention him as written. Ridiculous Fishing would be a close second, where his work is mentioned. If you're going to systematically go through my redirects, please make your noms more constructive. I have a draft bio at User:Czar/drafts/Eirik Suhrke ready for mainspace, though I'd prefer a few additional sources first. I am no longer watching this pageping if you'd like a response czar 16:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Move draft into mainspace which would offer our readers a lot more information about Suhrke than this redirect can. -- Tavix (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think Suhrke is independently notable as sourced, hence why I think the redirect is a better fit czar 17:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Kipper (politics)[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep


Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Cinderella Phenomenon[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

HX Magazine[edit]

Target article does not include any mention of the subject. TheDragonFire (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. The title of the magazine is HX [37], which is also the title of another magazine from New York [38]. If text relevant for any of the two is added to an article at some point, then that article should hopefully appear high in the search results. – Uanfala 11:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uanfala. There's a few brief mentions in a few articles, so search results will be able to guide our readers to the scant bits of information Wikipedia has. Also, I'm adding HX (magazine) for the same reasons. -- Tavix (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


I believe these two redirects should be deleted per WP:FORRED. The first is the name in Italian, Venetian and Ligurian; the second is the name in Sicilian, Sardinian and Corsican. Italian is the only one of these languages to have any connection with Belgium that I have discovered, and that is weak - simply being a language spoken by around 2% of immigrants to the country. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak keep on Belgio. It's a borderline case. Yet foreign relations between Belgium and Italy are a topic with some history behind it, with the Free Belgian forces specifically deployed against Italian fascists in North Africa. Both nations are now members of NATO and a wide variety of pan-European entities. As far as people of Italian descent in Belgium, they're a significant enough group that Elio Di Rupo became Prime Minister, gaining international media attention as the first openly gay leader in charge of a whole nation in modern history. Even if the ethnicity's numbers are around 5% or so of the overall population, that's still a huge number of people. There seems to be enough there to justify having an Italian language redirect. I'm alright, I suppose, with deleting Belgiu. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 02:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete Belgio. I would've thought it more likely as a typo redirect for Bellagio. -- Tavix (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to close the May 30th log
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete first as foreign-language redirect as well as unlikely typo, but Keep second as a likely WP:RTYPO. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep both. As pointed out, Belgiu is a possible typo. As to Belgio, I have no concerns with foreign-language redirects where they are harmless and there is one obvious target. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep both: Belgio because, per CoffeeWithMarkets, the Belgian–Italian connection seems close enough that WP:FORRED doesn't apply; and Belgiu as a plausible typo. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep both' harmless and potentially useful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC).

Template:No source[edit]

The page currently redirects to one of the speedy deletion templates meant for files that lack sources. However, the template was misused. Also, "No source" looks misleading, and the redirect page is currently template-protected. Either it should be retargeted to Template:Unreferenced or Template:citation needed, or it should be deprecated. George Ho (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... how about disambiguating it? --George Ho (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
As ambiguity is allowed when it comes to non-mainspace shortcuts, and it would no longer serve as a shortcut if converted to a disambiguation page, I don't think that's the way to go. We also don't do that for similar shortcuts like the ones I mention above. I'm leaning towards retargeting this to Template:Citation needed. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Godsy, it could be turned into a dab. This is currently done with {{SPA}}, which links to {{ESP}} in Mainspace and {{spa}} everywhere else. Since the template use seems to be namespace-dependent, the same could be done between Filespace and "everywhere else". Primefac (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: Sure, it could be. However, it would no longer function as a shortcut, which basically deprecates it (i.e. use it would hardly if ever see use). It would only aid those searching for a template, which can be handled through hatnotes when necessary. Furthermore, the same argument could be made to disambiguate every ambiguous title outside of the mainspace (e.g. most shortcuts are, especially single letter ones). This sort of thing has come up here before (in regard to the Wikipedia namespace; couldn't find it offhand), and I've consistently opposed disambiguation outside of the mainspace; ambiguity is acceptable and allowed when it comes to the projectspace. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Godsy, I think you're misinterpreting how {{SPA}} works. The template page itself may look like a dab page, but when transcluded it either transcludes {{spa}} or {{ESP}}. Thus, it still is a shortcut, albeit with different outputs based on namespace. We have dozens of templates like that (hell, most of the XFD templates throw up a huge error if it's in the wrong 'space. Primefac (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: I did not realize that, thanks for pointing it out. Taking that into account, I'm also alright with disambiguation. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Template:Unreferenced as that one is where {{No sources}} goes. Someone seeing Unreferenced would see a huge banner, and then figure out whether they really mean that or citation needed. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per my response to Godsy above. I agree that having {{no source}} be used in the article space can be confusing, but it also makes sense to have it link to a file-specific di-nosource. See {{SPA}}. Primefac (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Template:Citation needed. To say an article has no sources (in the plural), is to say that it is unreferenced, but you wouldn't use that term in the singular. Therefore, the only plausible option to me would be Template:Citation needed, as it would imply that a single source is needed. -- Tavix (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
If it's still needed in the file namespace (I haven't fully investigated whether that's the case), I'd be okay with a namespace specific disambiguation, such as the one Primefac described. That being said, in mainspace the template should be {{Citation needed}} -- Tavix (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Update - Added Template:nosource as part of this discussion. --George Ho (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate Checking the "what links here" suggests to me that this template is also used for files. So merely retargeting the redirect is not a solution. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Make name-space specific this was the primary location for the tag for files with no source, and we should try to avoid damaging history. However it is very close to "no sources". The code I have added to the template page should be a good first cut E&OE. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC).
  • I was notified as the original creator. It was made to tag images that had no sourcing information over 10 years ago. I have no idea what it is used for now and hence no preference on what happens to it. Secretlondon (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. This is a perfect example of why disambiguation templates can be useful.  !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyttend (talkcontribs) 05:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

June 13[edit]

The Inning[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Security contractor[edit]

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: dabify

Chinese mars exploration program[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 27#Chinese mars exploration program

October 10, 2010[edit]

Redirecting dates to portal pages is an unexpected XNR. Retarget to October 2010? – Train2104 (t • c) 03:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget - I agree, redirecting into a portal page is not acceptable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Further comment - I believe that a calendar day is inherently notable and that to have an article on a day is completely acceptable. But a Portal current events page is not that article. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Zombi (2012 Video Game)[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete Zombi(2015 Video Game); no consensus for Zombi (2012 Video Game). -- Tavix (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The Next Michel Ancel Project[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7


Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6

Pineapple under sea[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

American Folkloric Tradition[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 21#American Folkloric Tradition

June 10[edit]

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious Meaning[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete


Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6

5774 (year)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 17#5774 (year)


Delete. Does not appear in target article. Did not appear in the target article until the editor below added it (without reference) while the deletion discussion was going on.UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep – It was used as a hashtag for Piggate [39]. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional delete please find another source besides a random tweeter using that particular tag. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - This just seems like a bit of nonsensical trivia to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep due to it being mentioned and sourced in the article. -- Tavix (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as it's mentioned in the target article. It has been mentioned for two weeks now, so it looks like the addition has stuck. – Uanfala 10:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep it is mentioned and backed up by a reference in the article. No prejudice to revisiting this if that ever ceases to be the case. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 25#Deltaairlines

Smart Mobs:The Next Social Revolution[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6
I would have thought it highly likely. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC).

Souther States[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Idioma hebrew[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

June 9[edit]

Idioma árabe[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Shit load of fuck[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete


Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: move Atómico (television program) here.

I Love the Night[edit]

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Easily confused words[edit]

There is a header on the target stating that the page "is not meant to be an encyclopedic article about such errors.", so a redirect (and linking, for that matter) from mainspace does not seem appropriate. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Common English usage misconceptions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. Looking at the project page at first I thought it looked like something useful for readers and wondered why we don't have something similar. That is, before I noticed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of commonly misused English words. feminist 16:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not retarget to Common English usage misconceptions as that article's topic is misconceptions about English grammar and usage, not confusable words. The current target, though in project space, is probably the nearest thing the average user will have in mind when searching for "easily confused words". However, there's no reason for the topic to be restricted to English, and the phrase is vague enough for there to be relevant content in several articles: Homonym, False friends or Paronym (the English wikipedia is was until recently the only major wikipedia without an article on that). – Uanfala 11:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Convert to stub - We really have no good article for this, although we ought to. In the meantime, I prefer creating a short stub that lists all the targets mentioned in this discussion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
That's more or less the point of Wikipedia:List of commonly misused English words... -- Tavix (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Move Wikipedia:List of commonly misused English words back to mainspace. It'll solve this problem and the AfD I read through was pathetic. Instead of moving the list to Wikipedia space, an easier solution would have been to prune the list of unsourced and/or uncommon entries. That can easily be done now. -- Tavix (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


At the very least these two redirects should point to the same place (they were created as-is about a minute apart by user:OnWikiNo in December), but I'm not convinced that either of the current targets are correct. From what I can work out, "Norðmanna" is Old English for "Norsemen" or loosely "Norwegian people", and modern Icelandic for "Norwegian" in much the same range of meanings and contexts as the English word is (Norwegian is a dab page). "Northmanna" seems to only be used as a transliteration of "Norðmanna" when ð is not available, Nordmanna (another plausible transliteration) has never existed. There are obviously a lot of ties between Iceland and Norway so I'm not certain that WP:FORRED applies. If kept (and I'm presently neutral about whether they are useful), I think that the disambiguation page at Norwegian is possibly the best target. I'll alert the Norwegian and Icelandic wikiprojects to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete both, because they are not in English. The first cannot be typed in English. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


Delete all per WP:FORRED as there is no strong affinity I have found between Norway and respectively Dutch, Spanish, French (accented and R without diacritics), German and Polish/Indonesian. Germany did occupy Norway during WWII but I don't think that makes it sufficiently likely that people will be using the German name to look up information about Norway in English. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I would at least retarget Noorwegen, Norwegen to Norwegian as plausible phonetic spellings and keep Norwegia pointing to Norway as an {{R from error}} since it's pretty common to just drop "n"s from get a country/region (e.g. Asian => Asia, Korean => Korea, Russian => Russia, etc.). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that Norwegen->Norwegian and Norwegia->Norway should be kept as plausible mistakes, and I would delete the rest. - Richard Cavell (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

364 (film)[edit]


Here's my next batch of problematic film redirects. These redirects target a director, actor, etc. that was rumored to be a part of a potential film. The problem, however, is that there is zero mention of such a film at the target, so anybody who wants to know more about these potential films will end up confused or disappointed. Most of these films are in development hell. They may or may not progress to production, and the director, actors, production studio, etc. could all change before then. Therefore, these redirects need to be red for now. If any of these enter production, then an article on the film can be created. Until then, these redirects aren't helpful. (raw list available on talk page) -- Tavix (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - deleting the Spy vs Spy one bothers me. There have been several shorts (usually broadcast on TV, of course) based on Spy vs Spy, which represent valid conversions of the Mad comic strip, which is a widely known reference point in comedy/youth culture/American publishing history/etc. - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all WP:TNT. Items can be re-created when films meet WP:NFF on their own. If they're the producer's pet project, then it would have a writeup on their article, but there's nothing. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

June 6[edit]

Tylognathus (disambiguation)[edit]

This redirect claims to be a redirect to a disambiguation page, but its target is not a disambiguation page. Instead its an article about the Obsolete taxon Tylognathus. Since there is no disambiguation page involved, this redirect is inappropriate. HighFlyingFish (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6, as is commonly done with this type of redirect. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I withdraw my previous comment. SIAs are an exception and I overlooked this. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not speedy delete. This is more complex than it might first appear, as the target page comprises a short explanation/introduction followed by a list of 34 taxa that were formerly placed here, when the redirect was created (by a bot) in 2010 this version of the article was current and was tagged as a disambiguation page. That tag was removed by Tortie tude in 2013 with this edit summarised "unlink invalid names" (Tortie tude's last edit was in 2014). Other than that unlinking and a rephrasing of the introduction, the page is basically the same as it was when labelled as a disambig. Essentially the article is a set index of species that were formerly classified as Tylognathus. There was a big discussion a few months back about whether (disambiguation) redirects pointing to set indicies were a good thing or not, I'm generally in favour of them as (imo) they can aid navigation but not everybody shared my view. I don't recall that this discussion reached consensus, but I can't immediately find it to check. Whether this redirect is useful or not I am uncertain about at the moment (I need to do more investigation when I'm fully awake), but it should not be speedily deleted before people have had the opportunity to opine. Thryduulf (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Target is a SIA that is functionally very similar to a DAB. There is no need to punish users who know that Tylognathus referred to more than one thing and search for this term as a result because there is some additional text at the target page.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia has numerous articles about genera. Some like this one Allogalathea are very much like the Tylognathus article: lists of species that belong (or in the case of Tylognathus, belonged) to it, with little context. Others like Epalzeorhynchos are have been expanded to be significantly more informative. Regardless, these are not DAB pages. They are articles about genuses. We wouldn't have redirects like Epalzeorhynchos (disambiguation) for each one. That would make literally millions of needless redirects. Tylognathus is not a DAB page, it is a page about an obsolete genus, listing species that were formerly within that genus. People might search it because they encounter it in an old reference work. I don't think anyone would ever search "Tylognathus (disambiguation)". If anyone has actually made that search please say so. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. While Tylognathus might qualify as a set index, it bears little resemblance to a valid disambiguation page. Redirects to a disambiguation page are created for a single purpose, which is to mark intentional links to a disambiguation page because by definition ALL links to a disambiguation page that are not so marked are mistaken links. Keeping redirects such as this only dilutes this utility and furthers the confusion about the distinction between set index pages and disambiguation pages. olderwiser 16:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tylognathus isn't actually a set index or a disambiguation page (although it was improperly tagged as a dab at one point). It's a low quality article about a genus that isn't currently accepted by taxonomists, with a list of formerly included species. I don't think that articles on non-accepted taxa are generally a good idea; redirects to the accepted taxon are usually more appropriate (which would be Bangana in this case). However, as the Bangana article doesn't account for all of the former Tylognathus species, I support retaining an article for Tylognathus essentially for navigational purposes. Even if it's navigational, that doesn't make it a dab. Plantdrew (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Plantdrew. -- Tavix (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Plantdrew as the target is nowhere near resembling a dab page. – Uanfala 11:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

CSS filter[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 24#CSS filter

Bound monster[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: restore article at Bound monster and retarget Bound Monster there.


Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget


Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Japanese-American War[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget


Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget to Clearview Airpark

Nelson A. Rockefeller Center[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 14#Nelson A. Rockefeller Center


Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Angla lingvo[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete.

4-an de oktobro[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Reality Leigh[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 21#Reality Leigh

Stanley B. Mulaik[edit]

No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Donald Trump–Russia relations[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 21#Donald Trump–Russia relations

Psycho (Borderlands character)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 21#Psycho (Borderlands character)

Adventure Time (band)[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Indie Megabooth[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: turn into an article

Cyclobothra elegans (disambiguation)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 22#Cyclobothra elegans (disambiguation)

Cinderella Phenomenon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 14#Cinderella Phenomenon


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 14#Template:Db-fake

Who wrote the Bible?, Who wrote the bible?, Who wrote the Bible and Who wrote the bible[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Arrested Development (2013 film)[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

June 3[edit]


Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete


"Bougenvilla" isn't mentioned at all at target article. - TheMagnificentist 15:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Jax 0677, per WP:LISTPEOPLE, people without a Wikipedia article aren't suitable for lists. - TheMagnificentist 08:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree. This is the kind of list like notable alumni/students, not a complete list, so non-notables don't need to be included. The other artists in Spinning have articles because their work has charted. I don't see anything in Dutch Music Charts [40] or Dutch Top 40 but is there another one they might have been listed? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I've added the RfD tag. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep but hatnote to Bougainvillea. Google hits are about equally split between the artist and the plant genus but I think the artist should take precedence over the misspelling (even though it is very plausible), a hatnote will cater for those who were after horticulture rather than music. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep with hatnote to Bougainvillea per Thryduulf --Lenticel (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Bougainvillea as an {{R from misspelling}}. Keeping it redirected to Spinnin' Records is out of the question as the list there is only for artists that already have articles. A conceivable alternative would be the creation of an article about Bougenvilla, but there was one and it got deleted at AfD in October. – Uanfala 14:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Bougainvillea exactly per Uanfala. -- Tavix (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:American Heritage Dictionary representation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 20#Wikipedia:American Heritage Dictionary representation


Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

May 27[edit]

Binary code compatibilityBinary compatible[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6

لنشيد الوطني الإماراتي[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: move without redirect to النشيد الوطني الإماراتي.

Hinduism redirects[edit]

Rest of the list (113 redirects)