Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

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

Administrator instructions

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

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

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

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

Contents

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

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

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

Shortcut:

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

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

Shortcut:

Reasons for deleting[edit]

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

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

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history, or 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. You might not find it useful, but this may be because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. stats.grok.se can also provide evidence of outside utility.
  6. The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form, or to some other grammatical form.
  7. The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and deleting the redirect would prevent anonymous users from so expanding the redirect, and thereby make the encyclopedia harder to edit and reduce the pool of available editors. (Anonymous users cannot create new pages in the mainspace; they can only edit existing pages, including redirects, which they can expand). This criteria does not apply to redirects that are indefinitely semi-protected or more highly protected.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut:

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

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

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Shortcut:
I.
Tag the redirect.

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

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

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

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For this template:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
III.
Notify users.

  It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors to the redirect that you are nominating the redirect.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect. For convenience, the template

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

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]
  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

Current list[edit]

August 3[edit]

Cnalwa[edit]

Redirect makes no sense. Name is not mentioned in the article it points too. Users should be free to search for random strings of meaningless gibberish without fearing that they may be redirected to Simply Red. DanielRigal (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Fly.[edit]

The period after the term is too unlikely of a typo. Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Soup de jour[edit]

The redirect's term is not mentioned at the target article. Wiktionary entries wikt:soupe du jour and wikt:soup du jour exist, but since this is a spelling mismatch, I don't think a redirect there would be appropriate since redirects from spelling errors don't seem to exist on Wiktionary. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Soup du jour and Soupe du jour are soft redirects to Wiktionary. They only have English entries there, though, so I am not sure how useful it is for them to be so. Soupe de jour and Soup of the day are red. Si Trew (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Caldo de res[edit]

This is the name of a soup/stew that I sort of know and is probably notable enough for its own article (WP:REDLINK). However, as it stands, the redirect's subject is not mentioned in its target article. Steel1943 (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Soup vegetables[edit]

The redirect's target doesn't seem to go into enough detail about the redirect's subject enough for this to be a helpful redirect. I'd say "delete per WP:REDLINK", but I don't think there will ever be an article created for this, and there may be a good retargeting option in an article related to "vegetable". Steel1943 (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete, it seems veering on WP:NOTRECIPE. It seems a tautology: what vegetables could one not put in a soup? WP:CONCISE, also WP:SINGULAR, we don't have Soup vegetable. It's an orphan. Stats server is down right now so I can't check that. It has been around since 2006, though. Si Trew (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to List of soups for the time being, it is mentioned there. I think the soup article should include soup based on vegetable ingredients, it has a section about fruit soups, which I assume are less common. Maybe I'll work on adding a section there, if I feel inclined.Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Nutritious soup[edit]

This phrase is not mentioned in the target article, and seems like a WP:NPOV violation. Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Crucal[edit]

I'm not able to find the connection between the subject of the redirect (if it even exists) and a leg. Alternately, I was thinking of this possibly being a misspelling of "Crucial", but that page is a disambiguation page, so I don't think that location would be a proper retarget. Steel1943 (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • @Ivanvector: I'm just not a fan of misspellings targeting disambiguation pages due to the possibility that the term may be purposely searched by its spelling looking for a specific subject. However, I'm neutral on the whole ordeal if consensus states otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I see what you mean, thanks for explaining. If there isn't an exact-match target for "crucal", and it's a plausible misspelling for "crucial", I think the potential for harm is low. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Retarget as above. I am with Steel1943 that Rs from misspellings to DABs are weathercocks pointing in all directions. Had this gone to the crux of the matter I would agree, but it seems patent to me that this means the tendons etc of the leg bone. Crucial (anatomy) is red; so is Crucal (anatomy): crux is a heavenly body, and crux (disambiguation) to which it hatnotes is no help. 21:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talkcontribs)
Çomment". PS I fixed my laptop so now I have four kb layouts, hungarian, us, ukk and belgian, and four physical keyboards to go with them, so please forgive obvious slips while I get used to the US layout, not used that one in a while. Si Trew (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: It’s a misspelling of “crural”. Gorobay (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think Gorobay's explanation is more plausible than a misspelling of crucial. Perhaps @Skysmith: might have an opinion as creator of the redirect. I'm inclined to keep the redirect, tag it as misspelling and perhaps add hidden comment on the redirect with rationale. olderwiser 18:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • After a bit of Googling, there's some evidence for it as misspelling for either crural or crucial. As such, it might be better as a redlink.olderwiser 18:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't actually remember all about the redirect except that it was related to my missing topics page about Anatomy. Hence the redirect to leg which, in hindsight, is not entirely obvious. In this case I think Gorobay's explanation is probably right, since the original term was possibly a typo in my original list of words. - Skysmith (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as it is a misspelling for a couple of different words. There'll be confusion no matter where we put it. (See also: hippocite). -- Tavix (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Piranshahr of Mokrian[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Alakzi (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"Piranshahr of Mokrian" isn't the name of anything. Alakzi (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per WP:G3-- this looks made up. Rubbish computer 14:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:G3. Not blatant hoax but pure vandalism: here today. I'll speedy. The page is now protected. Si Trew (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Vikas.Gupta[edit]

Not a plausible search term for Vikas Gupta. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I agree that it should be deleted. Can't imagine anyone pressing . on their way to pressing the space button. Dakaryammer
    stuff done
    11:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible typo. Rubbish computer 12:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:R3 could apply as it was just created today. I'd like to take this moment to point out the irony in this situation: someone who uses a dot as a space in their username nominates a redirect that uses a dot instead of a space. -- Tavix (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that. Unfortunately the irony is not complete as we haven't Vikas.gupta. Si Trew (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I won't argue to keep this, as it's so new, but in general, period for a space is one of my most common typos. It's always on my iPhone, but mobile readers are an important constituency for us to consider. --BDD (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Kristina Pliskova[edit]

Kristina is "not =" Kristyna. 333-blue 08:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Obviously keep, to help aid the searcher to find the article what they were looking for. "Kristýna" is not your typical English name, having this redirect is just as useful as Kristyna Pliskova for Kristýna Plíšková since not everyone has diacritics on their keyboard. Jared Preston (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. I've tagged it as {{R from incorrect spelling}}. Not only doesn't everyone have the diacritics easily accessible, but English-language news sources would not normally publish with the diacritical marks, so it's unsurprising people would search without them – and many people would not realise their significance, if they have learned e.g. Spanish where they are used as stress marks and their absence often does not change a word's meaning. Si Trew (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Aids navigation of the encyclopedia, redirects without diacritic marks are routinely made. Rubbish computer 12:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Rubbish computer: Perhaps now, but that is because of a wording change in the template documentation: which I don't read regularly (I have kinda abandoned my watchlist, if it is even on there.)
With this edit of 19 October 2014, User:Paine Ellsworth changed (among other things) a few words from "<big>exact same</big> title" (which this isn't) to "essentially the same title" (which this is). I'm happy with that change, since it did seem overly restrictive, but I can't see any consensus for it on its talk page: @Paine Ellsworth:, could you comment on that? Si Trew (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, both rcats would apply in this case – it's essentially the same title without diacritics that is misspelled. This redirect is also a good search term – both misspellings and sans diacritical marks are used extensively on this project, so it should be kept. – Paine  17:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
All agreed, but that wasn't my point: I was asking where there's evidence for making the change from "exact same title" to "essentially the same title". I didn't suggest {{R from title without diacritics}} because, having not read that template documentation for a while, I was still under the impression it only applied to "exact same". Si Trew (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Ringli[edit]

I'm not sure of the origin about how "ringli" refers to "doughnut". The redirect is not mentioned in the article, and other translations I am finding in other languages for "ringli" include it translating to "eyelid" or "anchovy". Steel1943 (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Munkkeja[edit]

WP:FORRED; donuts are not exclusive to Finnish. Steel1943 (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, and also because fi:Munkkeja does not exist. Their article is at fi:Munkki (leivonnainen); wikt:munkki tells me that "munkkeja" is the partitive plural, which appears to mean, roughly, "some of the donuts" (or alternatively, "some of the monks"). Even if some foreign redirects are worth keeping, ones that aren't in the usual case which that language uses for dictionary/encyclopedia headwords (e.g. nominative singular) really don't belong on English Wikipedia. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above points. Rubbish computer 14:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Garakjibbang[edit]

WP:FORRED; doughnuts aren't exclusive to Korean. Also, due to the fact that this redirect has incoming links, this topic could be notable by itself (WP:REDLINK). Steel1943 (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FORRED. (Not per WP:REDLINK I think; AFAIK this is not a variety of doughnut, simply the North Korean neologism for doughnuts in general. The sole incoming link is from list of doughnut varieties, where "garakjibbang" gets a bare & unsourced mention.) 58.176.246.42 (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as above, though it is a fantastic word. Si Trew (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: 'Garakjibbang' is an amazing word as SimonTrew said, but I doubt anyone would search for the North Korean word for donut on the English Wikipedia. Dakaryammer
    stuff done
    11:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Rubbish computer 14:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Note: 58.176.246.42 (an IP that contributes to RfD pages) has removed the link in List of doughnut varieties, stating that this is a word for doughnut in a foreign language rather than a variety link, reinforcing my decision here. Rubbish computer 14:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Fried cakes[edit]

Donuts are not the only cakes that are fried. Also, Fried cake doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. Should be its own WP:BROADCONCEPT article. Doughnuts are deep-fried, but kuih also mentions numerous fried varieties, torrijas are fried (though I'm not sure if they qualify as cake), birthday cakes can be dipped in batter and further fried after being baked (most of the Google News hits seem to be about that), etc. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XY, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. If anything, pancake would almost by definition seem the nearest we have to the broad concept of a fried cake, but I think that only covers shallow-fried ones.
Also, we don't have Fried cake, so this is dangling a bit. Si Trew (talk) 07:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Ape extinction[edit]

This redirect was formerly an article. It seems per its history that the information in the article was either merged into or planned to be merged into Ape, but the information seems to be absent from the target article'a current version (if it was ever there.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. Primate extinctionHominidae, which also doesn't mention extinction. That one's been a redirect throughout its existence, for most of it to ape extinction, which was created as an article in January 2003. From an hour after its creation on 26 April 2003 it pointed at Ape extinction until 8 April 2013.
  2. Ape extinction was converted into a redirect (to Hominidae, but not to section) with this edit of 8 April 2013 by User:Jackhynes, who had put in a {{merge from}} on 27 March 2013, here.
  3. Shortly after that day, Primate extinction was retargeted to Hominidae by User: AvicBot to resolve the double redirect.
  4. Ape extinction was then retargeted to Ape on 23 April 2013 by User:Dtgriscom, but Primate extinction wasn't, so making a fork, since Primate extinction still targets Hominidae.
  5. In the meantime, User:Jackhynes had done a (partial) merge from Ape extinction into Hominidae#Conservation on 8 April 2013: here. The merged content (a table) still exists.
@Steel1943: do you want to add Primate extinction to this nom, or should I make it separately? Their fate seems rather intertwined (regardless of whether or not you agree with my weak retarget, which may well not be the best option). Si Trew (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC) updated Si Trew (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Si Trew, it would probably be best to nominate Primate extinction separately since due to your findings above, the discussion's result will probably be different that this one's result. Steel1943 (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
OK. I think I'll wait until this one closes. Si Trew (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

White Crocodile[edit]

The redirect is not mentioned in the article. This subject may be notable to have an article as a separate subject. Also, at this title, there was previously an article that was redirected due to being a copyright violation. Steel1943 (talk) 06:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete google says that this is a novel with lots of reviews. This might fall under WP:REDLINK --Lenticel (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as confusing or very unlikely synonym. --Lenticel (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:G11 as promoting this novel: this seems identical to #FlykydFly. I am going to be bold and CSD it myself. Rubbish computer 14:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment @Rubbish computer: While I agree this should probably be deleted, it's not quite the same as #FlykydFly. FlykydFly is very specific and really has no other use or meaning than promotion. White Crocodile is a bit ambiguous as it could refer to the literature, and albino crocodile, etc. Interestingly enough the albino article has pictures of albino alligators. Maybe retargeting this there would be useful.Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

FlykydFly[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a pseudonym used by a YouTube video creator, who is not a fly. (I thought this could be eligible for some sort of speedy deletion criterion, but I could not find an applicable criterion.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Ecological importance of bees[edit]

The current target of this redirect seem to not WP:PRECISE-ly describe this subject enough. By my judgement, I'm unable to determine a suitable section redirect in Bee, and am unsure if there are any suitable retargetting options. Steel1943 (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as WP:XY. Pollination mentions bees a lot, but by no means are all (or even most) pollinators bees, nor all (or most) bee species pollinators. Si Trew (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK since this is a rather relevant economic and ecological issue. I think the closest target would be Pollinator decline but that article focuses on other pollinators such as bumblebees as well. --Lenticel (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:PRECISE, and WP:REDLINK as there is potential for article creation here. Rubbish computer 14:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Using epsom salt to reduce methane production by cows[edit]

WP:NOTHOWTO. Also, there is no information about how to do this at the target anyways. Steel1943 (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) How you find these things I don't know. Delete per nom, WP:RFD#D2 confusing since not at target.
There's a discussion at Talk:Cattle#Environmental impact, and a section at Cattle#Environmental impact which discusses options for reducing methane, but Epsom salt (→ Magnesium sulfide) is not one of them, "diet modification" (not linked) being about the nearest we get (assuming that is how the epsom salt is administered). Si Trew (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Arc of Iris[edit]

Since this term is not mentioned in the target article, I don't think the current target is helpful. However, the best alternate target I can find is Iris (mythology). Steel1943 (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Retarget to Arc Iris a band. In greek mythology Iris, a goddess, is the personification of the rainbow. I think that is what this is a reference to. I wouldn't appose a retarget to the goddess either, or a pure deletion as it isn't mentioned at either, hence the weak.Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Retarget Retarget to Iris (mythology)#In myths-- Rainbow very briefly mentioned but not by this name. Paragraph 4 of that section, 4th line: She is also said to travel on the rainbow while carrying messages from the gods to mortals. Rubbish computer 14:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Basic run[edit]

The redirect is not mentioned at the target, and the phrase seems too ambiguous to refer to any specific subject. Steel1943 (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

What do frogs eat[edit]

WP:NOTFAQ. Steel1943 (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Mbuzi[edit]

WP:FORRED; goats are not exclusive to Swahili. Steel1943 (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RFFL.Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFFL. Rubbish computer 15:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN, which is my preferred shortcut. WP:FORRED always makes me think of redlinks and it's impossible to know what WP:RFFL is unless you already know what the acronym stands for. To each their own... -- Tavix (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Khota[edit]

WP:FORRED; donkeys aren't exclusive to the Punjabi language. Steel1943 (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. This also appears to be an alternative spelling of the Kannada word for counterfeit and the Aymara word for lake, neither of which is a more appropriate target than this one. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFFL. Appears to be a foreign word for donkey.Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Breeds of horse?[edit]

I'm not an expert in horses in the least, but my best assumption is that all of these redirects are breeds of either wild or domesticated horse. However, this doesn't really help the average Wikipedia reader when these names (specifically the 3rd word in these redirects) are not found in the target article. There is a possibility that the target article may be the only suitable place to explain these topics due to possibly having very little information on them, but as it stands, none of these have any mention in the article, and thus, should probably be deleted per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: they're synonyms (taxonomy). The infobox cites "at least 48 published" which makes sense because there are 48 redirects nominated. I'm pretty sure we keep synonyms but I'd like to do more research before I officially !vote. -- Tavix (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: Maybe create List of horse synonyms, link all of these redirects there, then either delete all of these redirects or retarget all of the redirects there? (I'm okay with either option if this page is created, but I would still prefer deletion in case articles could be created for these individual subjects, but I'm still not sure if there is enough information out there for this to be possible.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm still unsure where I stand on this. You wouldn't make articles from these, they're synonyms, not distinct breeds. I also don't really see the value in a list of horse synonyms article because they're usually listed in the infobox (see the infobox on dog, for example) and I don't really know how much more information you would need besides the name, year, and person. I was looking for a previous discussion on taxonomic synonyms as a precedent, but was unable to locate one. If they're considered "novel or very obscure" synonyms, WP:RFD#D8 would apply, but I'm hesitant to label them in this manner. Steel1943: Would you mind if I contacted WP:TREE so we can get the advice of taxonomy experts? -- Tavix (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: About contacting WP:TREE: Go for it. This whole conversation we have had thus far is even making me unsure what to do with these redirects now. Steel1943 (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. I just wanted to make sure you wouldn't consider it a WP:CANVASS because I have a feeling they might (generally) be in favor of keeping them. We shall see. -- Tavix (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, at this point, I wouldn't consider requesting outside help WP:CANVASS-ing, especially since someone from there might know of a precedent that neither of us do. Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That, and if the precedent is to "keep" such redirects, the list of all 48 of these, in my opinion, should be added to the infobox (even if the list needs to be collapsed) to avoid confusion with why readers were led there. Steel1943 (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure these are not breeds (such usually do not get scientific names) but proposed subspecies that are now considered identical (as junior synonyms) to E.f. caballus. Therefore, redirects are appropriate. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all and elucidate, as the synonyms appear in literature and are valid search terms. It would be informative to have a discreet (e.g collapsible) list of synonyms somewhere in the article: probably not in Taxobox, where it would be unwieldy, but perhaps the Taxonomy and evolution section. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure these are "breeds", or more precisely, landraces (a term which is hard to define precisely, see extensive discussion last year at the landrace talk page). Look at all of the geographic names: arabicus, brittanicus, germanicus, helveticus, italicus, and nipponicus. Nipponicus really stands out, as I'm pretty certain there were no horses in Japan until humans brought them there. Breeds/landraces don't usually get scientific names now, but they may have been given a scientific name in the past. Scientific names have been around longer than the concept of landraces. The only three with further details at MSW (see here) are sylvaticus, sylvestris and tanghan, and all three of these are nomina nuda and thus can't be used as scientific names. At least some of these have been treated as full species (I'm finding a few mid 19th century books referring to Equus mongolicus), so if we're going for a full set of synonym redirects for horses, more will need to be created. It is even possible that some of these strings don't even exist in the literature. Something may have been recognized as a full species by a handful of authors, but treated as a synonym of domestic horses by all others, with nobody actually recognizing it as a subspecies and using the subspecies name. If these are kept, they really should all be checked to ensure that they have been recognized as subspecies at some point. I'm generally in favor of having redirects from synonyms, but I don't think there's any great harm in deleting this set. The nomina nuda should really remain obscure; I think I favor deleting them. Plantdrew (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
A little more detail. The way these were created from MSW was bad. All MSW says that mongolicus is a synonym of Equus ferus caballus. While that statement does indicate that Equus mongolicus, Equus ferus mongolicus and Equus caballus mongolicus would all be considered synonyms of the domestic horse, it doesn't indicate that any one of those three strings actually appears in the literature. Maybe all three do, maybe only one does. Thanks to the Principle of Coordination, if these names can be said to "exist" in a sense even without ever appearing in the literature. It's best to verify that they all have appeared in the literature. Plantdrew (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Ugh, it's worse than I thought. Some of these are apparently landraces, but some are fossils, and I'm not sure whether the fossils should redirect here, be treated as synonyms of Equus ferus, or should be recognized as subspecies of E. ferus (I'm not sure that MSW is very trustworthy for fossil taxa). So far I've checked the latter half of the alphabet (starting with hippagrus). Equus caballus tanghan, Equus caballus sinensis, Equus caballus nipponicus,Equus caballus midlandensis and Equus caballus lalisio don't appear in the literature (at least what's available on the internet); they do appear as full species (e.g. Equus tanghan). It's not immediately clear whether nipponicus is a fossil (I may be wrong about no pre-human horses in Japan). Silvaticus, germanicus, sequanius, robustus and midlandensis are all fossils, and sequanicus might be as well. Pallas appears to be a synonym for Przewalski's horse, and muninensis may be ancestral to Przewalski's horse (and maybe a fossil?). Equus caballus hippagrus doesn't appear in the literature (only appears as a full species), is a fossil, and may be a synonym for Equus asinus. I think it's best to delete all of the ones I've mentioned here, and may be best to delete the whole lot. I'll check the rest a little later for any other serious problems. Plantdrew (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I think deleting the whole lot rather than keeping or retargeting would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The fact that MSW lists them all as synonyms is reason enough to keep them, even though some may authorities may disagree or have individual quibbles. We as Wikipedians should not be judging the veracity of sources assumed to be reliable. Maybe some synonyms are regarded valid by some, which could possibly be explained or footnoted in the future (MSW notes at least two are nomina nuda, and see the comments under Equus caballus). Under the KISS principle, I think it's better to keep and explain (perhaps retargeting to a section within the existing article, e.g. Horse#synonyms) rather than hem and haw over each entry, until the point where enough new content can be added to merit re-targetting an individual redirect to a different article. For a general encyclopedia (not a taxonomic monograph), I see no harm in keeping the redirects. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I take your point on the fossils and Przewalski synonyms. But surely Wikipedia shouldn't be inventing trinomials that don't appear in the literature. Plantdrew (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I've now checked the remainder. The problematic ones are:
  • gutsenensis apparently ancestral or synonymous to Prezewalski's
  • gracilis fossil
  • germanicus fossil
  • gallicus fossil
  • equuleus fossil, doesn't appear in literature as a subspecies
  • bohemicus doesn't appear in literature as a subspecies
  • agilis one Google book hit as subspecies, mostly appears as species
There's scant information for some that I haven't listed; I can't be sure I've caught all the fossils. Given that gutsenensis, pallas and muninensis appear to be more relevant to Przewalski's horse than the domestic horse, I'm not inclined to trust MSW's synonymy of the fossil taxa. Plantdrew (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Indian proverbs[edit]

This page was moved, but not sure why it was redirected. - TheChampionMan1234 03:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Needs administrator assistance. Could an admin please look into the deleted edit history of Talk:List of Indian proverbs to locate the discussion referenced in the redirect? Steel1943 (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Update: BDD addressed my request in their comment below. Steel1943 (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore the VfD discussion page to the equivalent AfD location, and repoint this there. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The VFD is most likely contained somewhere in the deleted history of Talk:List of Indian proverbs. The first deletion discussions happened on the page's talk page rather than a separate discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll ping BDD as he's probably the most active admin in this neck of the woods. I agree that it's best to wait until we know the history. -- Tavix (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Steel1943: Wouldn't it be better to move it to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Indian proverbs because it was called VfD back then? It seems a little anachronistic to move it to AfD. -- Tavix (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: It would make sense for that to be created as a redirect to my proposed AFD page, but not the name. I mean, if a page by this name is nominated for deletion again, it would be helpful for the page to be in the AFD space for a reference, and so that the page titled Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian proverbs (2nd nomination) can be automatically created with no issues. (Basically, it's archive organization.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
At some point, all VfD pages were moved to AfD titles. So we could move to a VfD title, then move to AfD, to mimic that process. --BDD (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I just independently verified that. I guess I never noticed that before so never mind what I said... -- Tavix (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Writing program[edit]

The term 'program' does not always mean a computer program, and could refer to an academic program, training, etc, and writing SOFTWARE is not always synonymous with a text editor. - TheChampionMan1234 03:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. A text editor isn't even the only kind of software used for writing -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Ambiguous. A writing program could mean a product such as Word or a course to improve ones writing among other things.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • delete per WP:XY. Could mean a correspondence course whether to improve one's writing or anything else; could mean computer programming, or 101 other things. From a search, it seems more commonly to be a course offered by universities to improve students' general writing style or their creative writing. No articles link to it, no history after creation at this target, stats are well below the bot noise threshhold at about once every five days on average. Si Trew (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 15:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Koekje[edit]

Non language specific topic. - TheChampionMan1234 02:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep, mentioned in the article: "Its American name derives from the Dutch word koekje." -- Tavix (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • However the topic itself has little relation to the Dutch language, and who would search the English wikipedia for this, anyway? --- TheChampionMan1234 05:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It's related to the history and etymology of the Cookie, which is good enough for me. With WP:RFOREIGN, we usually delete when there isn't an affinity between the subject matter and the language/culture, but there is a connection in this case because the word "cookie" is borrowed and Anglicized from the Dutch. -- Tavix (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm explicitly don't know on this one (but open to bribes). Si Trew (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
*gives a cookie to Si Trew --Lenticel (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Ys vs. Sora no Kiseki: Alternative saga[edit]

The Falcom had told those games were not the same game. First, Ys is an RPG game used the adventure system. However, Sora no kiseki used the chess system. They're NOT the same game. I don't know which has played this game or not. But Falcom have tested, Ys vs. Sora no Kiseki: Alternative Saga is a grapple game. Why it just a redirect? --WKDx417 (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. About 70 GNews hits in Japanese (イースvs.空の軌跡) and 20 in English, suggesting it may pass WP:N. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per 58's points. Rubbish computer 01:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Ji'erjisisitan[edit]

Not related to romanised Chinese. - TheChampionMan1234 00:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Manual geomorphological modification implement[edit]

Extremely implausible misnomer, but not CSD because it is not recent. I understand that there exists a link from WP:SPADE to this, but it can be replaced with a piped link without problems. MopSeeker FoxThree! 02:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep it's not implausible, since it is actually in use. [1][2][3] -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong delete (and perhaps salt). I should have thought the whole point of its use in WP:SPADE, together with combat emplacement evacuator is that they should be WP:REDLINK: otherwise SPADE is saying "do as I say, not as I do" (hypocrisy). Without doubt they would not be kept were it not for their use in that articleessay. This kind of polysyllabic humour, as Fowler calls it, is not encyclopaedic. The references given all deprecate obfuscated language: they are not used outside of that context. Si Trew (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete--Why on earth would you type Manual geomorphological modification implement instead of Spade? Rubbish computer 15:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2[edit]

(Shari'a)[edit]

Unlikely search term. - TheChampionMan1234 23:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong keep: I believe it us often written like this. Rubbish computer 00:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    • With parentheses? (Note we're not talking about Shari'a which of course is a reasonable alternative spelling.) 58.176.246.42 (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. parenthesized -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Si Trew (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Jihad abou-georgi[edit]

This is (perhaps oddly enough) a person's name, anyway, the person in non-notable and not related to the target topic. - TheChampionMan1234 23:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 00:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I don't see it as a particularly odd name, really, we have plenty of English language names that are similarly martial. Si Trew (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Facts on horses[edit]

WP:NOTFAQ. Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete: I can just imagine someone typing this in the search box, but if we retain this as a search term, we would logically have redirects called "Facts on [everything else]" as well. Er, no. Wdchk (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above points. Rubbish computer 00:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all articles are facts about x, where x is the name of the article; unlikely search term, since the purpose of articles is to present facts -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I also searched for articles starting "Facts about" but fortunately came back empty-handed. Si Trew (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Chipkali[edit]

Lizards are not exclusive to the Hindi language. (WP:FORRED.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak keep: as plausible search term. Sorry, but I don't follow the rationale for deletion. Google leads me to believe that people in some places might know these animals by the Hindi name "chipkali" and search for them as such. (Re-target to a more specific article, e.g. Gecko, might make sense, but I couldn't say which that would be.) Wdchk (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC) – updated 01:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:FORRED. I added the link to this essay to my rationale. Steel1943 (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I have updated my opinion to "Weak keep", but still not "Delete", just because I have the feeling (and honestly I don't know) that this may be a case where a foreign term has been assimilated into a dialect of English. However, if the consensus is that it's a purely foreign term, fair enough, WP:FORRED applies. Wdchk (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It's also the nickname of a character, Aurora, in one of Salman Rushdie's books, who would "strive to be an invisible onlooker to the subject of her paintings, just like a 'lizard on the wall'." – a quote that makes that sense clear. But I haven't pinned that down yet beyond the quotes in biographies; I'm not familiar with Rushdie's work. (And somehow we would have to route it to the more natural fly on the wall.)
I'm inclined, with User:Wdchk, to keep it, as it does seem to be being assimilated into Indian English or at least Pakistani English, but none of the major online dictionaries have it yet. It would be better off at Wiktionary, but I doubt that will happen any time soon, and I'm not competent to draft an entry there. Si Trew (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Advertising (disambiguation)[edit]

The redirect doesn't target a disambiguation page, nor does one exist. (I had originally nominated this for speedy deletion, but it was declined.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete: Should be a dab page, or a redirect to one. (WP:DABNAME) Wdchk (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is an odd one – Advertising wasn't a dab page when this redirect was created, so perhaps the editor intended to make a dab page and it was put on the back burner? A search brings up several partial-title matches, some of which might be suitable as entries on a dab page, and the rest might fit into a See also section. – Paine  22:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 00:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I found one other value that could conceivably appear, advertising.com -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete (for now) as it doesn't target a disambiguation page. This should never have gotten declined as this is about as "uncontroversial maintenance" as you can get. As far as actually creating a disambiguation page, it can happen with or without the redirect. Everything else I see seems to be a WP:PTM, with perhaps an exception for advertising.com, but if another topic comes up, I think a disambiguation page would be useful. Perhaps we could create a WP:SETINDEX from those topics? -- Tavix (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and convert redirect to a dab page. It looks to me that the initial decline of a speedy was a good call, and that we should all be careful with our words – words that may be construed as a personal offense by some. There are already two prospective entries, and I've only glanced at the Special:PrefixIndex/Advertising list. I shall be happy to tackle this if it turns out to be the outcome. – Paine  15:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth: I might agree to that. Would you want to create a draft? I think people would be more apt to go along with a dab if they actually see one. -- Tavix (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Kia[edit]

Re-targeting: The redirect is not entirely identified on the target article Kia Motors. I propose the new target article KIA (disambiguation). Sawol (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:COMMONNAME. I've WP:BOLDly added {{redirect|Kia}} as a hatnote at the target. Kia (disambiguation) → the DAB at KIA, so that satisfies the nom, I would think. (I've also tagged that R as {{R to disambiguation page}}.) Si Trew (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • REtarget per nom -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:COMMONNAME. Rubbish computer 11:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, etc. Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Re-target to dab page. WP:COMMONNAME is not the issue here. If that were the only consideration, we would move the "Kia Motors" article to "Kia", but the move discussion for that was closed with no consensus. We need to consider whether "Kia Motors" is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Kia". When a reader types "kia" in the search box and hits enter, is it "highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined" that they are looking for "Kia Motors"? Alternatively, does "Kia Motors" have "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with" the term "Kia"? Looking at all the possibilities on the dab page, it is not obvious to me that "Kia Motors" is the primary topic. Wdchk (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
It is quite common to have a WP:DIFFCAPS, so I don't think retargetting it to the DAB at KIA helps anything: people looking for the car company are one click further to getting there; people who are not are one click closer (via the hatnote). It surely is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Si Trew (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Certainly the car is the primary topic. Adding "Motors" to that simply is natural disambiguation to indicate the topic is the company and not a particular model of car. There is no mononymous person named Kia, and most of the rest of the dab is acronyms, which are properly uppercase KIA. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In the last two !votes at the move discussion (which was only started on 20 July, and closed on 28 July) User:Sawol opposed, saying "This company is definitely not the primary topic for the word "kia". See "Kia (disambiguation).", and User:Wdchk also opposed "per Sawol". But that's confusing "Kia" with "KIA". WP:DIFFCAPS is fine here.
I think it's a case really that the move discussion did not get consensus because not enough people knew of it, hence it spilling here. Nothing wrong with that, but I'm suggesting a procedural close and the move discussion be re-opened at Talk:Kia Motors, copying the comments made here. Si Trew (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Confusing "Kia" with "KIA": Yes, Si, I think you have put your finger on the point I am making. We, the people who take part in these discussions, desire to bring order to the world and we treat these as two different things. For many Wikipedia readers, however, the distinction is lost because they search in lower-case: "kia". Having said that, I would not go so far as to argue that we should treat this case differently than any other three-letter word or acronym. And if the consensus is that "Kia Motors" should be the primary topic for "Kia", well, that's why we have the discussion. Wdchk (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Si Trew makes a good point. However, the move discussion didn't have that much participation, nor was this specifically the focus. Instead of re-opening the discussion there (whether this is canvassing or not), I suggest that simply notifying everyone who participated there, would suffice. That aside I think Kia should be Retargeted to Kia Motors.Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the discussion might as well stay here now. I was doing my best not to imply accidentally that anyone was canvassing or in any way acting in bad faith: sorry if I failed to do so.
I agree with you about talk page discussions... there are all the guidelines for discussing things on the talk page, but who actually does so? Only those who are aware of the problem (i. e., essentially, watching the page) in the first place. Si Trew (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
No worries, you didn't really mention or allude to canvasing specifically, I didn't mean to make it seem that you did: I wasn't suggesting bad faith by mentioning it, more or less bringing up whether it could pertain to this or could potentially fall under that umbrella. If the discussion had been about specifically redirecting the term, then maybe I'd lean that way. It wasn't, it was about an article move. The discussion there basically turned into a redirect discussion. That aside that particular page isn't really the preferable forum for a discussion on the redirect as it didn't direct there, it directed to the disambiguation. The best place for that is here. I'm going to be bold and notify the users that commented there with the intent to improve the quality of this discussion by broadening participation.Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Blanket posted a notification to everyone who participated in the move discussion.Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Previous Sheffield Tigers Seasons[edit]

Delete. Per WP:CONCISE, I've moved the target to Sheffield Tigers seasons. They can't go out of date in the same way that "Next..." ones can, though. Stats are at noise level, the only use was in article space was in the Sheffield Tigers article. Si Trew (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as this appears to be a redirect which is used and one which cannot go out of date unlike 'Next' ones. This appears to be a plausible search term. Rubbish computer 11:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Neither is used in article space. Si Trew (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Mashin' Duck Records[edit]

Not too sure this should redirect to Eminem. The only mention of this is in an infobox saying that this was one the record labels that he used (looks like in the mid 90s?). The name is also used at Soul Intent, Bass Brothers, Soul Intent (group), and Bassmint Productions. Since there is no content about the label at any of these places, I don't these redirects are helpful, if anything they're inhibiting searches. As such, I think it should be WP:REDLINKED so that someone searching for it can pick which article they want since all of those names will come up in the search engine. Also, this was deleted before, but as an article. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mashin' Duck Records. -- Tavix (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Keene West[edit]

Delete as an implausible misspelling. I couldn't find any sources misspell his name in this manner. -- Tavix (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 11:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete- implausible misspelling.Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The Toxic Avenger (2015 film)[edit]

"The Toxic Avenger" is a 1984 film. There is a section discussing a rumored remake, but as you can tell, it wasn't released in 2014 and won't be released in 2015. Delete per (a faulty) WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- Tavix (talk) 05:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and because generates unnecessary confusion. Rubbish computer 11:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as harmless. These are both {{R to section}} and without prejudice to this discussion I have WP:BOLDly marked them as such, and made that explicit in the nomination. 2014 is skirted over in the section, which covers plans (rumours?) about the remake from 2013 until July 2015. I'll say explicitly that The Toxic Avenger (2013 film) is red. Si Trew (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Next Bloc Quebecois leadership election[edit]

Delete. It isn't a good idea to have a redirect of the format "next (event)" as it will require maintenance, or in this case, remain outdated -- Tavix (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • delete per nom and general consensus on "Next..." redirects. Si Trew (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above points. Rubbish computer 11:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Trillionaire[edit]

Delete. Not at target. This is a bit different from those at #Quadrillionaire, not only in its target but that there is a page at Trillionaire (song) to which the target hatnotes. There's no need, the song can be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. While I could make a technical speedy deletion request per WP:G6 "Deleting redirects or other pages blocking page moves", I hesitate to do so while we have all these others here. Si Trew (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate for: wiktionary, Trillionaire (song) , Trillionaire$ , the song on How to Be a ... Zillionaire! -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. Rubbish computer 11:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Trillionaire (song) without moving the song to the base title. Due to the fact that this is a well known word, people looking up this term would be expecting to find the word, but at the present time, the word does not have an encyclopedic article (so this would be one of the rare occasions where title disambiguation would be required on the default primary topic to avoid readers being WP:SURPRISE-d when they arrive at this article.) Also, in my opinion, the Wiktionary entry should not be considered something to disambiguate against on Wikipedia since WP:NOTDIC. As for "Trillionaire$; I would be okay with Trillionaires redirecting there, but not "Trillionaire", confusion is not likely when looking up the singular or plural terms. Steel1943 (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate - Looks like Trillionaire-Dollar-sign to me, not a plural. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. It would also be a surprise to find that a trillionaire is a billionaire. I've made a Draft:Trillionaire with the suggestions above. But the How_to_Be_a_..._Zillionaire!#Track_listing gives only "(How to Be A) Millionaire", not "Trillionaire"'... is that a mistake? For now I've included it in the draft DAB, as it's easy to remove. Si Trew (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    Show the Additional tracks on 2005 version. See also (How to Be A) Millionaire for millionaire, billionaire and zillionaire versions. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Parallels Desktop[edit]

Parallels Desktop runs on more than just Macs. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. In the absence of articles about Parallels Desktop for other platforms, this is the best target. Si Trew (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. Rubbish computer 11:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. per Si Trew – while there are guest OSs, it looks like this one's mainly for MAC and likely will be the only article written on the subject. It does seem that the article should be at the redirect and vice versa; however, to maintain status quo is acceptable. – Paine  12:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Parallels, Inc., where someone can find all the versions. -- Tavix (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Just FYI, the versions are mentioned in the present, more focused target, as well as a link to Parallels, Inc. – Paine  14:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Quadrillionaire[edit]

This is a strange redirect it should be deleted along with quintillionaire, sextillionaire, septillionaire, octillionaire, nonillionaire and decillionaire which all redirect to millionaire. Marsbar8 (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all Who has a quadrillion dollars? Implausible search terms. Rubbish computer 11:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
There might be some Zimbabwean quadrillionares c. 2008. Check out Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe. -- Tavix (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
@Tavix: You are right but I cannot see this being a plausible search term. Rubbish computer 11:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, except for maybe a few hyperinflation examples, there aren't any "quadrillionares." Since none of these examples are mentioned in the article, it's confusing. -- Tavix (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've added the others to the nom (and tagged them at their pages). Si Trew (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I got an edit conflict because I was doing the same thing... I'm also adding Quazillionaire and Gazillionaire for the same reasons. -- Tavix (talk) 04:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that. We must have been coming in different directions as I added the tags at the redirect pages before adding the entries here, which I imagine you would have seen as you went through them, so I doubt you wasted too much work. Si Trew (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem at all. I saw the tags, but I just assumed that Marsbar8 added them. -- Tavix (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Si Trew (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Most are at noise level, but Quadrillion slightly more, and Gazillionaire got 12 hits on 11 July for no reason I can discern from internal evidence (history etc.) Si Trew (talk) 05:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Religious reformer[edit]

Implausible target, and cannot identify at this time a likely one. Religious reformers are not exclusively Protestant, or even Christian. DuncanHill (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

But contradicting what I've just said, Reformation (disambiguation)#Movements (the first section) lists also Islamic Reformation, Catholic Reformation and Radical Reformation as non-protestant religious reformations – as well as several branches of the protestant reformation movement – so it's possible we could send it there.
So Weak delete as confusing, but I can see Reformation (disambiguation)#Movements as a possible retarget. Si Trew (talk) 04:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Reformation (disambiguation)#Movements per Si Trew – ambiguous phrase synonymous with Religious reformation. Since we lack such a general article on the subject, the suggested target will take most readers where they want to go. – Paine  12:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, I change mine to weak retarget too, then. Si Trew (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

August 1[edit]

Coops And Cages[edit]

Redirecting "Coops and Cages" to List of companies of Australia only makes sense if Coops and Cages is a notable company listed at that article, which it is not. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 20:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete' per nom. Were it notable I would suggest adding it to the list as WP:REDLINK, but I couldn't find any WP:RS about it. Si Trew (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete 'coops and cages' is an animal husbandry topic -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I can't find enough refs to justify its inclusion in the target article. --Lenticel (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

About the Earth[edit]

Northeastern Australia[edit]

Somewhat plausible search term (getting at least a hit a day) but no plausible target (current target certainly unhelpful). - TheChampionMan1234 01:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget Northeastern Australia -> Queensland, which is geographically accurate. Delete Southeast Australia because it could refer equally to New South Wales or Victoria (Australia) since they are both in the south-east, or weak retarget to Victoria since our article says it's in the south-east, while our article on NSW says it's "on the east coast" (and not south). Plausible searches given that Western Australia and South Australia are both actual states. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget Northeastern Australia because that is what it is. But keep Southeast Australia as it is a term that is often used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: is "Southeast Australia" used more often to refer to either of those states in particular? Or just the general geographic area? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Southeast Australia is the general area rather than just the states. It certainly includes NSW as well as Vic. It probably deserves its own short article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'll move to keep pending creation of an article over the redirect, if anyone wants to, which is sort of opposite to what WP:REDLINK says but I think the current target is at least somewhat useful. We do have other non-politically-bounded "regional" articles, like Eastern Canada and Eastern United States, so an article on Southeast Australia is worthwhile if it's a notable usage. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete both as Queensland is not exclusively Northeastern Australia or vice versa, and per WP:REDLINK. Rubbish computer 10:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good search terms, and I'm not averse to the retargeting proposals above; however, the present targets will get readers to where they want to go. Two new articles might also be a good thing in each case, but we should remember that this can be done directly from a redirect, and red linking is not mandatory. – Paine  16:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Gerhard Müller (terrorist)[edit]

Propose deletion. The figures are minor ones in the organization and any potential biography seems unlikely to meet WP:IMPORTANCE. Nothing links to either redirect. Both classify people under the charged POV "terrorist" label. There is no substantive edit history. — J D (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, there is some kind of mismatch here (with Gerhard). Gerhard Muller, without the accent, goes to the DAB at Gerhard Müller where one entry is "Gerhard Müller, member of the Red Army Faction militant group". If that is the same chap, as I assume it is, then these should be tied together better at that DAB and I see no strong reason to delete them beyond that tidying-up.
The second is perhaps more problematic because the German racing driver Sabine Schmitz is, I presume, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with WP:CONSENSUS. But Sabine Schmitz (disambiguation) is red, and the article (if we keep the terrorist) should be hatnoted.
It's also very difficult that these are disambiguated as (terrorist) since obviously one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but I guess WP:RNEUTRAL kicks in there. Si Trew (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think WP:RNEUTRAL is enough to warrant using a pejorative characterization, and these pages don't fit any of the three reasons given there for non-NPOV redirect creation. As best I can tell, the closest thing Wikipedia has to consensus on policy on use of "terrorist" (WP:Use_of_the_word_terrorism_(policy_development)#Draft_No._4.2C_people_and_groups_only) begins: "Wikipedia does not directly label individuals or groups as terrorists." The name of this redirect seems pretty much like labeling to me. (This seems to be common for neutral style; compare Reuter's Handbook of Journalism: "Nor do we use the word “terrorist” without attribution to qualify specific individuals, groups or events."[4].) If we're going to keep redirects for these minor figures (what's the policy on noteworthiness for redirects??), they should be moved to Gerhard Müller (militant) and Sabine Schmitz (militant). — J D (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Let me add also, the redirect target contains very nearly no information on these two people. They are offhandedly mentioned, rather than having their own entry on the list of members. — J D (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete Sabine Schmitz per WP:BLP; seems to have been a minor member. This is the only source I can find which links this person to RAF (there are a couple others which are "under construction" or just don't load) and it does not explicitly use "terrorist". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL. The dab has an entry for "Gerhard Müller" and "Sabine Schmitz" has a hatnote. -- Tavix (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Tavix you added the hatnote but I do not think it's appropriate. It redirects to a page with virtually no information about that person. The fact is, Wikipedia has approximately zero information on this person. Whether she are sufficiently notable for that to change in the future is debatable. But we shouldn't hatnote now. — J D (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Then how would someone find the person? It's the same reasoning as WP:DABMENTION. If we have information about someone, we need to be able to help someone find it. -- Tavix (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
We don't have information about this person. That's my point. (Word search for "Schmitz" on the target page; there's no identifying information.) — J D (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes we do. There are two mentions in Members of the Red Army Faction#The Haag/Mayer Group. -- Tavix (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The only other (terrorist) we have is the article at Idriss (terrorist), which is at the DAB at Idriss and the navbox at Template:CanadianTerrorism. That makes a lot of WhatLinksHere for pages where the article is not otherwise linked nor the person mentioned.
I'd be inclined to move that article to Idriss (militant), and I could just WP:BOLDly move it, but that would leave the current title as a redirect which I would then list here at RfD. Since that would be makework unless we have consensus, I might as well ask here for opinions before I do so rather than afterwards. I can then propose a move without leaving the redirect, depending on what y'all think.
With this edit of 13 September 2011 the article was moved from Idriss (Canadian) by @Cyfraw:. Si Trew (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Good find. Idriss (militant) or Idriss (codename) would definitely be more apt names. The current title shouldn't be left, per above discussion. (Also, does this hypothetical person, apparently described only in person's uncorroborated testimony, even satisfy WP:NOTABILITY?) — J D (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Fuck Y'all[edit]

I'm getting hits that this is a snippet and a rumored track title on Black Panties, but I'm not seeing any information at the album nor on his discography page. Due to that I think they should be deleted but I am willing to entertain retarget ideas for the ambiguous ones. -- Tavix (talk) 04:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment "Fuck Y'all" is the title of a track on DMX's fifth studio album called Grand Champ.Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
You mean Grand Champ#Track listing? Si Trew (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Yes. Rubbish computer 12:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Two Headed Girl[edit]

Delete per WP:RFD#D3 as this is an offensive redirect. This was created by msuvula with the edit summary "Redirect to correct two headed girl to the names of the respective heads" which should be a dead giveaway of the intent here. They aren't "heads" and they aren't a "two headed girl" which would imply they are one person. This name is insulting and should be a fairly obvious WP:G10 in my opinion, but it was declined by Chillum. This should also be deleted as a WP:BLP violation because the girls themselves denounce this nickname. Check out this YouTube video (skip to 2:43) where the girls are asked "Do you have two heads?" and they respond "no." -- Tavix (talk) 04:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I declined the CSD request because it did not meet the requirements of CSD. Deletion may still be appropriate. Given that policy does allow for non neutral redirects if it is a term likely to be searched for I think RfD is a better way to go than me deciding it myself. I will leave it to you folks here to figure this out. Chillum 05:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
It's nothing against you or anything, I understand why you made that call. It's not blatantly obvious that it's an attack unless you know or investigate what the term means. The thing about WP:G10 though is that it asks whether or not a redirect is a plausible search term and I just didn't think it was plausible search term for them specifically. -- Tavix (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
No offence taken, this RfD is a good idea. Chillum 05:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment There's Polycephaly#Humans, though retargeting there might have the same BLP issues as the current target (given that it contains a list of names). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 06:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or retarget as we have conjoined twins most of whom have two heads, and many who are girls -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or Retarget. This would refer to most conjoined twins as most share a body but have two heads. This is inaccurate as conjoined twins are two separate people, not a person with two heads, but 'two headed' seems a plausible search term, for example it could be used by people who do not know the name for conjoined twins. Rubbish computer 11:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not retarget. Guys, don't you understand that this is an attack and WP:BLP violation no matter who you apply it to? "Two headed girl" isn't mentioned at "conjoined twins" either so it's not helping anyone putting it there. -- Tavix (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rubbish computer 20:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hardware system[edit]

The term "hardware" isn't exclusive to computers, so these redirects could be seen as misleading. Also, the redirects' term is not mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, clearly this is extreme computation bias due to our using computers -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Rename redirect to Electronic hardware, a more general article. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the dab at Hardware. It's a much more broad topic than just electronics. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget, but to Computer hardware: The "System" bit is telling. I doubt one would describe B&Q or Home Depot as a hardware system. (I just describe them as creditors...) Si Trew (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
No, but they are certainly hardware retailers. A plumbing system or a mains electrical system would be a hardware system. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Hardware per Ivanvector. I think this term is too vague to be narrowed down to electronics or computer hardware--Lenticel (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Hardware. Ivanvector's comment above convinced me, but in a roundabout way: I am not sure anyone would call a building's plumbing the "plumbing system" or its electrics the "electric system" ( → electricity), they would just call them the "plumbing" and the "electrics", wouldn"t they? "System" has become one of those words, like "situation", that seems to be tacked on to things unnecessarily: as indeed in this case for "hardware system" here. So it's best to send it simply to "hardware". Si Trew (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Hardware. Rubbish computer 11:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Goulddigger[edit]

Delete. Improbable typo; intentional misspelling to refer to Goulding or, more likely, a Gould. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible typo. According to Urban Dictionary, this is an informal term for "a fan of Ellie Goulding" --Lenticel (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep More likely to be an error from an English-language learner, but it seems like a plausible enough error in English. --BDD (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

*Delete as implausible typo, and per Lenticel's point this could be a deliberately offensive redirect or one created as a joke. Rubbish computer 11:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G10: as suggested by Lenticel's point it appears to serve only to mock Goulding fans. Rubbish computer 20:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Garaoke[edit]

Another one from the creator of Leondeon, this does not seem like a plausible typo, though, unsure if this is another Asian eye dialect spelling. - TheChampionMan1234 01:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I did see this when I was going through the IP's contribs but thought it was plausible enough to leave it alone, but now that it's been nominated, weak delete as implausible. G and K are pretty far apart, and on different hands for touch typists. Furthermore according to the article there aren't any languages which pronounce this without a hard K sound at the start, so it's also phonetically implausible. Also worth noting there's a karaoke DJ in Ottawa (possibly others elsewhere) who goes by "Garaoke", though I have no reason to suspect the IP is related. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Ivanvector, I imagine you didn't mean to, but your above comment seems to assume bad faith, and that you are now the Lord God Almighty on the subject of enunciation. I am sure that is not the case, but it sounds like that. (Or rather, types like that.) Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I can see what you mean, but I assure you that when I'm assuming bad faith, I state it explicitly so that there's no doubt. I have no way to investigate what the motivation was for creating this redirect, I can only report what I see, and that's that our karaoke article only lists pronunciations from languages which use a hard K sound (Japanese and English). There may be others which use G, or P, or W, or 3, but we don't consider them notable, or we don't consider them to have an affinity for this topic. Since every language in which this has an affinity has transliterated this as a K, I see G as implausible, and failing WP:FORRED. Also, let me state explicitly that I am Lord God Almighty of nothing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not a question of typing, a question of speaking. Perfectly plausible to me. Karaoke, after all, is a transliteration. Ga and Ka are distinct sounds in Japanese, but I can easily imagine a labial slide between the two makes a K into a G. (Put your mouths wide open and say Ka and Ga, your mouth doesn't move, your tongue slides forward and back, especially the back part of it.) Gaak! Si Trew (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:PROMO. This seems to be a Karaoke system business. --Lenticel (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Do we have any evidence of this spelling used elsewhere, perhaps in early English references to karaoke? --BDD (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible misspelling and per Lenticel's point possibly a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Rubbish computer 11:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

ダルビッシュ 有[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Deleted per G7. I have no idea how in the world I managed to create this monstrosity, although I suspect it had something to do with my input technology at the time, but in any event it's obviously unhelpful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete, since when searching for a Japanese person we woudn't type all surname, half-width space and given name. We just type surname and given name without space characters. RekishiEJ (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as appears to be an implausible typo. Rubbish computer 12:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

July 31[edit]

About hair[edit]

WP:NOTFAQ. Steel1943 (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all Wikipedia articles are 'about X' where "X" is the title we use on Wikipedia. There's no point in creating redirects to every article to be "about X" when "X" is about X. This is a very unlikely search term -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above. Rubbish computer 09:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, as all above. Si Trew (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thuthube[edit]

From what I have found, this seems like the Vietnamese word for "uncle". Well, uncles aren't exclusively a Vietnamese concept. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. General topic with no particular affinity for any language -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete can't find evidence that it means anything in any language, aside from possibly being a name. Definitely doesn't sound Vietnamese to me. If it were a correct Vietnamese word for uncle it might be retargeted to an article which covered Vietnamese kinship terminology or family structure, but the actual Vietnamese words for uncle are chú or bác for your dad's brothers, cậu for your mom's brothers, dượng for uncles-by-marriage (i.e. mom or dad's sisters' husbands), and ông (literally "grandpa", general respectful term for old men) for great-uncles. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Quotes about women[edit]

No subject by this name is described in the redirect's target article. Note: this redirect was the result of converting a list-like page into a redirect in 2003. Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Male issue[edit]

This redirect is not mentioned in its rather article, and the redirect just seems too ambiguous to be useful. Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I'd be worried about that since the synonymous connection is not mentioned in the article, and I was not able to confirm the validity of that statement based on results I found on search engines, and I looked for a while. (I've never heard of this term before: in fact, when I see this term, I think of an issue of a magazine.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I see where you're coming from. As a synonym, I don't think it needs to be explicitly mentioned there. I imagine a reader, probably not great with English, coming across the term "male issue" and not knowing what it means—this would mostly work there. Are there magazines that publish an annual "male issue" or something? --BDD (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I would assume that there is a notable magazine subject that does, similar to how the "Swimsuit Issue" redirect exists. Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Son per BDD, but I don't think speedy. I'd like to see what else people come up with for this. In this context "issue" is the term used for children of people who hold hereditary noble titles, such as the list at Sophia of Hanover#Issue. However I'm wondering if there's a competing usage for "stuff which concerns men", such as how women's issue redirects to oh, no, it's red. Never mind. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I think nobility is implied with this sort of phrasing, but not required. --BDD (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Tatko[edit]

The word "father" is not exclusive to Bulgarian. Steel1943 (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. This is a general topic with no particular affinity for Bulgarian -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN, as is redirect from unrelated foreign language. Rubbish computer 09:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per anon. --Lenticel (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

African-American grandmother[edit]

This specific subject is explained nowhere in the target article. In fact, the word "African" is nowhere in the target article. Also, African-American grandmother was formerly an article, but it looks like it was redirected due to containing mainly WP:OR. Steel1943 (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • We actually have an article on African-American family structure, though it only mentions grandparents in passing a few times, and never grandmothers specifically. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as there is no article related to this enough to have a redirect leading to it with this title. Rubbish computer 09:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

🏁[edit]

(U+1F3C1 🏁 checkered flag) Retarget to Checkered flag (disambiguation)Racing flags#The chequered flag. Current target is over-specific. Si Trew (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Pumpy[edit]

The redirect is not mentioned in target article, and I am unable to see a connection with the redirect's term with any encyclopedic subject. Steel1943 (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Apparently there was an American football player named Pumpy Tudors, which is just delightful. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I am unable to see a connection—try saying "PMP" out loud. – iridescent 16:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget as {{R from misspelling}} to Pompey. Si Trew (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The reader would have to type the "o" incorrectly, then completely forget the "e". This is too unlikely. Steel1943 (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Houghs Neck where a local location is indicated -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment:Pumpy does not appear to be mentioned in this article. Rubbish computer 10:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
      • You're not reading the article closely enough. or the pumpy by the locals -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as there seems to be no suitable article for this to lead to. Rubbish computer 10:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Peter Sabbath[edit]

I see no connection here. Magioladitis (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per apparent lack of connection. Rubbish computer 14:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The connection is found in the reference citation that was removed (and rightly so) from the redirect. That citation has been placed on the talk page of the redirect. Gonick, the author of The Cartoon History of the Universe, mentions on page 298 of his work that Prince Justinian's birth name was "Peter Sabbath" and that "Justinian" was his adopted name. This redirect is not mentioned either in the present target's article or the perhaps better target, the article about Gonick's work. Perhaps if "Peter Sabbath" were to be written into the article about Gonick's work, then this redirect could be retargeted there. Barring that, a Google search provides us with a priest who might be notable someday, which means this redirect might be better off as a red link. It's a 7-year-old redirect, so external links breakage should also be a consideration. – Paine  04:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Probably a bad idea, but targeting The Cartoon History of the Universe? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Bill Niederst[edit]

How are these two names connected? Magioladitis (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per apparent lack of connection. Rubbish computer 14:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I know Jennifer Niederst, so I can personally attest that the following is a legitimate page, a page where she makes the connection quite clear: http://www.jenville.com/. More generally, this name association, complete with birthplace, is made at literally thousands of pages on the Web, such as IMDB, and of course at the article Liam Lynch (musician). If it were false, and Wikipedia were responsible for the false information, wouldn't Mr. Lynch have been likely to complain? (And finally, may I suggest that in the future, when the editor who created the redirect - in this case, that's me - is still active, it would much simpler just to ask a question on that editor's talk page.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Well I still don't see any connection at Wikipedia, which I think was the implication in the question by the nominator: searching for "Bill" in the target article yields nothing. @John Broughton:, despite what you say, this name is not mentioned at Liam Lynch (musician) as far as I can tell. Nobody suggested the information was false, the implication was (I think) that it is a WP:SURPRISE to put in this name and end up at an article which doesn't mention it.
After all, there are probably many Bill Niedersts (and Billy Niedersts and William Niedersts) in the world, many of whom are not WP:N: so from the point of view of Wikipedia navigation, this is not useful as it stands. This is an encyclopaedia not a directory such as, e.g. zoominfo.com. Since there is no encyclopaedic content on this person, it's reasonable to suggest deletion.
I agree it would have made sense to talk to you first as the creator of the redirect, but since you get the notification of listing anyway, it's no big deal. Si Trew (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: - The first three words in the Liam Lynch article are "William Patrick Niederst". To state the obvious, "Bill" is a variant of "William". There are no notable people named "Bill Niederst" other than the one we're talking about, so I'm not sure how WP:SURPRISE is relevant here.
If someone wants to create a redirect at William Niederst or William Patrick Niederst, have at it. It's been 8 or so years since I created the redirect, and I'm guessing that Mr. Lynch was known among his friends as "Bill" rather than "William". But that's just a guess; I've never met him or spoken to him. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
As you say, that's just an unsourced guess. MOS:BOLDTITLE says "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence", so Liam Lynch should appear before his real name. As for William vs Bill, it is not necessarily obvious to a WP:WORLDWIDE audience for whom English may not be a first language: at least, "Bill" should appear in the name, c.f. Buffalo Bill or Bill Bryson. Si Trew (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the last time I edited the article, in 2007, the name, at the time, was "Bill Niederst", not William, and the name was, as you point out it should be, not the initial words in the article. So someone else changed that part of the article since I last edited it, and you're welcome to fix that.
As for the core issue, I think that it is sufficiently documented that Liam Lynch's original last name was Niederst. (Here's an archived page from Jennifer Niederst's website, in case there are still doubts.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I've no doubt his name is William or Bill Niederst. It's just ithe article doesn't clearly (reliably) say so. We can fix that, as you say. Si Trew (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Information On Giant Pandas[edit]

Seems unnecessary JZCL 10:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Added. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete both per WP:NOTFAQ. Rubbish computer 14:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete due to the superfluous "information about/on". It's obvious that the Giant Panda article contains information, we don't need a redirect telling us that. -- Tavix (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Fun fact: I almost nominated this back on May 19th, but ended up finding a better "I" entry and forgot about it until now. -- Tavix (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete information on X is exactly what all articles are about, information on "X". We do not need every article to have a redirect from 'information on X' forms. These are unlikely search terms. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as very obscure synonyms for the article --Lenticel (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Heavy metal ramification[edit]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2. Same idea as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 31#Heavy metal genealogic tree but I think this is different enough that it should get a separate discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Heaevy metael uemlaeuet[edit]

Delete as an implausible misspelling. The German-to-English rule of respelling "ü" as "ue" doesn't apply to a heavy metal umlaut because it isn't actually German. -- Tavix (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, per Tavix. I'd argue that since none of marks on these letters is really an umlaut (linguistics), calling them so is technically wrong, but of course Metal umlaut is its WP:COMMONNAME so that of itself is fine, but these are stretching it a bit.
We don't have Mëtäl ümläüt, nor Heävy metäl ümläüt (for which the first one would be the transliteration), but we do have Heavy metal ümlaut, Röckdöts, Röckdöt and Röck döts for the others respectively: these also all go to Metal umlaut.
{{R from title with diacritics}} is inappropriate in these cases since they are not the exact same title as required (or at least recommended) when using those templates.
This is getting a bit out of hand, I think: @Tavix:, did you want to add any I mention to the nom? Si Trew (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: I think it'd be best to start a new nomination because the rationale would be different. You're more than welcome to make the nomination if you'd like. I'd like to focus this one specifically on the false "ü" to "ue" respelling. -- Tavix (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll wait until we settle this one. Si Trew (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Heavy metal ümlaut is less clear-cut: The word umlaut does not actually have an umlaut on the U, even in German, but I can see it being a common misspelling of "umlaut" rather than of itself intended to mean the metal umlaut. But then, we don't have metal ümlaut. Si Trew (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as an implausible misspelling. Rubbish computer 15:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep the two heavy metal redirects, as intentional mispellings, which may be copypasted into the searchbox -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Could you explain further? I'm not understanding what you're saying. -- Tavix (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm saying they're intentionally spelled with improper spelling to emphasize the heavy metal umlaut, by using the conventional umlaut replacement scheme with a following-e -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
But, as I pointed out above, we don't have metal ümlaut, so it does not follow that we should have heavy metal ümlaut let alone the transliteration heavy metal uemlaut. (I don't need to copy-paste them, I can type them: on a US keyboard with a US International keyboard layout.) Heaevy metael uemlaeuet is even more odd because putting the umlauts back would give Heävy metäl ümläüt, which is red. Si Trew (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
That those redirects do not exist does not follow that these redirects that do exist automatically shouldn't exist. We're just missing some redirects in that case, that can be created. Redirects don't spring up automatically as a consequence of an article being created, someone needs to go around and create them as well. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
My main bind is that the laut placing on these is arbitrary. You mention a "conventional umlaut replacement scheme" but I don't see any convention being followed here. Si Trew (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Heavy m[edit]

This is a super vague redirect. For starters, my search results show "Heavy M" as being some kind of mapping technology. On Wikipedia, it could refer to anything at heavy metal, heavy mineral, heavy machine-gun, etc. No matter where you put it, there'll be a WP:SURPRISE, so it should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Ambiguous.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was actually thinking more of Livestock_branding#Symbols_and_terminology, but "heavy" appears not to be used in that terminology. Heavy M is red. Looks like this was just a typo (albeit one that has been around since 2008); stats are well below noise level (average a little over one a week). Si Trew (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 15:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete due to vagueness --Lenticel (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Heavy metal genealogic tree[edit]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2. This is confusing because the article gives no indication of what a "heavy metal genealogic tree" would be. -- Tavix (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Next Australian constitutional referendum[edit]

Delete. It isn't a good idea to have a redirect of the format "next (event)" as it will require maintenance, or in this case, remain outdated. -- Tavix (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete; it's possible it would be used correctly, e.g. if the article was about some event in 2011 then in context the next referendum might be in 2013, even though now in the past: but even so it would be better to refer to a specific date and pipe, I think. Si Trew (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - While it may get readers where they want to go right now (WP:POFRED), it will quickly become dated. WP:NOTFAQ.Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as too vague and will become, or remain, outdated. Rubbish computer 15:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Turkishmenistan[edit]

Invented name (sorry if there are multiple nominations or whatever TWINKLE is misbehaving itself today.It said "Invalid token") - TheChampionMan1234 03:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. WP:RFD#D8 (novel synonym). Clearly not a likely typo or misnomer; only 13 hits in past three months. Possibly WP:RFD#D3 (insulting or abusive) too, though it's hard to tell since basically only one person on the entire internet uses this term (a NationStates forum user). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, a combination of Turkish and the latter half of the Turkmenistan. If they spoke the Turkish language in the country (they speak the Turkmen language), or the country was a city located in Turkey, I could see it. But that's not the case. I don't think it's WP:RFD#D3 though.Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Harmless, plausible typo. Falls through the cracks a bit. WP:RFD#K2 frequent misspelling (but not very frequent, it seems.) Si Trew (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MADEUP. I endorse Godsy's rationale as well. -- Tavix (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as this does not seem like an entirely implausible misspelling. Rubbish computer 10:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

My Malaysia[edit]

No plausible target and this particular term certainly does not refer to the current target. - TheChampionMan1234 03:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Refine to Negaraku#Proposed renaming where this is now mentioned and sourced. (Malaysiaku was already mentioned there, it just didn't mention that means "My Malaysia" in English. Malaysiaku also redirects to Negaraku already.) As the nominator states, there is no other plausible target. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 04:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Okay, there's an apparently non-notable film by Wong Kew-Lit which is actually called My Malaysia (unlike the anthem's proposed renaming to Malaysiaku) and gets a bare mention on his article (and in laundry lists of his works in lots of news articles). A WP:TWODABS WP:DABMENTION seems like a bad idea. Maybe delete and let search results sort it out. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wong Kew-Lit#Filmography, where it is mentioned with enough context to establish some meaning-Kew-Lim's involvement, the fact it is a film and when it was produced.

I-net[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. Converted to a disambiguation page. Being a bit bold myself and closing early! (non-admin closure) Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Possibly retarget to iiNet, as I couldn't think of any other possibility, there are several other non-notable topics by that name. - TheChampionMan1234 02:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Create a disambiguation page i-net and iNet are synonyms for "internet", however, we also have topics inet, INET, Inet TV, INET (Megaranger), for which we are missing a disambiguation page -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedural close, please, since there were no links in article space (and only a few in user space plus this discussion of course) I've WP:BOLDly converted this into a DAB with the entries as suggested, so it is no longer a redirect. I've also added a hatnote at Inet (but not at any others). I am sure other entries could be added to the DAB, but it's a start. Si Trew (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
  • Comment. Sorry about doing this after the close, but I've moved the DAB to Inet (disambiguation) and tidied/added the hatnotes at Inet and INET. So it is now an R again, but an R to DAB. I add that here as it may seem confusing to others coming to this discussion after the early close: a bit naughty I know but useful to add it here, I think. Si Trew (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Internet Options[edit]

WP:NOTGUIDE - TheChampionMan1234 02:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak retarget Delete Browsing History to Web browsing history; where this topic is discussed (granted, that section also looks like a "how-to guide" right now, but given articles like [6] there is probably room for more encyclopedic discussion of the topic there). Delete Internet Options as too vague to refer to any specific topic; best result in that case is probably to show search results. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete "internet options" is excessively vague, as it could refer to dataplans, or ISP choices, etc. Delete "browsing history" as excessively vague, since many websites keep track of browsing history through your account, etc. Delete as WP:NOTHOWTO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete due to vagueness. --Lenticel (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Rubbish computer 10:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

How mobilephones work?[edit]

WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTFAQ. - TheChampionMan1234 02:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Summary of trojan war[edit]

I'm concerned that this is misleading. In a sense, any article is or contains a summary of the topic. So a reader specifically searching for this term may be looking for something more specific, along the lines of the excellent Introduction to evolution.

There are other redirects like this, but I'm not going to review them all right now. Summary of 6teen episodes seems fine since the target contains summaries of episodes, but many others, I suspect, have the same problem as the Trojan War one. BDD (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • If there were an Outline of the Trojan War as there is for some topics, this would be a good redirect to it. That's currently a redlink, and beyond my skill to create. Weak keep, I think, in the sense that the lede of any article is meant to be a summary of the topic, and Trojan War has a decent one. I also see BDD's point about it being misleading, but I think it's not particularly harmful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This was converted from a stub to a redirect one minute after it was created on 6 October 2008, so the chances of external links are vanishingly small. It probably should have been deleted then, but hey-ho. Hits are well below noise level (about one every two days) and no internal links except related to this discussion. No significant edit history. Does not meet WP:TITLECAPS. We don't have Summary of Trojan War, Summary of the trojan war or Summary of the Trojan War. I think Ivanvector's point about having an outline article is good, but then this should be deleted per WP:REDLINK, to encourage its creation. Si Trew (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per SimonTrew's points. Rubbish computer 10:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Rekt[edit]

This isn't internet slang; it's a meme for the word "wrecked". Steel1943 (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage potential article creation; there is, for example, the article Teh. Rubbish computer 10:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Namgyong[edit]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep "Nanching" -- this is clearly a Wade-Giles variant, and most Chinese cities should have various Wade-Giles variants as redirects -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment "Namgyeong" is getting lots of hits for some reason, so it may be a candidate for keeping. Sideways713 (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
It's linked (not piped) from Seoul#Etymology, but oddly not from Names of Seoul. Suppose then that it should be retargeted to Seoul as an alternate name, although that makes it a circular redirect. Doesn't seem to be in use anywhere else, but certainly a WP:SURPRISE clicking on a historic name for Seoul and ending up at Nanjing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Nice catch; I agree it should be either retargeted to Seoul or deleted. Sideways713 (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Chonjin[edit]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Tyenjin because that's how it's pronounced, making this a plausible guess by anyone who doesn't know Chinese. The others are Korean and can be deleted. Siuenti (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Tyenjin, Delete the other two per Siuenti. Rubbish computer 10:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Sanghae[edit]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak retarget to Cha Sang-hae, although deletion would be the more obvious thing to do. - TheChampionMan1234 00:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Sanghae is also an alternative name of Dongmyeong of Goguryeo. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: 58.176 is probably on to something there. My search is showing that this might be an honorific or a diminutive in Korean, as I'm finding many Korean actors who have played roles with Sanghae in the name, as though it's a modifier and not a real name. I've also found this which is a discussion of the Korean crime "sanghae" which is essentially "inflicting bodily injury", but I don't think redirecting to a legal topic would be appropriate per WP:FORRED. In the case of Cha Sang-hae, unless he is known just by "Sanghae" then this wouldn't work. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Sanghae is just an ordinary name, no special honorific meaning [7]. I'm not a big fan of redirecting names to random people who have that name, but it's a losing battle; there's thousands of {{R from given name}}s. On the other hand, when there's more than one person with the same given name, there's usually a WP:SETINDEX for all the people with that name, which I think is reasonable. There's even a whole WikiProject devoted to maintaining them: WP:ANTHROPONYMY. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Dongmyeong of Goguryeo, the only person in English Wikipedia who is known mononymously (even if only alternatively) as Sanghae. If Wikipedia gets more people named Sanghae in the future, then perhaps Sanghae could become a {{given name}} WP:SETINDEX. But since there's only one other person in Wikipedia right now, and Sanghae isn't one of the list of the most popular given names in South Korea, the name doesn't seem to need a set index page right now. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Beiching[edit]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: When I first saw "Beiching" above, I thought it was as misspelling for "belching". Steel1943 (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Beiching per 67's point. Unsure about the others. Rubbish computer 10:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Tongkyong[edit]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Is God real?[edit]

WP:NOTFAQ.

WP:NOTFAQ, and we're not Jeopardy.

*WhatIsGodGod  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  [Withrdraw one see WP:POFRED "Old-style CamelCase links (if already in existence)". Now identified as that on the redirect page]

WP:NOTFAQ and WP:RFD#D8. Especially improbable because "is" is capitalized.

Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep WhatIsGod, per Ivanvector. I wasn't sure whether that was an old CamelCase redirect (I wouldn't keep newly-created ones) but in a blinding flash of inspiration I checked the history to find it was created back in 2002. Without prejudice, I've tagged it as {{R from CamelCase}}. Delete the others. Si Trew (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • But is the camelcase redirect even valid? ie, if it wasn't camelcased, would it be an acceptable redirect? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • According to the relevant guidelines at this time, my opinion would be that it wouldn't be. At the time this was created however, it may have been acceptable.Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Jumpy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. WP:IAR close here. I created the redirect, but have since converted to a disambiguation page, which seems to go in line with the nominator's rationale anyways. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

May not be a reasonable redirect, as the page's name is an adjective that can reasonably be construed to have other meanings, and is not specific to the redirect target. MopSeeker FoxThree! 00:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate. (I am the redirect's creator.) I drafted the disambiguation page below the redirect after I realized that all current incoming links refer to a non-existent article called Jumpy (play). Steel1943 (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I mean seriously, can this discussion be closed? (WP:IAR?) This redirect was nominated a mere minute or two after I created it. I didn't even have time to realize that I made a mistake. Steel1943 (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

July 30[edit]

Do not revert during talk page discussions[edit]

WP:CNR Not for article readership - TheChampionMan1234 23:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Self-proclaimed psychic[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedily deleted by The Anome. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This was only used to link to Liar/Charlatan from the lede of Uri Geller in a non-obvious way. —Ruud 23:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - I think this is a G10, as its only purpose is to disparage. It's not disparaging to its actual target, though. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sperance[edit]

The redirect is not mentioned in its target article. Also, I have been looking around for some sort of definition of the redirect term on search engines, and I cannot find any. Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment:A misspelling of esperance definition; hope or expectation. Rubbish computer 22:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Delete as seems implausible; a not particularly likely typo of an alternative name. Rubbish computer 22:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

[edit]

I'm thinking that this redirect should target Advertising per WP:DIFFCAPS (the part that promotes different capitalizations representing different topics) and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. The only other contender that I see on the disambiguation page that matches it's capitalization is Ad (given name), and it doesn't seem like it comes close enough in notability to Advertising to keep it from being the primary topic for this term. Steel1943 (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom - I agree. A user typing "ad" is most likely looking for advertising; a hatnote at Advertising would serve other uses. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget I see advertising as the more likely destination.--67.68.31.200 (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per above. Rubbish computer 22:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose "ad" is the same as "Ad" and ad can refer to Anno Domini, so the current target is fine, since some people do not capitalize AD. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand "people don't capitalize AD": you just did. Retarget' as above. Si Trew (talk) 09:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Anno Domini can be abbreviated two ways "AD" or "A.D.". "Ad" or "ad", I'm fairly certain is simply incorrect.Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that AD most commonly represents Anno Domini (especially since it already targets that article), but the lowercase variant without periods seems to almost always refer to Advertising. A hatnote at the top of Advertising can be added to direct readers to AD (disambiguation) if by chance they are looking for something else. Steel1943 (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Senator from Comcast[edit]

Cited as a "common nickname" for Specter in its creation summary, this phrase nevertheless doesn't appear on his article. The "Senator from [Company]" (and variants) epithet is not uncommon in politics, but I was surprised we don't have any other instances of it. Henry M. Jackson was commonly known as Senator from Boeing, which is mentioned at his article but not a redirect. During the 2008 primary there were media reports that Obama's camp called Hillary Clinton "Senator from Punjab", though the actual phrasing was written "(D-Punjab)". That one's not mentioned on her article, and probably shouldn't be. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - doesn't appear to be common at all, only disparaging. If you google "senator from comcast" (without quotes) you get many results for Al Franken, but not because he is known by this name. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: implausible. Rubbish computer 22:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wouldn't Senator for Comcast be the more natural way to put it, anyway? I was trying to find analogies with "MP for" or "Minister for" used sarcastically, when MPs are known to have some peculiar characteristic ("MP for Bad Hair") or conflict of interest ("Minister for Pollution"), but failed with that. Si Trew (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
No, not in American English. While, for example, Chuck Schumer is a Senator for New York, in a sense, the much more common way of putting it would be "Senator from New York". (That form is used in the article's lede, in fact.) --BDD (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, thanks for that: that's definitely an WP:ENGVAR, then. Si Trew (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Scott Hoeflich[edit]

This person served as Specter's chief of staff, but he isn't mentioned at Specter's article. Hoeflich is still alive and may be notable in his own right, but for now, this redirect isn't helping anyone. BDD (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Acidobacterium[edit]

This redirect incorrectly links the genus Acidobacterium to the Acidobacteria phylum; these are not synonymous taxa. Teixiptla (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment is genus Acidobacterium a member of the phylum Acidobacteria ? If so, it would still be appropriate as a {{R from subtopic}}. Is there a higher level taxon that Acidobacterium belongs to that we have an article on? Though you could just convert the redirect into a short stub article instead. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Acidobacteriaceae. It's very uncommon to have a genus redirect to its phylum, but a genus redirecting to its family is not so odd. Here, there's also substantial potential for confusion, since the redirect just appears to be the singular form of the target article; that's probably why it was created in the first place. We'll eventually want an Acidobacterium article, but this will be a substantial improvement in the meantime. I'm tagging with {{R with possibilities}}. --BDD (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are multiple options on what should be done with this redirect; one option is to keep it where it is (possibly) per the comment, and the option for retargetting. More discussion regarding these two options may be needed. (Also, thank you Tavix for completing this Relist: real life got in the way for longer than I expected.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I figured it was something like that. I just didn't want another Bill Cunningham (politician) incident, so I thought I'd step in and finish it just in case. -- Tavix (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Generally, if you're going to make a redirect from a taxon, you're going to have it point to the taxon one up in the hierarchy. Species to genus, order to class, etc. The main reason to deviate from that would be for monotypic taxa. If Acidobacteria only had one class, which had one order, which had one family, which had one genus Acidobacterium, it might make sense to redirect this way and discuss them all in one place. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the nearest supertopic for this subtopic is the family article, so is a closer match than the phylum article, thus being a better redirect target -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Chunghwa Yinmin Konghwaguk[edit]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all - non-English redirects with minimal hits. Sideways713 (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, these are Korean, and Korean is an official language of China. Siuenti (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Korean language in China. According to Languages of China, Korean appears under "minority languages" and not "official languages." Either that article is wrong or Siuenti is wrong. Whatever the case may be, the language is notable enough in China to have its own article, so retargeting there makes sense. -- Tavix (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to delete due to 58's comment per WP:XY. There's a few potential retarget options, but nothing obvious. -- Tavix (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Names of China#People's Republic of China gives Junghwa Inmin Gonghwaguk as the Revised Romanization of the Korean for PRC, likewise Junghwa Minguk for the ROC. Thus I assume "junghwa" refers to China literally, and that the first two of these redirects can be kept as plausible guesses at pronunciation. However the third, Chungguk, seems too far off (vs. junghwa) to be useful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment Chunghwa Inmin Konghwaguk is the McCune-Reischauer spelling. Chungguk is the MR spelling of the Korean form of the short name Zhongguo and is mentioned at the bottom of the Names of China#Zhongguo and Zhonghua. Regarding Inmin vs. Yinmin, the Library of Congress uses initial Y in some cases when they spell stuff in MR [9], I don't know if that rule applies in this case, but in any case because of all the different flavours of MR (original, LOC, North Korean), it could be a plausible misspelling (though IIRC we usually delete misspellings of alt-language names). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yilbon[edit]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Ilbon (a plausible romanization of the Korean for "Japan"), since it's getting plenty of hits and Japan is arguably a Korea-related topic. No opinion on Yilbon, which isn't getting nearly as many hits. Sideways713 (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
If Ilbon is a plausible romanization, is Yilbon also? Or a plausible misspelling? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget both per Sideways713. Using the other redirects we've been discussing as examples, it seems that "Il" and "Yil" are interchangeable in this Romanization system when they start a word. Ilbon is explained at that target, Yilbon is plausible enough. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Bearbrass[edit]

Name of non-notable business, not mentioned at target apart from one reference. - TheChampionMan1234 00:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to History of Melbourne. "Before being officially named, the town had several interim names — including Batmania, Bearbrass, Bareport, Bareheep, Barehurp and Bareberp." Sourced and mentioned at History of Melbourne. Though its in the title of a book cited at the Melbourne article, its but not mentioned otherwise there.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would it make sense for this term to be mentioned in the main Melbourne article? Would a section, either there or at History of Melbourne, on early names for the city be appropriate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @BDD: "Before being officially named, the town had several interim names — including Batmania, Bearbrass, Bareport, Bareheep, Barehurp and Bareberp (in June 1835)." I think the issue with expanding upon any of the villages, is that there may not be much reliable info available, except from sources that consist of lore and speculation. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject though, perhaps I'm incorrect. Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to History of Melbourne per Godsy. I'm surprised it's not mentioned at Foundation of Melbourne... Would an "interim" name like this be a {{R from former name}}? -- Tavix (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd say it would, yes: or perhaps {{R from historic name}} (which should really be {{R from historical name}}, which redirects there: there is nothing particularly historic about the name). Whichever way, nothing says they have to be official names. Si Trew (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Use of the word America[edit]

WP:NOTDIC - TheChampionMan1234 05:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Rubbish computer 08:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. This does not discuss the use of the word. Si Trew (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete America (disambiguation) is not the target of this redirect, which would be the proper target for such a redirect. Disambiguation pages don't need redirects of this form anyways -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

«Aeroflot»[edit]

The «/» symbols combined with English title is implausible. - TheChampionMan1234 04:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

*Delete as is implausible. Rubbish computer 08:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as plausible - @TheChampionMan1234: @67.70.32.190: @Rubbish computer: In Russian it's common to put common names in quotes. I created this redirect since some Russians also do this in English. For example in this page by Rossiya Airlines it shows the names of the airlines and air programs in quotes.
    • In English this practice is plausible because Russians do the same thing once they start using English:
    • "About Us": "Today «Rossiya Airlines» is the largest state aviation enterprise and the leading airline in the North-West region of Russian Federation"
    • "History": "On 28 January 2011 "Rossiya airlines" open joint stock company was established in St.Petersburg. " (they use the English-style quotes here)
    • Example from S7 Airlines: "S7 Airlines: "From 2005 “Siberia” Airlines has been operating flights under the S7 Airlines brand." and "In February 2004 the airline was awarded in the «Market Leader» category by the American Air Transport World magazine, a prestigious magazine in the aviation sphere, and a year earlier the airline had been the first in the Russian civil aviation winner of the Flight International Aerospace Awards of the Flight International magazine (Great Britain) in the «Corporate Strategy» category."
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
With two types of quotes that fail MoS, which requires straight quotation marks. Si Trew (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Found examples from Aeroflot in this document: "JOINT STOCK COMPANY «AEROFLOT - RUSSIAN AIRLINES”" (page 1/54) and a bunch of different forms on p. 3/54 -- p. 4/54 says: "The Company in the capacity of the legal successor is the proprietor of «Aeroflot» trademark." WhisperToMe (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: If it is plausibly used in such a way when writing in English. Rubbish computer 09:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS applies, since guillemets do not appear on any standard English-layout keyboard (and I have both US and UK ones, as well as Belgian and Hungarian ones). Whatever the kinds of quote, these should also be avoided: we don't have "Aeroflot" or 'Aeroflot' or “Aeroflot” õr „Aeroflot” so I don't see why we should have guillemets. WP:NOTENGLISH, even if it appears in text that is English, these symbols are not. In the refs you gave, the quotation marks should have also been translated into English punctuation (as I do for example when translating from French here at WP). MoS recommends straight quotes: MOS:QUOTEMARKS, and explicitly does not recommend curly quotes, guillemets and low-high quote marks. What applies to article text applies to titles, even moreso. Si Trew (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: It's meant to be aimed at Russians who are contributing to the English Wikipedia, not native English speakers using western keyboards. Russians be more likely to use the guillemets since they do have keyboards with those on there, and they may unconsciously use them when writing in English. You said that "In the refs you gave, the quotation marks should have also been translated into English punctuation" - The reality is that they didn't in those cases. I go by usage in published "official" sources, even if there are typos and mistakes. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, we can't revise stuff outside Wikipedia of course, but we can revise stuff within it, and this is clearly against MoS. The grumble against the "official sources" is the usual one I have when translations are done by people who are competent but not native in the language they are translating into, but yes, is rather irrelevant to the argument.
Why don't we have "Aeroflot", then, aimed at English speakers who are contributing to the English Wikipedia? Mine is essentially a WP:FORRED argument. If Russians are doing it unconsciously, all the more reason to make it a WP:REDLINK, to prick their consciences. Si Trew (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
FORRED is mainly used when the concept is not from a relevant culture ("The guideline for deleting redirects suggests that foreign-language redirects to a topic not related to that language generally should not be kept."). The mistakes of Russian speakers are relevant to Russia-related articles but not to, say, France-related articles. We should not think of Russian speakers in most cases, except when we're talking about Russia-related articles.
"Why don't we have "Aeroflot", then, aimed at English speakers who are contributing to the English Wikipedia?" - We can, because Russian speakers sometimes do that usage too - As for native speakers: Native English speakers reading these Russian-made translations of documents into English may put in the quotes/braces since they may see it as the "official" or "proper" English form of these companies.
WhisperToMe (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

November Yankee[edit]

Possibly retarget to One November Yankee, no other notable usage of this term. - TheChampionMan1234 03:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Support ChampionMan. – Illegitimate Barrister 03:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Chigaygo[edit]

Non-notable business, as well as implausible typo. - TheChampionMan1234 03:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Cicagho[edit]

Implausable misspelling. - TheChampionMan1234 03:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as is implausible typo. Rubbish computer 08:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, although this strikes me as someone trying to pronounce the city with a Chicago accent. The "ho" at the end is throwing me off though and without any sources actually using this pronunciation, it's not helpful. -- Tavix (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - entirely implausible. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think it's entirely implausible as a transliteration, since Chicago#Beginnings say it was derived from Miami-Illinois language via French, and I can see that this might have been possible before it settled down at its current spelling (and thinking of words like cicada makes it easy to show the two c's need not be consistent in sound): but it doesn't seem ever to have been. Gsearch gives several plausible results with the misspelling, but I have a feeling that is because the sites themselves dynamically are correcting the (anagrammatic) misspelling, e.g. here at top-marathon.com. Si Trew (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom--Lenticel (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Los Angeles, California maps[edit]

Delete as I believe this to be misleading. There used to be an article at this title, but it looks like it got redirected to Los Angeles. Someone searching using this term is probably looking for a gallery of maps, like what can be found at commons:Category:Maps of Los Angeles. The problem is that Wikipedia is not a gallery, so any such search will leave the reader disappointed. If someone wanted a general article on Los Angeles, they'd search for that instead of "Los Angeles maps" or variant. -- Tavix (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • @Tavix: Could you believe this? I was actually searching for Rs to Los Angeles and noticed this, but decided not to nominate them, as I nominated a whole bunch of Rs to Main Page the other day and there are way more ones that need to be nominated, I didn't feel like doing this again. - TheChampionMan1234 03:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @TheChampionMan1234: You did the same thing to me! I was planning on nominating the main page redirects sometime this week, but you nominated them before I could get around to them. -- Tavix (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

نيويورك[edit]

Not an Arabic-related topic, weak retarget to Little Syria, Manhattan, although deletion would be better. - TheChampionMan1234 02:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D8 and WP:RFOREIGN. Oppose retargeting as misleading; the redirects simply means "New York". In general it's not a good idea to grasp at straws trying to find a random target which has some vaguely-plausible connection to both the meaning and the language of the redirect. Also, plenty of people besides Syrians speak Arabic and probably have their own (notable or non-notable) neighbourhoods in New York too, so that would fall under WP:XY. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Rubbish computer 09:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

大埠[edit]

This refers to several place names in China, but not to San Francisco, nevertheless irrelevant language. - TheChampionMan1234 02:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Dabu, the (tonemark-less) transcription of these characters and the only place in English Wikipedia which offers any help to someone looking for 大埠 right now. Oppose retargeting to Chinatown, San Francisco since "大埠" refers to the whole city, not just to Chinatown. If some enwiki article like History of the Chinese Americans in San Francisco later mentions the 大埠 name for San Francisco, it might be a candidate for adding to the dab page per WP:DABMENTION. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment what dialect uses this to mean SF? Isn't the city something with a "3" in it, in Chinese? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, the usual name in modern media across all dialects is 三藩市 ("Three Fences City"). Lots of old folks still call it by the former Chinese government translation 舊金山 (Old Gold Mountain, which on Wikipedia redirects to San Francisco). A book from 1962 says overseas Chinese in the U.S. came up with 大埠, so it's probably a Taishanese or Cantonese thing, but I'm not certain. FWIW, the closely-related name 二埠 (also mentioned in that book) redirects to Sacramento, California. (Just to make things confusing, there's a U.S. documentary whose Chinese name is 大埠 [10] and whose English name is "Chinatown" [11].) 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Dabu which lists two choices for this value. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Dabu. Rubbish computer 09:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Dabu as the most plausible target for this redirect. --Lenticel (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Anus Williams[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted G10 by Chillum (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RFD#D3 (offensive or abusive) and WP:RFD#D8 (novel synonym). Cannot find any proof of creator's contention that this is a "common misspelling". Six views in last three months. Fewer than 500 hits on Google, and most are mis-hits (e.g. court cases or medical journals where "... anus. Williams ..." appears), with a few clearly insulting (i.e. not accidentally misspelled) webforum threads. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Driver (Working Title)[edit]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2. "Driver" isn't a working title, it's the official name for the video game series. Even if this is a working title, this would still be a strange disambiguator... -- Tavix (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Untitled projects[edit]

Delete. These are all outdated redirects. The projects that these redirects refer to all have titles (or never happened). They should be deleted as confusing. -- Tavix (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2. Rubbish computer 01:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Information that is either dated or will become dated. Entries starting with "Untitled" are generally not useful.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

July 29[edit]

OBAMA![edit]

Implausible search term. - TheChampionMan1234 23:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete: looks made up. Rubbish computer 00:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • KEEP! Why would you delete this? It points where it should, it's unambiguous, and it's exciting! Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • weak keep WP:CHEAP as a shout at a political rally -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    That violates WP:DEM - TheChampionMan1234 23:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    WP:DEM -- Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy How does that do that? Are we just ballotting and counting votes? Or are we evaluating the rationales behind the opinions? WP:DEM means that this is just a WP:VOTE, which it isn't, since I've provided an opinion to base my position on, a !VOTE (NOTvote), like WP:CHEAP and the usage in the real world in association with the topic that this redirect targets. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

1,000,000,000,000,000[edit]

Delete this is not a name of a large number. It is a numeral. Marsbar8 (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Comma Dot Space
1,0001000 (number) 1.000 1 000
10,00010000 (a DAB) 10.00010000 10 00010000 (number)
100,000100000 (number) 100.000 100 000
1,000,000Million 1.000.000Million 1 000 000
1,000,000,000 is an article 1.000.000.000 1 000 000 000
1,000,000,000,000Orders of magnitude (numbers)#1012 1.000.000.000.000 1 000 000 000 000
1,000,000,000,000,000 (this redirect)Names of large numbers 1.000.000.000.000.000 1 000 000 000 000 000
1,000,000,000,000,000,000 1.000.000.000.000.000.000 1 000 000 000 000 000 000
Si Trew (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Updated to tabulate existing info Si Trew (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

JC Nicholson, Jr.[edit]

Delete per WP:BLP. J. C. Nicholson is Dylann Roof's circuit court judge. While he is mentioned at Dylann's article, I don't think it's a good idea to redirect him there. He's seems like he could be notable as he's been in the legal system for 40 years so I'm also suggesting WP:REDLINK as an option. Also, this seems to smell of WP:RECENTISM due to the high profile Dylann Roof case, but I'm not sure if this would be his most notable case or have any lasting notability from it. Since he's mentioned, Dylann Roof will appear in the search results but there's no need to make that connection obvious. -- Tavix (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per all of above points Rubbish computer 20:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep or retarget - I cannot find another article on Wikipedia with Nicholson's name. For this reason, Roof may be his most notable case. If not, I am open to suggestions about where to retarget the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, I found two articles about Nicholson personally, and a bunch more (out of which I picked three) non-trivially discussing the legal principles behind a ruling he made (as opposed to discussing an accused while trivially mentioning that Nicholson presided over a trial). See box below for a draft article. I haven't included anything about the Dylann Roof case yet. Dunno if it's enough for WP:N. Comments? 58.176.246.42 (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Create article - according to WP:JUDGE a judge can be presumed notable if they preside over a "high court" (defined by WP:COURTS) which the South Carolina Circuit Court is not, by my understanding. However, this subject pay pass on WP:GNG grounds as 58.176 and their draft suggest. The article should live at J. C. Nicholson and it would be fine for the other redirects to point to it. Trout Jax 0677 for indecision in page titles and sloppy page moves leaving behind all of these redirects to be cleaned up. If it's determined that Nicholson is not notable, then the redirects should be deleted per WP:BLP1E - there's more to Nicholson's career than distilling it down to one court case, and it's not right for us to do that. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I also support creation of an article about the judge. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Convert to article using the content in the collapse box above (nicely done). I'd suggest in future this would be better off done in the draft namespace and just referred to from here: but it's refreshing to see that someone suggesting an article be created actually suggests some content. Si Trew (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Royal Infirmary[edit]

This redirect was formerly a disambiguation page that only contained partial title matches. As a redirect, it is not mentioned at its target article. Also, I don't think that Infirmary isn't a good retargeting option since it seems that this term doesn't refer to infirmaries. Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Restore this revision and adjust so that it's a WP:SETINDEX rather than a dab page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore as a Set Index Article as suggested by User:Ivanvector. Don't think they existed when I created this disambig article. Excuse the rant but... This is the reason so many people loose interest in editing. People insisting strict adherence to a set of rules, when the rules are in a constant state of flux. How many 5000+ word articles in the Wikipedia namespace is one expected to fully read to be able to make an informed comment? Seriously, we need disambig and set index articles? Is the difference that huge? I tried to read the definitions and the discussion behind them to make sure I fully understand them, but I'm losing the will to live. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Nominator comment/vote: Restore as a WP:SIA per above for reasons that AlistairMcMillan just stated. In a nutshell, good faith editors are a good thing to come by, and as a SIA, I could see the page working. Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Valetudinaria[edit]

Hospitals aren't exclusively tied to Spanish. Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

S0s[edit]

Not mentioned at the Steven Spielberg article. This seems to be fairly ambiguous, but I'm not seeing any obvious retarget options. -- Tavix (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I slightly prefer my retarget, only because I think galaxies are the only thing listed at the dab which are likely to be referred to in plural form. I'm not opposed to targeting the disambiguation page, though. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Ivanvector. However, a hatnote to S0 won't hurt. --Lenticel (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Untitled film projects (concluded)[edit]

Delete. These are all outdated redirects. The projects that these redirects refer to all have titles. They should be deleted as confusing because it might lead people to think they are referring to a separate, future untitled project. -- Tavix (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - "untitled" redirects which don't point to works which are actually untitled are unhelpful and confusing to readers, and harmful to navigation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Preauthorized comment
  • Delete Information that is either dated or will become dated. Entries starting with "Untitled" are generally not useful.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Googolplexian[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Retarget to Names of large numbers#The googol family. It seems to me so obvious that the suggested redirect is better that I assume it is uncontroversial, and so I am making a WP:SNOW closure. In the unlikely event that anyone has a reason for disagreeing with the retargetting, the discussion can be re-opened. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This should be retargeted to names of large numbers where it is mentioned. It has no mention on googolplex. and the rationale for that action. 2602:306:3653:8A10:A5F9:6698:1C0B:9739 (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Banana bean[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Nomination withdrawn, with no other person than the nominator having advocated deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete. I can't find any evidence that banana bean is a common name for Verbascum. Various sites scraping Wikipedia have picked up the term, but it seems to have originated here. There's nothing very "bananay" or "beany" about Verbascum. There doesn't appear to be any other topic which would be an appropriate target for this redirect Plantdrew (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Withdraw Nevermind. "Banana bean" is a apparently a very obscure common name for Mucuna pruriens. Will retarget. Plantdrew (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gardia[edit]

I cannot find a good retargetting option for this redirect. This redirect previously targeted Giardia lamblia until the target was changed to Police due to being the term of the "Irish police". From my research, the term for the Irish police is actually spelled "Garda", but is a WP:FORRED violation either way. And as shown, Giardia lamblia isn't a spelling match, and it's a partial title match anyways. Either way, I am neutral on retarget to Guardia since Guardia is a disambiguation page, and I personally am not a fan of misspellings to disambiguation pages due to the possibility that someone could truly be looking up a term by the actual spelling in the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Guardia and add Giardia into the "see also" section as a mispelling choice -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've added Garda (disambiguation) in the See Also of the DAB at Guardia, since I can see this being a misspelling for the Irish Garda Síochána, to which Gardaí redirects, as does Gardai without the diacritical mark. The lede there states that "Gardaí" is the WP:COMMONNAME, and it is used commonly by Irish English speakers as well as by Irish Gaelic speakers, so it's not foreign, it's assimilated into Irish English.
On balance, then, I think we should retarget to Garda Síochána as a {{R from misspelling}} but because it is cognate (I presume) with the Spanish and Italian that may be a WP:SURPRISE; although we have Garda Síochána#Terminology (as the first section) which explains this all, we don't have etymology. We could add a hatnote for the misspelling. Si Trew (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Look up gardai or garda in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Comment. Wiktionary gives the etymology (of Irish garda) as from Old French language, so I suppose they are cognate. We should probably add an {{etymology}} to the article. Si Trew (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

New Gold Mountain[edit]

Name not mentioned at target. - TheChampionMan1234 05:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep - Correct endonym, particularly among the Chinese diaspora in Melbourne, albeit slightly obscure. The solution may be to mention it in the History section, or retarget to either History of Chinese Australians or Australian gold rushes. (Declaration of interest: I have family in Melbourne.) Deryck C. 08:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Deryck Chan:: Interesting, having lived here for most of my life, I have occasionally heard of this term, but in no circumstances that refer to Melbourne (the city), so its probably better to retarget this to somewhere that the term IS mentioned. --- TheChampionMan1234 00:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete. This is a completely implausible redirect without context but could plausibly be the basis for its own article one day. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete (or possibly redirect elsewhere) Never heard the term used, nor can I find mention of Melbourne being refereed to as New Gold Mountain. Victorian goldfields (p. 8), or goldfields in Australia more generally ([12][13]), yep, but not Melbourne. ColonialGrid (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I created the redirect, so I'm obviously in favor of keep. This discussion and the delete votes above are the results of some white kids who have never heard of it and therefore think it should be entirely deleted from the encyclopedia. Aside from it being a perfectly accurate (albeit "Chinglishy") exonym (not endonym), their objections run headlong into WP:BIAS. Whatever admin wraps this up should keep it, pending some need to dab the page elsewhere. (And no, it never refers to the gold fields generally any more than Old Gold Mountain refers to the California gold fields instead of San Fran.) — LlywelynII 04:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment:I will vote Keep if sources can be found. Rubbish computer 23:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Max Read[edit]

Max Read resigned from Gawker. Don't think his name should redirect to his former occupation anymore. GamerPro64 02:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - he's still a creator (as indicated by the article) and we don't have a better target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
But the redirect goes to Gawker Media, not Gawker.com. One being the company and the other the website proper. GamerPro64 22:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Right, the Gawker Media article lists him as a creator. Gawker mentions him several times within the article. I didn't notice until you mentioned it that they are separate articles. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't think that's a good idea. That's the sort of redirect that BLP1E is meant to protect individuals from. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:REDLINK if nothing else. He seems, maybe, to have possibility of a biography; given the divergence in current targets creating that biography seems to be the way to go. Mangoe (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop beating my wife[edit]

The creator is insisting on this being a double redirect, to the point where he/she used {{nobots}} to try to exclude the normal double-redirect fixing bots. This probably isn't what we want here; I don't much care whether the result is deletion, fixing the double redirect, or creation of an article of some sort at the current target. Anomie 11:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Elvey, can you comment on this? Why would a double redirect be desirable here? I suppose the technical solution would be to soft redirect the desired title to the desired redirect. But how would this be helpful to readers? --BDD (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm interested in Elvey's rationale as well; they're currently on a block which will expire shortly. Regardless, the double redirect goes to loaded question; "stop beating my wife" is not one (it's not a question at all) so this redirect is misleading. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to throw in WP:POINT as well. Elvey seems to have created this just so that they could make this comment in an ANI thread which they were blocked for disrupting. This perhaps falls under WP:G2 or WP:G3. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I bold-ly removed the double redirect per WP:2R since double redirects don't work, and will be corrected anyways. Steel1943 (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. At first, I couldn't understand why this redirect even exists. After reading Ivanvector's explanation, it makes slightly more sense to me, but I don't think this is serving any useful purpose. "Should I stop beating my wife?" seems to be a minor meme according to my Google searches, but I see no reason to suspect that anyone would ever search for "stop beating my wife". It's not even a question, so it doesn't make sense to redirect it to loaded question. Deletion seems the only reasonable course of action. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a classic, canonical example of the loaded question, and one used illustratively in that article. But the exact phrasing "stop beating my wife" is an unlikely search target.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: This appears to have a very obscure connection with its intended subject. Rubbish computer 23:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete this is not a question, it is a command -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: Elvey posted this response on their talk page:
You ask for my rationale. I gave rationales in my edit summaries. You didn't see that, I guess. "As noted when I created it, this works better as a double redirect, as the destination page doesn't explain what the term means [yet]." If you don't agree with that, by all means undo my last edit or PROD it. Fine by me. I'm just trying to improve the encylopedia with that editing. However:
When did you stop beating your wife says:
"There's a famous joke question: "When did you stop beating your wife?" The structure of the question is funny — or disturbing — because" and "The classic example is "have you stopped beating your wife?" and "What's the best answer to the classic media training question: “When did you stop beating your wife". Plenty verifiable to RS.
Perhaps "When did you stop beating your wife?" should be listed as a commonly-used example at Loaded question. Agree? Then a normal redirect would make sense. Agree?
--Elvey(tc) 15:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC) copied from User talk:Elvey by Ivanvector 🍁 (talk)
In response, I think that you may be right that it could be added as a common example. However, "stop beating your wife" would still have an obscure connection to the topic. Mostly I think that it's problematic because it's not a question. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
And that this is redirect is not "stop beating your wife" but "stop beating my wife", which if it were a sentential form would be an imperative. Si Trew (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Powel Lord III[edit]

Please delete. Spelling error. Should be "Powell" with 2 L's.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I actually declined the speedy delete on those grounds. This redirect could actually help readers who made the same mistake in spelling. Sergecross73 msg me 14:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Plausible misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Plausible misspelling, redirects from typos are useful. Rubbish computer 23:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:RFD#KEEP number two and three.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Почетна страна[edit]

These are all names of the Main Page in other languages, this is an unlikely search term on the ENGLISH Wikipedia as they would not get information in that language. - TheChampionMan1234 02:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete This is the English Wikipedia, the mainpage on all Wikipedias is easily accessibly by click on the Wikipedia logo, so this is no help in navigation. Further, these are very misleading since they do not lead to the mainpages of these languages. Nor are these even valid dictionary entries, since they lead to the main page portal, and not to the topic of a "main page" or "home page" -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete! I've been meaning to do this for a while, but I wanted to nominate the entire list instead of a few random ones like BDD mentions here. There really is no reason to have an "exception" for main page WP:FORREDs, the same rationale for deletion applies to them. I'd argue even more so because the "main page" isn't a search term, it just happens to be what the home page is called. They are easily a "novel or very obscure synonym for an article name" so WP:RFD#D8 applies here. I simply don't understand why someone would be at a random English article and decide that the best way to get to a different language's Wikipedia would be to type "main page" in that language. That doesn't even work, because they'll end up at the main English page and not the main page of that language, so its confusing (WP:RFD#D2). The way to do that would be to go to wikipedia.org and NOT en.wikipedia.org. -- Tavix (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:RFOREIGN. Irrelevant languages for the subject. Rubbish computer 23:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Delete all' as above. To my surprise, though, they are actually all marked as {{R from other language}}, all but one with the correct language code. Si Trew (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:RFOREIGN and Tarvix.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Downloading ebooks[edit]

WP:NOTHOSTING - TheChampionMan1234 02:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Arm bone[edit]

This redirect is ambiguous. There are multiple bones in an arm, and none of them are exclusively known as the "arm bone". Steel1943 (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm also okay with this target.--Lenticel (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

July 28[edit]

Epic 2[edit]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, no mention of any sequels at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I can't find any mentions of the sequel as well. --Lenticel (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Epic (game) which lists multiple editions -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Epic (game)#2nd edition. Rubbish computer 15:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. To address those suggesting a redirect: while we describe it as the "second edition" here on Wikipedia, I can't find a source to back up that it is officially called that. Epic 2 almost suggests the game had a sequel.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ryan Beatty[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedily deleted by slakr. (non-admin closure) – Paine  10:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CNR; he has nothing to do with the Wikipedia namespace. -- Tavix (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete housekeeping; this was moved to the wrong pagename by accident at the end of 2012 which ws corrected at the beginning of 2013 -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CNR. Rubbish computer 15:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete WP:G6 - botched page move. It was a declined AfC submission which was then moved anyway by a user called "Miller Public Relations". Anyway the history is intact so the redirect is pointless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Tidal stream generator[edit]

Wikipedia namespace redirect to an article whose subject has nothing to do with Wikipedia --Richard Yin (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:XNR created for no discernable reason -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete That is horribly confusing. Rubbish computer 15:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC) I don't just mean that WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it unnecessarily creates confusion. Rubbish computer 15:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:XNR per nom. Apparently created by a user who didn't understand how wikilinking works, but did understand how to create a redirect. Hrm. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Charya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University[edit]

Implausible typo, but created as result of move so not WP:R3 Muhandes (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete:From an implausible typo. Rubbish computer 18:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

GlassFrog (disambiguation)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted G6 by Verrai (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that either the redirect page or the target was ever a disambiguation page, and a disambiguation page isn't needed, so I think this redirect should be deleted. Calathan (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is useless and confusing, so it should be canned per d2 and d5. – Paine  21:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. I've tagged a few of these over the last week as G6 with the rationale: "this redirect has a "(disambiguation)" qualifier and its target is not a disambiguation" and I haven't been declined yet. -- Tavix (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per Tavix's point. Rubbish computer 14:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

First football game ever played[edit]

If you're searching using this name, you're going to have a bad time. The article doesn't really address this, especially because there are so many codes and the evolution of the sport is such that you can't really pinpoint which game happened to be the "first" ever. -- Tavix (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:XY mostly. In addition to nom's rationale, which football? If it was "first NFL game" or "first FIFA match" then we could probably find a target; "first football game" is just far too vague. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete extremely vague -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete-Causes only confusion, fails to lead to anything like a target, gives the false impression that there is an article or section conclusively addressing this. Rubbish computer 14:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Ambiguous to which "football". No conclusive information on this anyhow.Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Tom Pety + the Heart Breakers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete, G5. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RFD#D8, implausible search terms created by a sockpuppet that seems to like creating junk redirects. Check out Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 17#John, Paul, George 'n Ringo for more details. G5 could apply here but I'd rather play it safe and take it here. -- Tavix (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all and mass rollback the user's contribs. They are a banned user and not welcome to contribute here. I would tag all of these with {{db-sock}} but I'm busy at the moment. {{db-sock|TyrusThomas4lyf}} for anyone else who wants to. If any of these redirects are useful, another contributor will recreate them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I totally would have done that, but it was much easier for me do it this way using {{rfd2}}. Besides, now we have a record of it and anyone who sees a plausible search term can identify it. -- Tavix (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The References of the Article Mahatma Gandhi[edit]

For some reason, the references from Mahatma Gandhi were split out for a brief period in 2005. This redirect was left over from that. I don't see this as a likely search term and I don't think someone would want to search for just the references in the first place. -- Tavix (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete references sections don't need redirects pointing to them. All articles are supposed to carry references sections at the end. Looks like a fork and rollback -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per 67.70.32.190's points. Rubbish computer 15:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Pokémon locations (Kanto)[edit]

Another batch of Pokémon redirects. These are locations in Kanto, the setting of the original video games. It's described briefly at Pokémon universe#Kanto, but nowhere in enough detail to mention these specific places. A few of these are redirects from merges, but since it will never be appropriate to have such detail (see WP:NOTWIKIA and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE), attribution shouldn't be a concern. --BDD (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment if these are real locations in the real world, then the edit histories of the merged pages should be displaced to "X (Pokemon)" and the current titles become redlinks. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think any of them are; that would be interesting. --BDD (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Pokemon lyrics[edit]

We have a List of Pokémon theme songs, but it doesn't include lyrics, and it never should. BDD (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Untitled Man of Steel sequel[edit]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2, confusing. This is an "untitled" redirect pointing to a project that has a title. -- Tavix (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: That film originated as a Man of Steel sequel; but it is now a separate entity. Still, MoS actor Henry Cavill has stated that a sequel could happen, so this redirect may stay. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - it has a title. If Cavill is speculating on a sequel, it's trivia that fails WP:CRYSTAL, but a brief mention in the film's article is probably ok. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible redirect because the target already has a title --Lenticel (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 Rubbish computer 17:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Untitled film projects (L-N)[edit]

Delete. These are all outdated redirects. The projects that these redirects refer to all have titles. They should be deleted as confusing because it might lead people to think they are referring to a separate, future untitled project. -- Tavix (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - "untitled" redirects which don't point to works which are actually untitled are unhelpful and confusing to readers, and harmful to navigation. To save time, I have created User:Ivanvector/UntitledDelete, and I hereby authorize it to be inserted in any Rfd thread concerning "untitled" redirects for films and musical recordings. Use {{subst:User:Ivanvector/UntitledDelete}}. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2: confusing Rubbish computer 18:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Information that is either dated or will become dated. Entries starting with "Untitled" are generally not useful.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Republic of Kanto[edit]

This started life as a WP:MADEUP history of Pokémon's Kanto region (Pokémon universe#Kanto), complete with descriptions of its politics and history. All entirely fabricated, however, along with the "Eastern Republic of Kanto" name, which does not appear in any Pokémon media. BDD (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Party pooper[edit]

The subject of the redirect is not described at its target article. Also, the redirect Party pooper was previously an article that doesn't seem like it would pass an WP:AFD discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak soft redirect to wikt:party pooper. I normally don't like doing that to random words, but I can see the value in doing it when there is potential for an article. In case someone wants to write an article on the subject in the future, there might be something salvageable from that previous article. -- Tavix (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak soft redirect to "wikt:party pooper" as Tarvix's rationale convinced me.Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak soft redirect to Wikt:Party pooper, per above points Rubbish computer 17:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. A bit off-topic, but wet blanket, which I was checking in case of a possible retarget, is a DAB that has not only a {{wikt}} box for it but also an entry in the list as a soft redirect to Wiktionary: surely that can't be right? Si Trew (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Psychological significance of hair[edit]

The article doesn't discuss the psychological significance of hair. The word "psychological" doesn't even appear in the article. Someone searching this would be disappointed. -- Tavix (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I sort of agree they're different concepts, but I think that it might be more likely that someone typing this is looking for psychological effects of baldness, rather than hair itself. I would think that would be a more likely thing to look for information on. It's a weak !vote. I also don't really object to deletion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete-There is no exact article for this to lead to; there could potentially be one through WP:REDLINK. Rubbish computer 15:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget (slightly) to Hair#Social role. If you were searching for this I suspect you'd either expect to find (A) something on the role hair plays in human identity, interpersonal relations, etc, which is sort of covered there and under the linked-to article Hairstyle, or (B) something on the meaning of hair in Jungian analysis and dream interpretation. I can't find a good target on Wikipedia related to sense (B) and possibly dream interpretation is considered too WP:FRINGE to cover in depth, but if such content did exist it would probably go in the article Hair right below "Social role" rather than meriting a separate article. Redirecting to a section a long way down the Hair article is more useful than just pointing to the top. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:1stpartysources[edit]

Retarget to Template:Third-party. Primary sources and first-party sources are not synonymous, though there's often overlap. I'm starting the discussion rather than retargeting it myself because I'm not sure how common "first party" is anyway, and it may be deemed sufficiently opaque for deletion. --BDD (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Template:Third-party. Per Wiktionary's definition of first party and our article on Third-party sources. "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject": The template means the article is in need of third party sources, and relies too much on first or second. While first and second sources differ greatly from third party sources, it makes sense to redirect this there in this case because of the templates usage and wording. In fact though this is a redirect, it might even be a better overall name for Template:Third-party.Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Ghulam Ahmad Qadyani[edit]

Delete as useless and derogatory (see Qadiani; using actual name without the non-neutral word gets to same target), created by hit'n'run editor years ago as part of a pile of weird POVish redirects. DMacks (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I've combined these nominations, since the rationale and target is the same for each. Please let me know if you think they should be discussed separately. --BDD (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nominator. Oddly Hazrat is an honorific; using an honorific and a religious slur in the same redirect is just weird; the first one is also misspelled. Our Qadiani article says that the word is used in official Pakistani documents, so on one hand there might be a case for keeping the redirect on those grounds, but on the other hand we wouldn't keep a redirect like Anne Frank Jew. These should go. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete-There are not redirects from, for example, African American Barack Obama or British David Cameron. Rubbish computer 15:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, possibly retarget The fact that Qadiani is used in Pakistani government documents in general terms wouldn't be justification for keeping a redirect to a random member of this religious community (the analogous toponym-based slur "Romish" has been used in U.S. government documents to refer to Catholics [14], but that wouldn't support retention of a hypothetical John Kennedy the Romish redirect).
However, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani specifically (and possibly other alternative spellings) is a potential search term, even if insulting; see e.g. this passport application form on the website of the Pakistani Embassy in Sweden. Someone who came across that would likely try to look it up in Wikipedia to figure it out. It might be better to retarget the insulting term to somewhere that the controversy is specifically discussed; there was previously a mention of it on Pakistani passport, but was deleted in 2011. I might re-add it if I can find better WP:RS. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Rfs[edit]

Delete opaque shortcut used on only three redirects (before I orphaned it); ambiguous with all the other R from s---, at minimum. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete redirect documentation should have clear names. Also RFS has articlespace uses -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. This is common practice – Template:Rfs is just one of many hundreds of redirect shortcuts/aliases just like it. {{-r|r tsh|R template shortcuts}}, to include {{-r|rtrt|R to redirect templates}}, are commonly abbreviated this way. And not for anything, but shouldn't we wait for decisions before we orphan proposed redirects? – Paine  11:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I came across {{rfs}} because I jumped into the endless sea of {{R from surname}}s to try to find ones which need to be updated into {{Surname}} set-indices. Here's my three edits to revert if you would like to return to status quo ante while the discussion is going on. But I don't see the benefit of converting existing uses of {{R from surname}} into {{rfs}}.
Most of Category:Redirects from template shortcuts aren't really shortcuts, and certainly not TLAs, but simply alternative descriptive names or leftovers from mergers. Many redirect acronyms are used little or not at all, e.g. {{rfn}} or {{rfm}} (which is used properly once and has one mislink left over from a different meaning of the same acronym from ten years ago). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Since I often prefer the use of shortcuts myself (to save time while categorizing redirects), the only reason to convert to a shortcut might be if another edit(s) is being made to the redirect. IOW, it's at best a "trivial" edit. I do disagree with your statement about the template shortcut category. There are nearly 2,000 redirects in that category (which does not count thousands more that still need to be categorized), and "most" of them are very similar to this shortcut you want s-canned. They are one-, two-, three-, four- or five-letter or letter–number combinations, and "most" of them are "ambiguous". I'm certainly not the only contributor who uses them, and I use them during the vast majority of my editing time. This particular redirect is linked on the template page using the {{-r|tsh|Template shortcut}} template box, so it is right up front there for any editors who categorize redirects of all kinds, including surname redirects, and who like to use shortcuts to save time. There is no good deletion rationale that persuades us to delete any of these. – Paine  16:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete As the nominator mentions, this is far too ambiguous. {{R from song}} and {{R from school}} are two extremely common Rcats, with plenty of other potential uses. --BDD (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I sincerely ask you to reconsider, BDD, as your influence in this matter will, I'm certain, tip the scales. The category is chock full of shortcuts just like this one, many just as ambiguous and yet useful to those who may use them. For those of us who have used these shortcuts for many years to save time while tackling the humongous task of finding and categorizing redirects, shortcuts just like these are truly gifts from the gift givers of the universe. I said above that there is no good deletion rationale that can persuade us to delete any of these useful shortcuts. Please, this once, please consider that it just might be true. – Paine  14:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Paine, I appreciate your diligence when it comes to Rcats, but we want their profile to be raised, right? We want more people to contribute to tagging redirects, and to understand the robust system we have in place for that. Precisely for that reason I want to move away from ambiguous abbreviations and other opaque designations. That's why I always break up {{redr}} into individual Rcats (when I'm already editing a redirect). I want these tags to be clear and easy to use; I'm sure you want the same. You may be accustomed to having shortcuts like this save you time, but how much more time would it save to have more editors working in this area, and how much better for the project? --BDD (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is of use and appears most likely use of Rfs. Rubbish computer 15:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Why do you say that? There are 12,356 redirects from surnames, but 15,794 from songs and 18,239 from shortcuts (only 2078 from schools, to my surprise). --BDD (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @BDD: Unfortunately I guessed that this would be the most likely one. Please cross out my above comment. Rubbish computer 15:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Compromise: I'm someone who does a lot of WP:RCAT tagging, so I know where Paine is coming from. I also can see the problem that {{rfs}} delivers because it's so ambiguous. It'd be one thing if this was an established shortcut for this, but since it was only used three times, it's not. I also don't see how helpful the rcat shortcut is in the first place, because someone could easily assume its {{R from song}}, {{R from shortcut}}, {{R from school}}, etc. Keeping all this in mind, here's my compromise: Delete this shortcut, but create another less-ambiguous shortcut, such as {{rfsur}} (R from surname). Can we all agree to that? -- Tavix (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Compromise: I second the above Rubbish computer 17:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I see that I appear to be outnumbered here, and what this deletion will open up is that someone will start through the categories and find every shortcut they can that may be deleted from this precedent. And thank you, BDD, for your compliment, which I do consider high praise. This precedent, though, might very well lead to many other such proposals, like the ones I already mentioned in the "nowiki" code above. It's not just rcats – it's many other templates and many other shortcuts to pages other than rcats and templates in general. This shortcut, added to the top of the rcat documentation page, is just like a great many others, so if this one is deleted, then you'll need to dig in your feet for the barrage of other similar shortcut proposals that will inevitably follow. Joys to all! – Paine  18:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd be careful about that, see WP:BEANS. This would be a slippery slope to apply precedent to, and would discourage any mass nomination of this sort. From what I could gleam, I don't see too many more rcats that would fit in this same boat (highly ambiguous, no usage) so I'm not sure how useful it'd be to raise any alarms of this type... -- Tavix (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think I understand your frustration here. Yes, this will probably lead to some similar discussions; just think of it as growing pains associated with bringing Rcats into the light. And, humbly, I think my position on template shortcuts is in line with usual consensus here: they're only problematic if one could reasonably expect it to refer to something else. For example, I wouldn't object to {{rfq}} or {{rfy}} redirecting to {{R from quotation}} or {{R from year}}, respectively, as there's nothing at RFQ that would be likely to have a template, and nothing at all at RFY. Does that make sense? --BDD (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I understand, and I shall probably use Tavix' good suggestion and create {{rfsur}} if this one is deleted. Ftr, though, I must continue to stand on my strong "keep-this-harmless-shortcut-redirect" !vote (till the bitter end Face-wink.svg) – Paine  03:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment deleting or retargeting won't break very much [15].Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Londýn[edit]

Not a Czech-language related topic. - TheChampionMan1234 04:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. The topic is a native English language topic with no affinity for Czech -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:RFOREIGN: redirect from a foreign language with no relation to the topic. Rubbish computer 15:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

IPhone availability, sales, and pricing[edit]

Per WP:NOPRICES. - TheChampionMan1234 00:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

EyePhone[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Eye phone was deleted in 2007, Eye Phone never existed in the first place, this is implausible, (more so than the two mentioned above due to the fact that it is an combined word.) - TheChampionMan1234 00:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete I nominated this a few months ago and the target was Attack of the Killer App. Since then, it was retargeted to iPhone by Sonic N800. I still think it should be deleted because it's vague. It could be a plot point of a single Futurama episode, a misspelling of iPhone, or "references to new technologies combining phones with something eye related" (see the previous RFD for examples). -- Tavix (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Attack of the Killer App. My previous rationale still applies: this is an exact match for the device that forms a central plot point of the Futurama episode, and if there is going to be a mobile comms device created which interfaces directly with the eye, it's highly unlikely that Apple's lawyers will allow it to be called "EyePhone". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Attack of the Killer App, per above. Rubbish computer 15:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Egg curry[edit]

Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. -- Tavix (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ägg[edit]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN and WP:RFD#D8. -- Tavix (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

July 27[edit]

Untitled film projects (A-J)[edit]

Delete. These are all outdated redirects. The projects that these redirects refer to all have titles. They should be deleted as confusing because it might lead people to think they are referring to a separate, future untitled project -- Tavix (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all, and perhaps blacklist any title starting with "Untitled". I mean, there are going to be some exceptions (I recently created Untitled Second per a recent discussion) but us lowly users can request creation from an admin for those odd cases. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong delete several of these are extremely generic; others are just incorrect with names having been acquired so no longer viable search terms -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2: confusing Rubbish computer 18:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Dated information. I share Ivanvector's sentiment about entries starting with that title being generally not useful.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Marthandavarma (novel) Characters[edit]

Delete as an unnecessary disambiguation: no such list exists for the film. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep the main article is called Marthandavarma (novel), not "Marthandavarma" -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: This list article is created as a sub article of Marthandavarma (novel) as part of re-condensing the main one, and so the disambiguation redirect titles are formed very much in a way to convey the content of the list in relation to the main article, and in no way misleading to any user/ reader who is even new to the topic related; if otherwise kindly notify. The nominator comment "no such list exists for the film", implies about a different page as it can be comprehended. – (harith (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC))
  • Delete all except List of Characters in Marthandavarma novel. The redirects with (novel) are unnecessary disambiguation and don't serve any purpose for readers; they only serve as hindrances for editors in case these targets get moved around (which it seems is likely). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Unnecessary, but not ambiguous, or misleading or otherwise harmful. CfD uses naming conventions like this, so I can conceive of a reader searching this way. --BDD (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Rawhide's Clint Eastwood Sings Cowboy Favorites[edit]

I do not see this mentioned in the target article. Also, the redirect was formerly an article, but it probably wouldn't pass an WP:AFD nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Clint motherfucking eastwood[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. See comments below. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Not mentioned in article. Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete-Just looks WP:MADEUP Rubbish computer 18:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Come on, this doesn't warrant any "discussing". I've speedied it. Please consider marking purely abusive/disruptive redirects for speedy deletion rather than listing them here, see Template:Db. (Sorry I don't know how to close these things.) Bishonen | talk 21:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

A Star Is Born (2014 film)[edit]

Probably delete per WP:REDLINK, amongst various reasons. Several sources I found per a popular search engine show that the release date of this film has been delayed to at least 2016, possibly due to one of its former cast members exiting production. (So yes, definitely REDLINK since it seems as though there is enough information, and the year is wrong.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Deleteas there isn't any 2014 films by this name. This is why we have WP:CRYSTAL. -- Tavix (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete and redlink it per nom. – Paine  21:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above points. Rubbish computer 18:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - a prime example of why WP:CRYSTAL is relevant.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The Boss Perot[edit]

This is not mentioned in the article. Also, I'm not able to find any references that show this as a valid nickname for this subject. Steel1943 (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Just looks WP:MADEUP Rubbish computer 18:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Can't seem to find any usages of "The Boss Perot" after a quick search. No apparent relationship to the target.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Esp[edit]

Ambiguous with the semi-protected edit request response template, {{ESp}}. I suggest per WP:XY that the existing transclusions (there are 76) be corrected and this redirect be deleted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Correct transclusions and then retarget to Template:ESp because people are way more likely to make an edit request than make scientific notation numbers. -- Tavix (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
That solution works for me too. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOT-FOR-GETTING-OTHER-PEOPLE-TO-DO-YOUR-HOMEWORK[edit]

WP:NOT is an official Wikipedia policy. It is a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Shortcuts to policy should reflect that philosophy and help people understand the policy so people can follow it. This redirect does not do that. There isn't a section or phrase in WP:NOT stating that Wikipedia is not for getting other people to do your homework. However true that may be, it isn't policy and people shouldn't use this longcut to pretend that this is policy. Fortunately this hasn't been used as such (yet), but I don't want to take any chances. Strong delete as it is a harmful and unhelpful masquerade for policy. -- Tavix (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong retarget to Wikipedia:Do your own homework, preemptively per SimonTrew who I'm sure has something to say about this one. As a redirect to a policy this is definitely harmful, but there is an appropriate target and it's very old. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The phrase isn't used in that essay either. Wouldn't that be WP:RFD#D2 confusing? -- Tavix (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: In my opinion, WP:RFD#D2 doesn't apply to Wikipedia-namespace shortcut redirects since the phrase/acronym is deemed useful and not its usage anywhere. I mean, shortcuts like WP:OFFICELIST or WP:NCSP wouldn't exist if they had to mentioned in the page's text as a requirement. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • There's a difference between humor and a ridiculous longcut that exists for no reason. You're comparing apples to oranges here. --