Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

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

Administrator instructions

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

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


Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

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

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]


The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

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


Reasons for deleting[edit]

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

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

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects[edit]


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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

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

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Tag the redirect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current list[edit]

February 13[edit]

Scouting for Trolls[edit]

Apparently this was a potential future Discworld book several years ago, but after the death of Terry Pratchett, no more books are planned at all, and the target section doesn't exist. Planned or cancelled topics can still be notable; indeed, we have an article at Raising Taxes for another such Discworld book. So there may be warrant for an article here, but it's not helpful as is. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Prune cognac[edit]

PruneDelete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. No evidence that this term is used to mean slivovitz in real life: gsearch gives recipies using prunes soaked in cognac. "Prune" is at target only in a somewhat tangential sentence discussing the importance of plums to a region in Bulgaria that – unsurprisingly – also makes slivovitz; "prune cognac" (or indeed "cognac") is not at the target.

I am well aware that cognac and brandy are nearly synonymous in English, but prunes and plums aren't.

No internal links, stats at zero. Si Trew (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


Delete' per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. No internal links, stats at zero. This just means "plum", not "plum brandy" (and the root form ends in -a, not -o, in most of the languages discussed at the target). No internal links, stats at zero. Si Trew (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. There are a lot of redirects to this target, it seems one for every language mentioned in the section Slivovitz#Etymology, even though some of the languages have no special affinity to Central and Eastern Europe (e.g. Italian slivovitz). I've been marking them as {{R from other language}}, but this one is pushing it. No incoming links, stats are precisely zero. Si Trew (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Mc Method[edit]

Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Nothing links to it, stats are two in the ninety days before this week, not at target.

My gsearch without quotes shows the target as top, and then a lot of other results that have the search result "Monte Carlo Method" highlighted but do not say "Mc method" (or "MC method").

IUPAC's Gold Book has an entry for Monte Carlo (MC) method, but nothing ever seems to refer to anything as "Mc method" or "MC method" on its own. Sometimes abbreviations are used when Monte Carlo is combined with other methods e.g. PC-MC method, which as you see is red, as indeed are MC method, MC Method and other similar combinations.

We could perhaps just add it to the target, but if it's not used "in the wild" then that seems WP:OR. "The McMethod" appears to be an approach to copywriting (website here), although MC may also represent total heat capacity (e.g. "Application of MC Method-Based H2 Fueling". 16 April 2012. doi:10.4271/2012-01-1223. ). Si Trew (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Assassination of Theo van Gogh[edit]

Redundant redirect as the murder coverage is not so significant. Better needed cleanup SuperHero👊 11:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep (I've added the section to which this redirects to the nom). Seems a perfectly reasonable redirect, significant coverage at the target (four paras, two pictures, mentioned in lede). Si Trew (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a clear part of the edit history of the target article. Content was moved off that page, changed, moved back and generally subject to all the normal disputes of editing on a wiki. The redirect and the history behind it enables all future editors to see that same history. There is not point to deleting it. It is neither harmful nor confusing. "Redundant" is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect. Rossami (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Charles Porter (Australian politician)[edit]

Christian Porter is never, ever referred to in public as Charles: I live in his state, am very familiar with his career, and the first time I'd known it was his legal first name was when I tried to work out why the heck this page was redirecting to him.

"Charles Porter", however, *is* the name of his equally notable politician grandfather, and there's a ton of links to his grandfather by what is his actual name across the encyclopedia that I really would like to not have to bother unnecessarily disambiguating because there is a manifestly silly redirect to his grandson here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Stubbify for Charles Robert Porter, or delete as Wp:R#D2 confusing. (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing per WP:XY (I think that makes sense even if X is an article but Y is not); WP:REDLINK. Christian is linked at the DAB at Charles Porter, so we don't need another disambiguation. If his grandfather has a stub or article (and I'm tempted to start one if my wife stops taking me shopping) then we can cross-ref the two with a hatnote or naturally in the running text. Si Trew (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • As the target article points out, his proper name is "Charles Christian Porter" so readers no knowing that he goes primarily by his middle name (and knowing our usual naming conventions) might very plausibly hunt for "Charles Porter". That said, it seems there is a decent argument for an article about the grandfather. There is no need to delete the redirect to create that article, however. Just overwrite the page with content. And when you do, be sure the articles cross-link so those readers looking for Charles Christian can find the grandson. So keep but not as-is. Rossami (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Who would look for him at a name he's never, ever known by? Google turns up zero results for him as "Charles Porter" in connection with any office he's held. This redirect is manifestly pointless and this attitude is really unhelpful; if you're not going to personally volunteer to write the stub, please get out of the way and allow it to be a returned to a redlink so someone else can. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was/am going to create a stub article, overwriting the redirect. Perhaps I misinterpreted the intention in nominating this – @The Drover's Wife: are you intending to do it? Rossami's right, of course, the redirect can just be overwritten without needing to come here first; that's wholly encouraged. Si Trew (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
A stub article would be greatly appreciated, but I have a real hatred of this bizarre notion that I should have to bump a topic to the top of my to-do list simply because deleting pointless, unjustifiable redirects that serve no purpose is seen as a Bad Thing and a Big Deal. If someone wants to write it, I will gladly thank them, but in the absence of a volunteer I think expecting editors to do it instead of just deleting the damn redirect, since the redirect's existence breaks the red link system in relation to that topic unless people do unnecessary disambiguation that will have to be undone later, is contemptible. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

No Pork No Lard[edit]

This stub was merged to the target after an AFD back in 2009, but is no longer mentioned there. Contrary to what was stated at the AFD, this isn't just an issue in Singapore, but also is seen in Malaysia. It would probably be better to find an appropriate article where the content from the history could be added and retarget there, but if not it should be deleted because the current target doesn't give any information about this. (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Dirección General de Aeronáutica Civil of Turkey[edit]

The Turkish aviation agency isn't particularly tied to the Spanish language... Raymie (tc) 02:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment - This page (Archive) called it by a Spanish name which was why I made the redirect WhisperToMe (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Wow, that's an error alright on the NTSB's part. It looks like the actual acronym for this agency is SHGM. Raymie (tc) 04:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Kauai Bible College[edit]

Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. There is no information about "Kauai Bible College" at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Sexual Records[edit]

This is not an appropriate target, there are a plethora of sexual records that have nothing to do with human penis size. -- Tavix (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

February 12[edit]

Iron Man of the WWE[edit]

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

  • Delete - not an alias. The only instance of "iron man" in the article is a reference to an iron man match, a type of professional wrestling match. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Too easily confused with Iron Man Match and not synonymous with Ambrose.LM2000 (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as creator. @LM2000: this doesn't seem confusable with the match, the root noun in describing those is "match" not "man". I also believe it is synonymous with Ambrose, since that's what announcers are presently calling him. If a reliable source can later establish other wrestlers were called this by voices in the WWE then it could be adapted into a disambiguation page. Although I've seen other people like Cena called this, this was by fans in forums, so it's not on the same level as Michael Cole calling Dean this. @Ivanvector: it actually is an alias for Ambrose. I added it but someone removed it, so I will add it back and cite more thoroughly this time. I supported it with sources which recognized Cole doing so. Ranze (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Well if it is notably his alias then obviously keep. If it's just something that some people sometimes call him, then it seems more like a vague comparative, and I'm not so sure. I didn't see it when I searched, but I'll have a look at what you come up with. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Note: That the creator, Ranze, has a habit of adding unverified "nicknames" to article and then arguing for days when they are opposed. IF it's used as a nickname keep it in the article, same with Rose, but the redirects aren't needed. No one is gonna type or when they could just go to Dean Ambrose or Adam Rose quicker. CrashUnderride 00:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Strong ad hominem attack there, ever heard of arguing the topic and not the person? In this case I've provided 3 reliable sources supporting the 'Iron Man' nickname in WWE. If you can do so for someone else in WWE then I'm all for changing it to a disambig but until then it ought to be a redirect. People will not type out a name if they don't know it. Sometimes people view only clips of shows. Like if you watched Adam face off against Titus tonight shouting "I'm the Radical Mongoose, the UNIVERSE named me the Radical Mongoose" all you are hearing is RM and not AR. Not everyone watches the entire episode, sometimes their attention wavers, they step out, etc. Ranze (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Nicknames don't need to be redirects, as I stated previously. Anyone that knows a nickname will know the wrestlers (oops, I'm sorry) sports entertainers name. Therefore they would be able to come to the article without having to use the redirect. CrashUnderride 06:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - the sources do indeed confirm this is a name that he goes by, or at least a plausible variation of it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Ambrose called himself the Iron Man of the WWE. We can't include every time a wrestler calls himself "the XX of WWE". The sources only includes the promo and Saxton and Cole comentating a match (Commentators say a lot of thing). However, at, Iron man of WWE doesn't redirect to anywhere.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Why can't we include every time a wrestler goes by some other alias? Redirects are cheap. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Because it's not an alias or a nickname. Just a promo. Not even WWE talks about Iron Man of the WWE in the website. Every week, a wrestler calls himself The Future, The Man, The Best... this aren't nicknames or alias. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete To call this a "nickname" or an "alias" is misleading. Ambrose referred to himself as this *once*, somewhat off-handedly, in a promo. He may never refer to himself as this again. It seems completely unnecessary to create a redirect that is unlikely to ever be typed into the search bar. Skudrafan1 (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as misleading given that this isn't the actual nickname of the wrestler --Lenticel (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Nakshal (film)[edit]

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

  • Retarget to Naxal (disambiguation) - this seems to be a close phonetic match and there are two films listed on the dab page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Naxal (film). The dab and the page titles needed some cleaning up, but this seems by far the most likely place for this search. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Ow the Edge[edit]

Non-notable meme from the game, unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 22:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - The internet meme concept of being 'edgy' just for the purposes of being 'edgy' may or may not be notable, but targeting to the character seems clearly not the way to go. I could maybe see retargeting to here maybe, but even that's a stretch. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Invisible control character[edit]

  • Delete: This is a redirect from a control character to an article. It is of no use because the control character cannot be entered on the keyboard; it does not display on the screen; it cannot be selected by dragging across it; and if it appears as a link, you can’t activate it by clicking. (It appears as a link to the left of the arrow in the header of this RfD: try seeing it, selecting it, or clicking it!) It is harmful because it is confusing and frustrating that you can’t see it, select it, or click it. —teb728 t c 19:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

For convenience this is a piped link to the redirect. —teb728 t c 19:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete: I fucking hate this redirect and how it (doesn't) work or render for the majority of users.  · Salvidrim! ·  19:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - if you can't see it, select it or click it, then it's harmless. And it's pretty busy for a "useless" redirect, with 259 hits in the last 30 days. Actually it is a visible character, just not in the font we use. This one's been around for 10 years, and since it's possible to link to it, it's possible there are external links to it, and no good reason to break them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
    • It hasn't been around for ten years. It was around for just over a month in 2006 and then was restored in October 2015. And probably 200 of those hits were because it popped up on WP:AN. —Cryptic 20:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Here are the links to the redirect. At least six of the nine are connected with this RfD and other attempts to delete it. —teb728 t c 20:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: It also should be salted. The deletion log shows the title has been deleted and recreated numerous times. The deletion rationales in the log give additional reasons why the title should be deleted. —teb728 t c 20:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is not harmful. It can be typed on a keyboard. It is visible with certain fonts and browser configurations. The draft version of CSS Text Module Level 3 requires it to be visible, so pretty soon it will be visible by default to most people. Fucking hating a redirect is not a reason to delete it. And it is a good idea to have a redirect from every Unicode character for which there is an appropriate target, so that users can learn about it by searching for it on Wikipedia; the character is a C1 control character, so the target is appropriate. The two reasons it was deleted according to the deletion log are This title cannot be entered into the search window, is not being used, and it is implausible anyone will need it (but it can be entered into the search window, it could be used, someone could need need it, and even if they don’t it doesn’t hurt having it just in case) and that the character should not appear in valid XHTML, which is irrelevant, because it works fine in HTML. Gorobay (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete We've already blacklisted titles with wikimarkup, as the technical problems they cause are disruptive. The same is the case here. Delete this one, and delete all other invisible characters. BTW, the link provided by Gorobay is technical enough that it basically explains nothing. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
    • This character is not used in wiki markup; what problems does it cause? Gorobay (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Note I can't see this while reading the page, but in the editor, a block appears saying "008D". Based on that, I think this character is "Reverse Line Feed". I have no idea what that means. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The target article tells you. Si Trew (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • What an odd history. I have a couple of thoughts. Yes, it's been deleted twice before but both were speedy-deletions that were clearly outside of the speedy-deletion policy therefore the two deletions are irrelevant as precedent to the decision here. Second, Cryptic is right that even though the title was first created almost 10 years ago, the title was visible for much less than that. The likelihood of external links is small. All that aside, the arguments that the character can't be seen or linked is simply not true depending on the fonts used by individual readers. That makes it appear broken to some but perfectly clear to others. But appearing broken is different from being broken. And since it is usable to those others, it is apparently helpful and not harmful. Keep. Rossami (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Not used outside this discussion, hits are almost all caused by XfDs. For me, this does not even appear in my edit window, let alone in the rendered page (using Mozilla Firefox on a PC laptop). Now, I cannot be the only one. So, it is harmful. I've no objection to it on any purist grounds, but the fact that it does not render properly for some users – and it didn't on my Android tablet either – means it will never be useful. One thing Wikipedia/Wikimedia strives to do is keep the interface simple enough that it can be sensibly rendered on the vast majority of browsers. Saying "Pretty soon it will be visible to most people" assumes people can and will update their browser software, and the browser software will in fact be updated. I have no idea how this would render on a text-to-speech browser, but suspect it may not. Si Trew (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Is it helpful? No. Is it useful? No. Even if one is to be charitable and say that it can perhaps be hypothetically useful, it still is problematically confusing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Maybe replace the entire redirect with U+008DReverse line feed, with a visible source and a target that actually explains what the control character does. Apparently (Wikipedia is zero help) it causes backward movement of paper in a pre-laser, pre-inkjet printer. —teb728 t c 08:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
It could also move the cursor up on a terminal emulator, as line feed (-> newline) moves it down (not always implying a carriage return): I'm not saying it will for any particular hardware, just that it could (I'll do some more research). I'm for adding a section on U+008D, but it could just be a section in newline, since line feed is already an {{-r|R from merge}] into that. The Unicode line breaking algorithm (here, referenced in newline) makes no mention of it.
But that doesn't really sort out what to do with this redirect; User:teb728 you're implying "delete" without actually saying it. Si Trew (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I said Delete in my nomination; I suggested this as an alternative for Keep !voters, who want to have something about the control character. I labeled it as "Comment" here to avoid !voting twice —teb728 t c 12:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The lack of an RS is obviously because nobody would dream of using a reverse line feed on modern hardware. —teb728 t c 12:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

White stereotypes[edit]

Another "In the United States" problem. Similar redirects for Hispanics, West and Central Asians, and Arabs have already been deleted. Links available from the most recent of those discussions. --BDD (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. We deleted the others, and while WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST it would seem a surprise that these existed and the others didn't – and although WP:RNEUTRAL applies to indvidual redirects, this could seem to be a form of systemic bias when a bloc of (say) "Hispanic" ones is deleted but a bloc of "White" ones is kept. These are redirects from the general to the specific, but that is not in itself a reason for deletion (it's a reason for moving the page and then marking it as WP:WORLDWIDE).. Si Trew (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, as I mentioned in the other discussions and wrote at Wikipedia:In the United States, moving the target article to a general title is also acceptable, at least as an improvement over the status quo. Though I suspect there are enough stereotypes of white people, and perhaps different enough in different places, that multiple pages would be necessary and you'd have a situation like Stereotypes of Asians. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Tn air[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

These brands aren't discussed at the Nike article, making them just about worthless to readers. The "T90 Tracer" is probably a variant of the Nike Total 90, but it's not discussed there either. We're not a product catalog. --BDD (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep Nike Quickstrike because that title holds considerable history of content that was merged to the target. The fact that the content has been edited out since is irrelevant since that could be just as easily restored if editorial opinions change. Preservation of the history is important. The rest have no significant history so I abstain on them. Rossami (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target (dangling pointer). Although preservation of history is important, it's irrelevant to whether a page is deleted. For if not, we could never delete anything or {{db-blanked}}, since creating a redirect or blank article is (by definition) a creative act and so needs attribution (although I seem to remember having an RfD discussion where consensus was that the process of an editor creating a page was not in itself creative enough to consider it a creative act). The history is still preserved and can be retrieved by admins, who have done so on request for mere mortals like me. Si Trew (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Jahga Sports[edit]

This was created as an article about a Pakistani soccer ball manufacturer partnered with Nike (I think). It was shortly thereafter redirected, since the controversy was apparently discussed at the Nike article at the time (July 2008). Now it's not, so the redirect will only mislead and disappoint readers. I don't know if trying to recreate an article would be worthwhile. --BDD (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep because of the history unless someone can offer a credible argument that this company would pass our generally accepted inclusion criteria and justify a redlink. Until it meets that threshold, the idea of redirecting a non-notable child-topic to a more notable parent is still a good one. Rossami (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. No internal links beyond this discussion, stats are well below noise level (16 in 90 days). History will be preserved even when it is deleted. Si Trew (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Nike football[edit]

Retarget to Ball (association football) or delete. The phrase is ambiguous enough to delete. It could refer to lines of Nike products for any game called football, or the balls themselves. It doesn't look like Nike makes American footballs, at least not for the NFL. But they do make association footballs, and some of the Nike models are mentioned there. Either outcome would be an improvement IMO. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: Nike does make American footballs, I have one myself. Retargeting to Ball (association football) would be a bad idea due to the ambiguity. Nike, Inc. mentions "football" eight times, most of which as part of a description of their football related products, so the current target is helpful. -- Tavix (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Interesting. An image search for the phrase "Nike AND football" returns evidence that Nike does in fact make both american footballs and soccer balls (and LOTS of clothing associated with both sports). A redirect to the company seems like the least confusing target. Keep as is. Rossami (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - Nike makes these products, and so the redirect helpfully exists. Were there a 'List of Nike brand products' article in existence then we could go to there, but it doesn't (in a curious twist of fate, 'List of Nike sponsorships' does exist... go figure). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Refine to section Nike, Inc.#Products. (It's also mentioned in #Acquisitions, but only very tangentially.) Si Trew (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Palestinian infiltrators[edit]

Delete as confusing, WP:RFD#D2. Not used anywhere, stats are three in 90 days. I just don't see how an infiltrator implies political violence, or vice versa. And is it Palestinians doing the infiltrating, or being infiltrated?

See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_11#Palestinian_terrorists. Si Trew (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - Infiltration does not, as stated above, imply violence in any way. Having recently seen the film Bridge of Spies, the parallel cases of Francis Gary Powers and Rudolf Abel come to mind: Both functioned as infiltrators of a foreign power into another nation's territory, but a major reason why they could be swapped was both of them were gathering information, acting nothing akin to pirates, terrorists, etc. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
@Gabi S.: you're right, and I'll put my hands up and say that I didn't check whether it was at the target – I had meant to, but ran out of time (and battery power) before I could. Striking my delete. Si Trew (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Casting around for similar terms, Infiltrator is a DAB at which this Palestine/Israel sense is not mentioned (probably should be); infiltrators is red, as is Palestinian infiltrator, Israeli infiltrator and Israeli infiltrators. Si Trew (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added Palestinian infiltration to the nom, because they should probably go to the same target. This was also created by User:Gabi S., so that user's view may or may not carry over to this one; discussing the two together seems sensible. Si Trew (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Monte Karlo metode[edit]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. -- Tavix (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. No Interwiki links use this exact term (many come close, of course), nor does Google Translate detect it (it thinks it is Indonesian, but translates for Monte Carlo with a C). Si Trew (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as a misspelling at best. metode is "method" in Norwegian but Carlo is still translated as Carlo --Lenticel (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - A one word off misspelling could be reasonable enough, but this is just nonsense honestly. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

February 11[edit]

Tableau (symbol)[edit]

Already orphaned, but this bears deleting. It is an WP:OR name for the long division symbol based on a confusion of the term tableau, which appears in the literature but as a name for the entire table being created, inclusive of the dividend, divisor, quotient, and all intermediate steps. Alternatively, deletion of this redirect and replacement by a more justified dab such as tableau (division) or tableau (long division). — LlywelynII 23:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Palestinian terrorists[edit]

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

  • Delete ambiguous as to what target. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see that policy as forbidding or even arguing against the redirect. For one thing, redirects are intentionally not held to the same standards of NPOV as article titles or content. For another, the article itself deals with exactly the ambiguity Champion worries about. I can think of no better destination for this redirect. Finally, the redirect is coming up on 10 years old. Even if you successfully orphaned it (unlikely given the several articles where it is used), there would still be a high likelihood of external links. Keep. Rossami (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment successfully orphaned. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom Gbawden (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:TERRORIST, and WP:NPOV. Not every person involved in political violence is considered a terrorist, this goes for other nations as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep See WP:RNEUTRAL. Furthermore, the lede says the article is about "acts of violence on terror". NPOV means we don't call people terrorists in article text, but readers don't necessarily abide by NPOV, and that's no less reason to serve them. Compare to Israeli terrorism. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD. It's an actively used redirect and points at the correct target. Orphaning the redirect was probably a good idea but there's no need to delete it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as per the arguments above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Less clear-cut are Palestinian infiltrators, Palestinian militants and Palestinian resistance. I've listed the first at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016_February_12#Palestinian infiltrators since I can't see that infiltration is synonymous with political violence. Si Trew (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


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

  • Delete Along with the verb "table", "moot" has differing meanings in different varieties of English, to the point of being an auto-antonym. See wikt:moot. Without an established usage of this shortcut, I'd discourage the term's use at all in Wikipedia discussion, though I've certainly used it myself. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Steel1943: This policy used to say that "Wikipedia is not a moot court", but someone changed it so that it now reads as "Wikipedia is not a quasi-judicial body". The redirect page was created before the words were changed. Jarble (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm half-tempted to suggest retargeting to Wikipedia:Snowball clause, but that's not quite right either. And besides, the section on that page which describes the meaning I ascribe to this actually points back to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing per WP:XY. A handful of links, stats average one hit every other day. One use at Talk:New_York_v._Strauss-Kahn/Archive_7#Moot court facts discusses the meaning a bit. Si Trew (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. The "wikipedia is not a moot court" (and its attendant shortcut) had a long history before being reworded to the clumsier (but slightly less jargony) "not a quasi-judicial body". There is no good reason to break all those links throughout the entire history of the project. Rossami (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, along with Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a moot court. There really isn't much of a history to these redirects, and definitely not a "long" history (2+ years). While it's a true statement, it's no longer described there and I prefer the current language at the target. I agree with Steel and BDD's sentiments regarding the word, and that it should be discouraged due to the confusion. That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to an essay on the topic so I can see benefits to deletion from a "redlink" point of view. -- Tavix (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to WP:SNOW, I like Ivanvector's idea. The snowball clause states that there is no point in continuing a discussion that is going to end up going in one direction anyways so in essence a moot point. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Nominator comment: I oppose retargeting to Wikipedia:Snowball clause. WP:SNOW refers to when the result is too obvious (usually against the proposal) based on several editors stating the same opinion. A "moot" close is more similar to a Wikipedia:Supervote since it could potentially be different than the consensus formed during the course of the discussion. The best example that I can think of regarding this happened at RFD about a year or so ago regarding the "C:" redirects that formerly targeted "Category:" namespace pages, but all had to be deleted by default since "C:" became a shortcut for the Wikimedia Commons. I am unable to find that discussion for some reason, but I remember that its closer was Scott. Steel1943 (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The cold never bothered me anyway[edit]

WP:NOTLYRICS sst(conjugate) 16:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep, it's a well known lyric which makes it a useful search term, especially for those who know that specific lyric but might not know the name of the song. It's also unambiguous and specifically mentioned and described at the article. -- Tavix (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a reasonable search term. Hasteur (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NOTLYRICS and per Tavix. I think it's a "Quotation" that is in "a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article". --Lenticel (talk) 06:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


I know this is the official abbreviation, but I think this was pretty astonishing when I clicked it. Should be retargeted or deleted. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Why was it astonishing? Were you expecting a different target? There's ala maybe. I guess considering that ala is a dab page and not a redirect, the form with a period should also go there. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep If someone is typing in the period, Alabama should be the intended target. sst(conjugate) 16:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep with hatnote on target article to the the ala dab page --Lenticel (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as per the arguments above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If as you say, it's the official abbreviation, why did you find it "astonishing"? What else would you expect that title to point to? Keep. Rossami (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • This doesn't necessarily affect the discussion, but I don't think any US states really have "official" abbreviations, not as a general class. I mean, there are official postal abbreviations, but I don't think any state has self-designated an all-purpose official abbreviation. See List of U.S. state abbreviations; "Ala." is Alabama according to the current AP Stylebook and older federal government conventions. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, "abbreviations" are listed in the state infobox. No references, but gives it a sense of "officialness". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
    • For those of us old enough to have had to memorize them before the standardization of the two-character postal codes, yes, there were "official" abbreviations - official enough that I got graded on them anyway. Rossami (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Ala per WP:LEAST. Not in any way "official". --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 18:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Highlands School, Birmingham Alabama[edit]

Page was originally created as an unreferenced non-notable stub, was previously nominated for G11 and PRODed noting the NSCHOOL failure. A user came in to redirect the page to the Education section of the city. Looking at the content of the city page, it consists of a one sentence mention that the school exists as a private school along with annother private school. Both of these were sourced to the websites of both schools which means they are not independently sourced. I have removed the paragraph describing the private schools as in my experience, unless they can show show a significant impact on the city, they are typically not included. Hasteur (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


Useless, possibly confusing redirect. There is no indication "RJM" commonly refers to Roger Joseph Manning, Jr. Huon (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate (drafted below the redirect). There's at least two other topics in Wikipedia which mention in their articles that they're called RJM. (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per 58.176. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate 58.176's proposed disambiguation (along with putting the proposed target) is a good idea. Hasteur (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • dabify per above --Lenticel (talk) 06:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate: no indication that Manning is primary topic ... or indeed that he even merits a line in the dab page, as no mention of the abbrev in his article (which I've just rescued after it was turned into a redirect as "non-notable" after 10 years with no tagging of notability concerns). PamD 14:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Renominating for deletion these two incorrect spellings on top of wordplay by Neelix. The previous nomination [1] had 5 delete votes and 1 keep ~vote by User:SimonTrew but was closed as no consensus. SimonTrew are you strongly attached to these two or are you willing to go along with delete? Legacypac (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. Neelix crap. Unnecessary, useless, misspelled, born of Neelix's weird sexual fixations. Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per previous discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - in general, there is no reason to have spelling errors as redirects. Slang or colloquial expressions might be fine as redirects, but Wikipedia cannot cover every possible spelling error and should not try. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Thanks Rossami, as closing admin of previous discussion, for recommending the discussion to be split. My argument still applies to this reduced nomination: I think it's counterproductive to keep {{R from incorrect title}} and {{R from misspelling}} to topics with social stigma surrounding them. Deryck C. 22:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - Sorry to go against the flow here, but, unfortunately for all of us, "masterbation" is an extremely common mis-spelling of "masturbation". I've seen it literally (not figuratively) hundreds of times. Of course, a case could be made that those people unable to spell it should be made to figure out what the correct spelling is before they get to the article to... do whatever it is they're going to do when they get there, but we are, after all, here to service (pun intended) our readers, so I think it would be best to leave the redirects in place, and decry the state of education in the English-speaking world that requires it. BMK (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I can understand why someone might make that argument if we were discussing "masterbation" as a possible spelling error-based redirect, but we aren't. We are discussing "Masterbatory" and "Masterbated", which are altogether less likely and plausible search terms. Some people may indeed not be able to spell "masturbation" properly, but those same people seem extremely unlikely to be using a search term such as "masterbatory". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I still feel the same way. It's plausible enough that someone will type "masterbate" and "masterbation" by error, but "masterbated" and "masterbatory" appears to be a step beyond. Frankly, we're talking about nonsense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. They misspelling is quite plausible, but the fact of the matter is that they get hardly any hits. We don't have a similar one for disterbance, although we do for conerbation (-> metropolitan area) although that gets a tiny number of hits, too. Si Trew (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per above points --Lenticel (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can mentally justify keeping the base terms masterbate and masterbation in place as redirects from common spelling errors and plausible search terms, but we don't need to maintain an entire stable of spelling-error redirects for every possible declension or adjectival form of the verb — I'm not even convinced that the correctly spelled masturbated and masturbatory redirects are actually all that necessary either, because who's seriously going to actually type either of those terms into the search box while somehow not recognizing the base article on masturbation that's going to be the #2 autocomplete option as soon as they've typed the u, and then the #1 option on the very next letter? Bearcat (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Export (C++)[edit]

Delete.. WP:RFD#D2, not at target, and WP:REDLINK. "export" in C++ has a long and interesting history, but it's not covered in this article. It's not at Export (disambiguation). Si Trew (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - The redirect falsely implies that it's going to some kind of section, sub-section, etc that would describe the context of "export" here when the redirect doesn't. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sorry, I hadn't actually realised it was an {{R to section}}; I've added that to my nom. The section was removed on 25 June 2010 by an IP editor with this change . Si Trew (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Jeffrey Pino[edit]

Subject isn't even mentioned in the article. MSJapan (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target, and WP:REDLINK. Si Trew (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Si Trew points. Legacypac (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - subject is mentioned in the article - and if REDLINK applies (i.e. topic is notable) then simply create the article now. GiantSnowman 09:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • He's in the article because User:GiantSnowman added him in a one-sentence mention about his death. . Refine to section #History. Si Trew (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


This could have been deleted under R3 criteria but was declined as it was not recently created. It's highly unlikely to be used nowadays to refer to DUTC (Dublin United Transport Company) either. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Weak keep. While this is helpful I doubt "Dutc" will ever be searched for. More people use "Dutch". Hdjensofjfnen (Is something wrong?) 00:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing per WP:XY. Could just as likely be a typo for Duct, a DAB page. Dutch gets about eight times as many hits as Duct, but that's not a knockout; the R is at noise level. In the alternate, we could add a {{redirect}} hatnote at Dutch to Duct, but I don't think we usually do that for typos. Si Trew (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's old and has a high probability of being externally linked. And while I could see the argument for retargetting, the current target seems least bad to me. Rossami (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Dublin United Transport Company as {{R from alternate capitalization}} / {{R from abbreviation}} -- (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. This isn't the correct name for anything and it can be a plausible typo for a few different things, as a few editors above pointed out. We can't know for sure what someone is likely searching for, so the best solution is to delete it. I believe that our readers are competent enough to figure out their mistakes without forcing them into a topic that may or may not be what they're looking for. -- Tavix (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • 'Delete who cares how old it is, if it is wrong it is wrong. Agree with User:Tavix especially. Legacypac (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. This sort of nonsense should not come up in a search. Softlavender (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - 25 hits in the 90 days prior to this nomination is evidence of no utility. Current target is wrong; retarget would be fine, but if this redirect were deleted then someone typing "dutc" into the search box would end up at Dublin United Transport Company anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

February 10[edit]

Claudia Castra[edit]

No reason for the redirect from Claudia Castra to Gloucester 🍺 Antiqueight chat 23:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • It's a fairly common name including that of what appears to be a minor actress. I'm not finding any connection to the city, though. I am trying to assume good faith but the creator's contribution history is at best mixed. Delete unless a compelling counter-argument is presented soon. Rossami (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    • A sufficiently compelling argument was presented below. Keep (with the potential to overwrite to a disambiguation page if that actress ever becomes non-minor). Rossami (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as not needed and we should not target random names at random places. Someone playing around. Legacypac (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I believe the origin of this redirect is the belief of the person who created it (whether correct or incorrect) that this is a Latin term that referred to the city ages ago, see this link here at Google Books (although the spelling isn't clear). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. The spelling in this book is clearly Claudia Caſtra (see long s if you don't understand what that means), so unless someone can present reasons to discredit this book (it's seemingly the Dictionary of the Latin Tongue mentioned in the first sentence of the article about its author, Robert Ainsworth), this is clearly {{R from former name}}. Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Nice find, but that's not at the target. As you're probably aware, it's also in The Companion to British History here, without the long s, so it's clear that is the intended spelling. It says "later Claudia Castra" so that suggests perhaps it is Late Latin although it doesn't give a reason why it would be called this, so it would seem hard to add it to the "history" section of the target; the usual Latin name Glevum [Colonia] is derived from the English (itself likely from the Welsh), not the other way around. The ref you gave actually says "Claudia sive [or] Claudia Castra", i.e. it could just be called Claudia (or Clavdia Castra?).
Claudia, supposedly the first British Christian (Claudia Rufina), dwelt at Gloucester:
  • Lysons, Rev. Samuel (1861). Claudia and Pudens; or, The early Christians in Gloucester. London: Hamilton, Adams. p. 267. And if it be conceded that St. Paul visited this island, then there can be no doubt that his ardent missionary spirit would have led him to Gloucester, the residence of the proprietor,and the city where Claudia and Pomponia had dwelt 
See also at Caratacus#Claudian_Invasion and #Modern traditions.
I'm not sure we could incorporate this without it being WP:SYNTHESIS, though (it could be another Claudia or Claudius or names derived therefrom). I guess it should be tagged {{R from other language|la}} if kept. Si Trew (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment I suspect the description of Claudia Castra as Gloucester is not entirely accurate based on this information and my knowledge of how such dictionaries of words are put together but it does give a reason for the redirect to exist (and my belief is WP:OR) - however it would make more sense if there was some reference to it in the target page since otherwise the google search initially brings up no meaningful information. Should I add this or would one of the people above add it? 🍺 Antiqueight chat 12:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


This redirect has had an interesting history. Currently it targets a discussion of thirteenth months in general, while in the past it targeted the Simpsons episode in which it was coined, and it was even a separate article at one point. Currently neither of the articles mentions the term, and I don't think it belongs in either of them because it's WP:TRIVIA. Thus I recommend deletion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep More people know Smarch as the "13th month" than the official term Undecimber. Therefore the redirect helps average people find the concept they are searching for and, in the process, teaches them something without otherwise getting in the way. It's also much easier to type and spell than Undecimber.Sturmovik (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep because of the very history you describe. Links to it are scattered across multiple pages of history and are subject to being restored at almost any time. It is also relevant that this title has existed for almost 12 years now, making it likely that external links to the page exist. Link rot is an evil to be avoided whenever possible. The redirect does no harm and has the potential for some benefit. Rossami (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - is this widely recognized as a generic term for a thirteenth month, though? My search suggests that it's only known as a reference to the Simpsons, and doesn't refer to quite the same thing as Undecimber. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't delete per Rossami. I don't have a solid idea of what we should do with it (presumably keeping or retargeting to the Simpsons list is best), but the history given above is a solid reason to leave it a blue link. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete or Disambiguate. The Simpson's term is trivial and probably isn't mentioned anywhere for good reason. However, there are a few minor uses elsewhere and the redirect is obscuring searches for these uses: Dempsey Bob's apprentice Keith Wolfe Smarch, Yukon general election, 1989 candidate Carl Smarch, and Ross River-Southern Lakes candidate Jim Smarch. I appreciate that Rossami and Nyttend want this kept due to the history, so we can always disambiguate these uses, although it'd consist entirely of WP:DABRLs. I'm fine with deletion as well. -- Tavix (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

JD Turbeville[edit]

Delete - nonsense redirect. This name is not mentioned in the article now and was not when this redirect was created. Peter James (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Huh... Turbeville is an english transliteration of a french placename and from that became both an english placename and a surname (meaning someone from ...). I can't find any evidence of a connection to the Turkish Sultan, however. We have a surprising number of Turbevilles on Wikipedia already (the town in SC, William, Deborah, George and Henry but no disambiguation page that I can find. So delete this but as a separate issue, we should probably convert the existing Turbeville redirect to a disambiguation page. Rossami (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Banana (film)[edit]

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

  • Disagree, I think such a redirect would fell under WP:RFD#D2. Statistics are at normal bot-only level actually ([2], [3]). There are other films with similar titles, eg. Bananas!*. Once the redirect would be deleted, Bananas (film) would be the fourth option in search results for "Banana (film)", just below other titles with similar names [4]. As long as Allen's film was never referred to as "Banana", I think it's virtually safer to let the reader who typed Banana (film) to overview the multiple titles which include Banana in the title or have similar names, instead of deciding what they were searching. Cavarrone 08:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Both arguments are completely valid from a policy standpoint. More opinions could settle this, though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

British politician sex[edit]

It doesn't seem as though the redirect refers to the target in the least, and I don't think there is any way for this redirect to return a WP:SURPRISE if retargeted anywhere else. Steel1943 (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep It's the phrase used for the affair in Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire". I haven't heard of the "Profumo affair", but I didn't know what "British politician sex" was referring to before either. I'd probably go to the song page first if I wanted to find out, but this seems valid too, precisely because it's an unlikely enough search term for anything else. We have a category for British political sex scandals, but no list. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Hmm ... I think some sort of spin on WP:NOTLYRICS may apply here. For one, it doesn't seem that this actual term has a notable connection to the affair other than the song. When I look up the redirect on a search engine, the first 5-or-so results are about this, but the target article is one of the top 2, making me think that the results are a bit "fabricated" due to the Wikipedia connection. In addition, other British politician scandals did appear in the top 10 that were not related to the current target, so there could be a bit of an ambiguous issue here. This is one of the few cases where I would say "sure, this is a vague ambiguous title that could refer to this event, but it's not helpful since it's a bit too ambiguous". That, if I recall the song (knowing a bit about Billy Joel songs myself), in that song, he used several ambiguous phrases for specific events that one would not really understand what they referred to without watching the song's music video. So ... does that make all other vague connections in this song notable enough to warrant redirects? Steel1943 (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to We Didn't Start the Fire#1963 unless there's other notable usage. That way, the context of the quote is preserved and readers are one click away from knowing more about the affair if they so desire. -- Tavix (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral on either target, although the phrasing Joel used is unique enough to refer to Profumo itself. See also: Brooklyn's got a winning team, Trouble in the Suez, Hypodermics on the shores. Sceptre (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - There are far too many sexual escapes related to people in power in Great Britain over the years for this to work as a clear-cut case, I think, and it's problematic already to use song lyrics, even from an admittedly really well-known track, as a redirect. We should keep in mind the spirit of WP:NOTLYRICS even if the exact case is unusual. That other redirects exist related to the song doesn't mean anything; an error is still an error even if it's compounded. As well, something like 'Trouble in the Suez' is an interesting contrast because there is one central, prominent 'Suez' out there while British politicians (and American politicians, Canadian politicians, etc) are a dime a dozen. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


Delete. Unused (it was used on a handful of pages, 6 I think, but I either corrected them to use a block quote template for a block quotation, or, outside mainspace, bypassed the redirect). We do not need redirs for every possible conceptualization of the appearance of a template. This one was ambiguous and unhelpful, since more than one quotation template uses box framing. It's also useful to reduce the number of redirects to the pull quote templates. Per MOS:QUOTE, these should not be used in mainspace except in the very rare case of an actual pull quote, and not used for regular block quotations. Any profusion of redirects to the pull quote templates increases their abuse in articles for drawing excessive attention (a WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE problem) to particular block quotations. If there are only a handful of such templates, without a bunch of alternative names, it is easier for editors to remember that they are only for pull quotes (or for decorative use outside of actual articles).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:46, 10 February 20016 (UTC)

  • Keep it is literally a box for a quote. So it is quite useful for searching for a box for a quote. And we don't usually bypass redirects just because redirects exist, so we should keep it because it was in use before you bypassed it. All statements about UNDUE and NPOV do not apply to this redirect. Instead they are arguments to delete the template itself, which you are not nominating since this is RFD and not TFD. -- (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per the IP, who's correct in saying that it's literally a box for a quote, and that it wasn't orphaned until just a little bit ago, due to SMcCandlish's actions. I see no reason to object to this title as long as the target template exists, and as noted by the IP, all of the objections given above are actually objections to the target template. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with this title, and as it's been used plenty of times since it was created a year ago, there wouldn't be any reason to call it implausible, either. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Say what? I'm not sure what you mean by 'a vector for abusing MOS:QUOTE'; however, it sounds as if you think that editors who don't follow the MOS are pathogens and the only way to 'control' them is to make it harder for people to find and use the template that they are (correct to your style standards or not) trying to find. That comes off as rather disrespectful (with a terrifying nod toward the Ministry of Truth) don't you think?

In any case, this redirect clearly seems common enough that it should go somewhere: perhaps to Template:Quote (which is, an 'easier to type and is more wiki-like than the equivalent HTML <blockquote>...</blockquote>'.) Although I personally feel that the current redirect, to what many people think of when they imagine a block quote, is appropriate. Crazynas t 07:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

[5]. Although I agree with Nytted and the IP above who recomend Keeping as is. Crazynas t 05:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Biscayne Wall[edit]

Recommend for deletion, no relevant content WP:ROC on target page. Redirect is a cleaver coined phrase, but questionable notability. 1305cj (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

So what if it was discussed last April. The outcome was wrong. The page was redirected to a section of a page that has no relevance or context to the subject WP:ROC, as there is no mention at all of "Biscayne Wall" on any section of U.S._Route_1_in_Florida#Miami-Dade_County. Nor should there be as it's most likely original research with no verifiability. It's a cleaverly coined phrase WP:A11 not credible in the article about U.S. Route 1. 1305cj (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It supports your argument for deletion, in my view. But I shall leave you to it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
So what happens now? What can I do? 1305cj (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussions are usually open for about a week. Wait for about a week. Si Trew (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


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. Action was neither desired by nominator nor taken. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

This article topic suffers from a lack of reliable sources other than Quackwatch. It is probably more appropriate to briefly discuss naprapathy on the chiropractic page since it is an offshoot of that philosophy and shares a history tied to D.D. Palmer. Delta13C (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Agree There's not enough decent sourcing for a standalone article on naprapathy. Alexbrn (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Huh? Both of you seem to be advocating for redirecting this target to Chiropractic, but it's already a redirect to that page. Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah I did it (and re-did it) because I thought we had consensus per the Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Ahh, so basically you're seeking consensus for the action that already happened? This isn't quite the right place to do that, but since we've gotten started, we might as well continue here. Support your action, because indeed this looks like the right thing to do. Nyttend (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy close as the nomination does not propose an action for the redirect. Whether or not the former article should be merged into the target is a discussion for either article's talk page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Ivanvector is correct - speedy-close. This can (and was) decided and implemented based solely on a Talk page discussion. There is no need to escalate it here. Rossami (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.


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

  • Fundamentally agree with removing this; it's too vague a name to be used for anything. Or repoint at File:Name.jpg.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Why break the file history? Explain how the project would benefit from creating linkrot. At the moment, the filename remains in use at [6], its appearance interrupted by the RFD template, but minus that template, it still works. If you really want it, I can supply you more than three hundred URLs that currently use this image, all of which would be impaired by deletion. Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    Guh. That XfD notice does break the file link. In that case, I am just OK with doing nothing.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    No impairment here. WP:FMV/W has been followed. If the redirect points to the generic Commons:File:Name.jpg, one would understand what is going on be seeing that image if they revert to an old reversion, and then hopefully correcting the link. Steel1943 (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    Linkrot present in old revisions is not problematic; linkrot present in edit notices and deleton notices is what is problematic, and in this case, such linkrot does not exist. Nyttend's rationale for keeping this redirect seems akin to keeping a redirect named "dhcxhxhhdg" in existence because it once existed as a redirect to Google and was present and linked in Android (operating system) somewhere in its revision history. Steel1943 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    That, and considering that this image has a vague name, and the fact that most web sites require that images be uploaded locally, the collateral damage will be very negligible, if even existent. Steel1943 (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. And then afterwards, create the title as a redirect to Commons:File:Name.jpg per Jo-Jo Eumerus. In cases of incredibly vague file names, correcting them to point to the generic Commons:File:Name.jpg makes more sense than retaining it, even surpassing linkrot concerns. Steel1943 (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Note: I wish we had some sort of way to provide disclaimers to file users and/or uploaders that the file is best saved locally wherever it is used (so, uploaded to the site directly) to avoid external links that seem impossible to track in the case of file renames on Wikipedia. I hold the belief that third-party web sites should hold their own responsibility to maintain their pages, and that responsibility should not fall on the hands of the Wikipedia community. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC) (Adjusted: Steel1943 (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC))
Also, since WP:FMV/W has been followed (replacing all incoming links to the leftover redirect being replaced by the new name), per that guideline, there is neither a reason to retain the current redirect in its current state, nor has one yet been presented during this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
You don't get it. Deleting this image would produce linkrot in hundreds of pages, and that's just on this wiki alone. Where else on the Internet is this image used? No benefit accrues from deleting this, and as noted by WP:RFD#KEEP point #4, you risk breaking a large number of links, especially because this is a title that has existed for more than seven years. Come back when you've replaced all of its currently existing uses in those hundreds of old page revisions. Nyttend (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Nyttend I do get it. See my response to you above. Steel1943 (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
You are trying to create linkrot when no benefit accrues, and you think that there's no problem in damaging hundreds of page revisions, despite what's said at the RFD#KEEP think that I mentioned. Nyttend (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Nyttend: If you had posted further up in the discussion, your edit here would have been an edit conflict. (There's a rather specific reason why I'm pointing this out.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - the history is properly attached to the renamed file; the redirect itself has no history. Nothing on-wiki seems to link to this, and the stats are so low as to suggest nothing external links to it either. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The file is in use in Special:PermanentLink/701044852 and other historic versions of the article St. William Parish (Lawncrest), and deleting a file or template redirect normally creates unnecessary red links in the page history. That said, if this redirect is deleted, Wikipedia's article would instead use a redirect on Commons with the same title, and the Commons redirect points at an identical file, so as long as the redirect is preserved on Commons, there is no need to have a redirect on Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Stark Mele[edit]

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

Lizardheaded frog[edit]

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

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

  • Strong and speedy keep. Please stop telling lies about editors who disagree with you. These are legitimate redirects. In each case, the target article identifies a slight variation of the redirected phrase as an alternate species name; for example, "lizardheaded frog" goes to Zakerana sauriceps, which states in its lede that "lizard-headed frog" is an alternate/vernacular name for the species. This discussion is just a retread of [[7]], which was an overwhelming and unanimous keep. Your anti-Neelix jihad is leading you into damaging the encyclopedia. You should stop. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Responsible editors appreciate work on the Neelix cleanup. What have you done to help? We've had lots of discussions leading to deletion of his wordcombinations, not withstanding the one cited. Legacypac (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • A review of the redlinks on this version [8] of the Neelix frog redirect list (still being worked on) will confirm that many of these fake words are being deleted. Examples Fourlined frogs, Bubblenests, Annandales highaltitude frog, Pleskes highaltitude frog, Jerdons narrowmouthed frog, Bright yelloweyed frog and those are just a few since the frog page was formed. Legacypac (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Responsible editors appreciate responsible work on the Neelix cleanup, and this is irresponsible. You cite a group of redirects that were deleted on unrelated grounds: omitting the apostrophe from a possessive is not likely, and omitting entire words opens the possibility of ambiguity. This is no different from Pleske's highaltitude frog or Bright yelloweyed crawl frog, which were not deleted, because the use of a space, hyphen, or neither appears inconsistent to those not familiar with the situation (why would this last one be a Thai spadefoot toad, bright yellow-eyed crawl frog, and spotted litter frog, instead of spade-foot toad, yellow eyed crawl frog, or spotted-litter frog?), so we must account for all of them. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face. Nyttend (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per previous discussions on plausible modifications from known alternate names for species. Drop the sticks, everyone, a valid question was asked. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia should not be inventing new variants of already poorly attested vernacular names. Google reports just 210 hits for the "correct" form "lizard-headed frog". There are vernacular names out there with minor variations that exist in (more or less) reliable soruces. We should be documenting those and creating redirects for them. There's no point in inventing brand new variants in hyphen/spacing/plurals in Wikipedia. Plantdrew (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Plantdrew. This discussion kind of reminds me of that RFD discussion I started about several phrases pertaining to "horse". Steel1943 (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep all as plausible punctuation variants of accepted names for these animals. (Wow, it would help if I read these target articles.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • But didn't we end up keeping almost all of those? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ivanvector: Actually, I think it was more like a 35/55/10 split for keep/retarget/delete. Since no options have yet been presented here for retargeting (and I don't know of any myself,) based on Plantdrew's comment, I would default to "delete" in these cases. (No longer valid. – Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)) Steel1943 (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all and stop this self-destructive "cleanup" abuse. These are entirely plausible variants of known and accepted names. Some of what Neelix did was against Wikipedia policy and practice but some was not merely allowed but encouraged. Rossami (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Rossami we are still speedy deleting vanishing stupid and really innappropriate redirects. The ones you see here are those deemed worthy of discussion. Scroll back even the last few days for examples of junk brought here and deleted. Legacypac (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


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

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


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

  • Delete per nom. I don't see it mentioned anywhere at all except for an obscure Youtube channel and in formulations of "petrol et gaz", but that's all nonsense here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense per above --Lenticel (talk) 09:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


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

  • Delete same thought I had when I saw it on the list but I'd not gotten to it yet. Legacypac (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. If securities were the only thing that could be asset-backed, this would be a great redirect; the only problem is that it's ambiguous, and a disambiguation page can easily resolve that. Nyttend (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    • The problem with a disambiguation page is that it'd solely be made up of partial title matches. Since it's an adjective, it's simply describing the type of x you have, whether it be a security, risk, etc. It's not something you would find unqualified. -- Tavix (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - these are all basically describing the same topic, and the current target does it better. Asset-backed lending is simply lending in which the collateral is an asset-backed security, and asset-backed risk is simply a discussion of variations in securities risk when the securities are asset-backed. Some merges are likely here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as is per Ivanvector. All the variants are extensions of the core topic which is 'asset-backed securities'. Rossami (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

False equivalencies[edit]

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


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

Not true. Jeb!Jeb Bush since he has used the slogan since 1994 (see also the RFD for Jeb!.) -- Tavix (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
We're not talking about "Jeb!" we are talking about "Jeb?" which is the 2016 campaign criticism and not any other Jeb campaign. -- (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
You're saying that this is his first campaign where he had this type of criticism? I can guarantee you that Bush has been criticized in 1994, 1998, and 2002, and he used "Jeb!" in all of those elections. -- Tavix (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
We're not discussing any and all criticism of Jeb, we are not discussing "Jeb!", we are discussing "Jeb?". The topic of discussion here is "Jeb?" and not Jeb Bush in general. -- (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The symbols menu on a recent Android phone - the ? and ! are one key apart.
  • Weak retarget per 70.51 as {{R from typo}}, but it's not at that target either. Si Trew (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Could you explain why you feel it's a typo? The question mark and exclamation mark are on literally the opposite ends of the keyboard and I can't imagine someone accidentally typing ? unless they they are purposefully looking for "Jeb?" as a question of his character or something. -- Tavix (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Not on all keyboards, not everything is QWERTY. And I can see that if something were printed as "Whatever happened to Jeb!?" people may mistype it, being unsure of the multiple punctuation. Whether that counts as an {{R from typo}} is a bit weak, but if it's not a likely typo, this should probably be deleted as WP:RFD#D2 confusing since it's not at the target. Si Trew (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't implying QWERTY. I can't find a major keyboard in which the ? ! are near each other. -- Tavix (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
They are next to each other on many cell phone keyboards. pbp 06:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
That's a good point, I didn't think about cell phone keyboards. -- Tavix (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep or retarget: IMO, the D3 claim is specious; I don't see how the redirect is harming anybody. Frankly, this discussion is splitting gnats. pbp 01:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not harmless, it's an attack to make him seem indecisive or uncertain, which isn't something we should be promoting in our WP:BLPs. -- Tavix (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, multiple RS criticism using this term is fair game if not WP:UNDUE, but this link ain't it (if it were, I'd add it to the target and say keep). Si Trew (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Tavix: Are you going to bludgeon everybody who votes keep or retarget, rather than your preferred option of delete? I hope not. pbp 06:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as it is a unsourced negative redirect at a real person which is forbidden. Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict)
  • Delete. This is a fairly common joke made at Bush's expense (I've seen examples on at least two network late night talk shows), and it's nowhere near derogatory enough to require deletion, especially when a high-profile public figure is involved. See Slick Willie, Tricky Dick. But there's no discussion of it in any plausible target article (likely because it's obvious and superficial). No target, ergo no need for the redirect. Can always be restored if a decent, relevant discussion is written (which won't happen unless Jeb? overtakes Donald Grump). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete If there is the possibility that it can be harmful then per WP:HARM we should abide by that. I do not see how this could be a typo unless you accidently type "Jeb@" or "Jeb~". The ! and ? are on the opposite sides of the average QWERTY keyboard. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Retarget to Jeb Bush presidential campaign, 2016 - plausible mobile typo, where keyboards often have a "special" key that brings up a menu with all symbols, in which ? and ! are likely to be right beside each other. Furthermore, while apparently meant to be derisively humorous, we do not censor such things and it would point at the right target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

February 9[edit]

Ash leaf[edit]

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

Hebburn Argyle F.C.[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. Thanks, Number 57! --BDD (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

No hint that Argyle (see [10]) is the same club as Hebburn Town Ureinwohner (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Hebburn Argyle still exist as a youth team and are affiliated with Hebburn Town. However, it would be nice to see it expanded to a full article, as the historic club is notable. Number 57 10:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    • @Ureinwohner: I have now converted this into a standalone article, so you may want to withdraw this. Cheers, Number 57 13:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Montgomery Cunningham Meigs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted, CSD G6: Deleting redirects or other pages blocking page moves. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Goldspotted frogs[edit]

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

  • Delete both - Google indicates this is ambiguous with the Columbia spotted frog which also has gold spots. Ambiguous redirects should be deleted. Interestingly, when I searched "gold spotted frog", the search engine put me through to gold-spotted frog, so apparently it also now picks up on alternate hyphenations in queries. Fancy! Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
It actually seems to "ignore" quite a lot of punctuation – but I don't know the rules. It seemed sometimes to ignore apostrophes (when I got a surprise this way a few days ago, I checked to make sure that I didn't land via an {{R from greengrocer's apostrophe}}) but for example Canadian's leads to search results even though Canadians is an article. Si Trew (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Are you even bother to read the articles before nominating these for deletion? The alias is listed right in the target article.
    Now, I could see an argument based on Ivanvector's finding to convert the redirect to a disambigation page and I have no objection if someone wants to do that but there is absolutely no reason to delete the redirect first. Rossami (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, reason WP:RFD#D2 confusing per WP:XY, although Columbia spotted frog does not say prominently that it has gold spots. But it could be disambiguated with a hatnote at the target. Si Trew (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Duc Tran[edit]

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

  • Delete as nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target; WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Does not redirect to a section (list entry), because there isn't one. Si Trew (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. WP:G3 Frank (User Page) (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Plusunkeep. Newspeak would not likely formulate a word like this - Newspeak words are blunt, simple, and based on English words. The subject has no particular importance in Vietnamese, if that's what this is. Also possible BLP issues. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Tran is a DAB, at which the Vietnamese surname Trần and Trần dynasty are listed. Đức Trần is red; we have Đức Thắng and Lê Tương Dực. Si Trew (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


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

Akshya101 : saint soldier rational public school talwandi sabo/subpage[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted, see below. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

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

  • Speedy Delete. While it doesn't qualify for R3, I believe it to qualify for WP:G6 under "Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace." -- Tavix (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:SUBPAGE -- (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted; the title alone shows that Tavix was right. Nyttend (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

February 8[edit]

Crossville, TN μSA[edit]

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

  • See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 12#Logansport, IN μSA for the most recent discussion of these, where a user helpfully compiled links to all previous μSA redirects at RfD. --BDD (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - μSA = micropolitan statistical area. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD (I'm that user!). Since this is the fourth time in a year one of these has been nominated, I'm of the opinion that a dedicated WP:RCAT needs to be implemented. Paine Ellsworth, are you still working on these? -- Tavix (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per the others; as noted in the Logansport nomination, μ represents "micro", i.e. "micropolitan". They're a bit widely used as in-project shortcuts, as well. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - Standard abbreviation for micropolitian area. Dough4872 22:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Emu and the jabiru[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. Thanks, Ivanvector. I'll go ahead and move it. --BDD (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

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

  • Restore article and improve. At a cursory glance this should have passed WP:A7, the most over-applied and misunderstood of our speedy criteria. It's a notable myth. I'll see what I can do with it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay I did some work on it. It could use more analysis if anyone can find a source that isn't paywalled, and attention from an expert in Australian Aboriginal topics. But I think it's a decent stub now. If kept, this should be moved to Emu and the Jabiru per MOS:CAPS. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

U.S. Virgin Island[edit]

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

  • Keep. Sure, it's erroneous, but it's not ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment there's also United States Virgin Island. And British Virgin Island. And, less plausibly, Us virgin island, USA Virgin Island, and Special:prefixIndex/Virgin Island of the. And that's just the singular stuff. (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep The singular might also imply a sticky S key. By the way, which U.S. Virgin Island is the largest? Bosley John Bosley (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, the difference between the two is that there is a next-to-nothing chance of another unrelated island being named "United States Virgin Island." For attestation purposes, reference #37 in the target article is about a "Virgin Island Vacation Guide" and BJB gave another informal example of usage (although a sticky key would produce: "U.. Virgin Iland"). -- Tavix (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep I think this can be a honest misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Not particularly different from New York Yankee. When the title is plural, it's reasonable for someone to search for a singular form (A: "what's that place south of Great Thatch?" B: "That's a U.S. Virgin Island"), and that's why we have {{R from singular}}. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Redirects for pluralization errors are not merely allowed but encouraged. Rossami (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - Plausible redirect due to forgetting the "s" on "Islands." — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - There's a good reason why {{R from singular}} exists. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


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

  • Delete, WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, there is no way calling someone "dear[ie]" implies an intimate relationship. I don't know if "intimacy" still means "having sex", but it used to be a euphemism (at least in UK news reporting) for that. Intimacy redirects to this same target, I could probably write a short RS'd article there about its use in this sense. We have a DAB at Intimacy (disambiguation); I'll list that separately. Si Trew (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget the first two to Term of endearment. Perhaps send the others to Dear? Nyttend (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I've never heard the first used. Dearly - dearly beloved we are gathered... Or She will pay dearly for that mistake. So I'm not sure dearly is a term of endurement always. Legacypac (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Haha, no, marriage is a term of endurement. Si Trew (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget dearies to dearie (disambiguation); delete all others.
    • "Dearling" can be either an obscure alternative to "darling", or the name of several people mentioned on Wikipedia but do not have articles yet. Music writer Robert Dearling is a redlink with possibilities. Delete to reveal search results for readers.
    • "Dearness", "Dearly", or "Dearer" can refer to either sense of the word "dear" - close relationship, or expensive. Delete as WP:XY. --Deryck C. 23:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
      • WP:XY isn't relevant, that's for when a title refers to more than one topic with separate articles, rather than ambiguity for which WP:Disambiguation is used (although in this case they are ambiguous but there are no articles for either of the uses. Peter James (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • delete all I'm just not seeing keeping any of these Neelix-generated "trap every search" implausibilities. Even "dearies" is weak considering that the disambig of for things that aren't generally going to show up in the plural. Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Si. Too broad a term for too specific a target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect Dearies to Dearie - it can at least refer to people with the surname Dearie. Delete Dearling, Dearness and Dearer - no likely article for these. Redirect Dearly to Max Dearly as a {{R from surname}}. Peter James (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The fiftieth day[edit]

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

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

2015 / Regression[edit]

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

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

US ^^[edit]

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

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

  • Keep shift error, such as a stuck shift key -- (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - People sometimes forget to release the shift key when typing, or it could be sticky. For example, while I abbreviate World War 2 as WWII, some people abbreviate it as WW@. Oops, I mean WW2. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2, not at target. The above case for typo assumes that the caret ^ is shift-six, which it is not an all keyboard layouts. So it could be a typo for something else entirely. Si Trew (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete this and others that are only typing errors and not misspellings, people would notice they had made an error and would try again with the correct name. If not should we have hatnotes on US 55 and US 77? When checking these I typed "US %5" for the first, so these (any many more) are plausible errors but obviously errors. If this is kept, maybe others such as A%!)£ are needed. Peter James (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete before we have to keep crap like US !)!, US ##, and Interstate (%. --Rschen7754 02:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Peter James. I've been itching to create wp;ani for a long time now. And not every keyboard produces a caret when they push shift-6. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Do not need a redirect for a typo. Dough4872 21:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment if that is a general statement, then we do indeed have typo redirects {{R from typo}} -- (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. R2, as well as pretty much everything every other delete !vote has said. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 00:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Mohamed Aloulou[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. Thanks, Ivanvector! --BDD (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was 'Speedy deleted' Legacypac (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was 'Speedy deleted' Legacypac (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

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

  • Delete as too wide of a likely word (could easily be for the color white). SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
  • Actually, it was converted to a DAB page by User:Tavix and others. Si Trew (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it was speedy deleted by The Anome. I created a dab from a redlink and Rossami restored the edit history a bit later. -- Tavix (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


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

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

Hustler (prostitute)[edit]

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

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


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

  • Keep all. Omission of a space is an entirely plausible typo. Rossami (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all - Accidentally missing a space is a perfectly common thing and these are helpful, which is why we have BarackObama, MittRomney, etc. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


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

  • Keep all. The addition of a hyphen is not "fake". These redirects are plausible and there is no potential for confusion. Rossami (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment wouldn't these be the adjective form? -- (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
No. Even "White-slave traffic" wouldcould imply that it was white slaves that were doing the trafficking. Si Trew (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
It wouldn't (for example: White-Slave Traffic Act). All appear to be adjective forms. Peter James (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
How are "White-slaver", "White-slaves" and "White-slavery" adjective forms? (Whatever that is; adjectival form -> adjective.) They're nouns. Nouns acting as compound modifiers of other nouns are called different things by different grammars, but they're certainly not adjectives. Si Trew (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Alabama state park[edit]


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

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

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

علاء الدين[edit]

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

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

Chikan Densha: Chōhatsusuru Midara Shiri[edit]


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

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

Iana Matel[edit]

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

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

Artificial objects[edit]

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

Sure, but the target article doesn't say anything about space. Is your argument that the phrases usually refer to something in space? --BDD (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
There sure seams to be a very strong affinity between the term artificial objects and space topics - on and off wikipedia. It is a very weird term if you think about it. Is the opposite 'real objects' or 'natural objects' (the opposite of 'man made' ). Can anyone find a wider meaning then 'stuff made on earth now in space'? Legacypac (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep mentioned in article, other pages can be linked via "see also". Is there an index or something similar for these lists? Peter James (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I think we should convert this into a List of Lists. Legacypac (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


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

  • Delete given the outcome at the RFD on the Latin-alphabet version of this. We don't have any useful target for this particular patronymic (current target doesn't mention it, no one uses it as a surname, and we don't do set-indices on "middle" names), so search results are the best thing we can offer. (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was going to suggest retargeting it to Eastern Slavic naming customs, as it makes sense, but this string of characters doesn't appear there (Миха́йл appears only in the section for first names), so redirecting this there would confuse someone not familiar with it. Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - What Legacypac said. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sun lounges[edit]

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

  • delete per WP:REDLINK and as Neelix junk. I was somewhat inclined to redirect to chaise longue but we would need a section on the later as outdoor furniture first; also, this seems to be a peculiarly Australian term. Mangoe (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep this is correct, there's a hatnote for the furniture, which is more commonly called a sun lounger: "For the outdoor furniture, see Sunlounger." Sun lounge is used, but not often, to refer to the furniture, but it's unclear whether this is an accepted name in some varieties of English or just a mistake or confusion with similar terms - for this the hatnote is still suitable. There's at least one book that distinguishes between conservatories and sun lounges, but both would be types of sunroom. Peter James (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
That would suggest we retarget to Sunlounger Legacypac (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The problem in that is that we define deck chair (which is where "sunlounger" redirects) to be something different. I'm not particularly convinced by the distinctions we draw but... Mangoe (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Akira: Tetsuo's Edge[edit]

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

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

Alberta Law Enforcement Response Team[edit]

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

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

February 7[edit]

Raphael Schumacher[edit]

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

  • This person is in headlines all over the world and they are investigating for possible manslaughter charges. It's a perfectly valid redirect, and will prevent someone from recreating the page when they see it already redirects to info on the event. МандичкаYO 😜 22:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
He is no longer on the page redirected to because he was not notable, as per the top line of the page. We do not list every murder, death or suicide if something notable comes from his death then it would be more value to create the redirect then.WP:BLP1E.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
No, you took him off the page because you've decided he was not notable. The media coverage of his death disagrees with you. There are people on already the list who are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia page. What is your particular obsession with deleting anything about this guy? МандичкаYO 😜 22:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • keep - I was considering making the same redirect. Removal from the list is irresponsible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Removal from the list was irresponsible? or your change to the list criteria without discussion? McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy procedural close - content disputes should be settled on the list's talk page - it's not fair to editors watching the article to make decisions about its content in a separate forum. Decide on whether or not he should be added to the list first, then we can deal with the redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Entries on a list shouldn't be redirected to the list in this situation; the list ought to contain only notable people, not nonnotables whose names get redirected there. Or if he is notable, delete per the top of WP:REDDEAL; having the redirect retards the creation of an article. Nyttend (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Procedural close per Ivanvector; settle the content dispute first. Si Trew (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Procedural close per Ivanvector. The content dispute must be resolved before any action is taken. Plus, he has received a fair amount of notoriety lately. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was G6 Neelix housekeeping deleted Legacypac (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

2022 Summer Youth Olympic Games[edit]

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

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

Happy hour sort[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was all deleted by User:The Anome. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Tropicana Boulevard[edit]

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

  • Weak Delete, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. In the UK, at least, the street name "suffix" is important; in Cambridge there is, for example, Park Street, Park Avenue, Park Terrace, Park Road, Parkside and Park Crescent. I believe that in the US and Canada this is less common,, and that the "suffix" is often omitted. Si Trew (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Googling "Tropicana Boulevard" turns up a number of places using the term to refer to Tropicana Avenue (likely due to confusion with Las Vegas Boulevard). It's incorrect usage, but it's a plausible search term and there doesn't seem to be another notable Tropicana Boulevard that it could be confused with. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 14:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment. My results must may vary, but my Gsearch gives me mostly places that are at the Tropicana – Las Vegas Boulevard intersection; perhaps it is better to retarget it there? The website for a Howard Johnson hotel actually says its address is at 165 East Tropicana Boulevard as its address, even though the map shows it is clearly on Eat Tropicana Avenue. Weakening mine; we can tag it as {{R from incorrect name}} or somesuch. Si Trew (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - Even though it's incorrect, it's a plausible search term. Remember, redirects are cheap. Dough4872 16:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
"Redirects are cheap" is neither an argument for keep nor delete; it's "cheap" in terms of computational resources to keep them, delete them or retarget them. Stats are 32 for the last 90 days, and on only one day was greater than 2; below bot noise level. It may, in theory, be a plausible search term, but hardly anyone (if anyone) actually clicks through this redirect.
The real question is, if kept, does it get people to where they are likely to want to go; it's probably not far off, but could it be better? If it didn't exist, what would the search engine suggest? The top results from search in article space are to Tropicana, a DAB; Tropicana Las Vegas; Tropicana – Las Vegas Boulevard intersection (to which Tropicana - Las Vegas Boulevard intersection is an R); Excalibur Hotel and Casino and, in fifth, Rainbow Boulevard (Las Vegas). So, if deleted, the reader gets a choice of quite relevant search results; sometimes that can be better than throwing them into an article – with no hatnote – that doesn't mention "Tropicana Boulevard". If I look for Oxford Road I don't get sent to Oxford Street. WP:RFD#D2 gives the example that 'If "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion.' Just because Google Maps, for example, doesn't care and thinks Tropicana Boulevard is actually a lane to a trailer park in Jensen Beach, Florida (even though that is called NE Boulevard Lane), does not mean we should follow suit.
I realise this is a long reply, but I should hate it to be thought of me that I didn't do WP:BEFORE and perhaps wanted to keep my usual verbosity under control. Si Trew (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, {{R from incorrect name}}. If a local news station can make this error, it's definitely plausible for Wikipedia. As an aside: it does look like the suffix matters in Las Vegas. There's a "Tropicana Drive," although it's a short residential road. I couldn't find a Tropicana Boulevard though. -- Tavix (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

February 6[edit]


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) sst(conjugate) 06:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

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

  • Delete - Seems like a clear-cut case. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as the adverb form of "reductive." In fact, at the article for Reductionism, the caption for the picture says: "Descartes held that non-human animals could be reductively explained as automata". -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Per above, it's the adverb form. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Notecardforfree.Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Upon some more thought, this seems like there's no harm to it, and the redirect does fit as an unusual but valid formation of the term. Keep. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.


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

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

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

  • Retarget to Taoism per White whirlwind. Daojia generally refers to the philosophical aspect of Taoism/Daoism. -Zanhe (talk) 06:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me explain a bit about the relationship between those related terms here base on my own understanding plus content currently written on relevant pages in En&Zh wikipedia to help make a better decision:

  • First, a philosopher called Laozi come up with his own idea about nature of things and how the world should work and his idea become a school of thought.
  • There are many people who learn from Laozi, and as the time pass, some of them have different idea about how to understand what Laozi have said. For instance, Zhuangzi's thought and etc.
  • Then there is a school of thought known as Yellow Emperor (Huang). They produce their own literature and say they are words by the Yellow Emperor, an legendary emperor thousand year before their time. They mainly follow and promote Laozi's idea but also mixed some Fangxian (divination) and Yinyang content into it, and it become one of the most popular branch of Laozi's idea a few hundred years after Laozi's death. The school of thought is later known as Huang Lao after another several hundred years.
  • Into the Han Dynasty, Laozi's idea, Zhuangzi's idea, HuangLao, and others are then collective called as Taoism (School of thought), or Daojia in Chinese.
  • Meanwhile, Huang-Lao continue to develop, and some local religion absorbed its thought and brand themselves as Taoism (Religion). Ultimately there are few branches that survive till today and become the more widely known Taoism and also the apparent focus of the current Taoism page.

C933103 (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Be star[edit]

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

The current situation isn't very satisfactory, but what arrangement do you think would be better? There is only one article for B stars with emission, and that article doesn't really explain very well the differences between them all. Maybe straightening out the article, possibly splitting it into two, would be the best thing to do first. Then any remaining redirects would become obvious. Lithopsian (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Maybe targeting the broader concept of B stars, such as by going to Stellar_classification#Class_B, is most helpful? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep I'll happy defer to experts in the area, but it seems it's currently aimed at the best available target. If/when someone changes the target article or creates a separate Be Star article then they can do whatever is appropriate with the redirect. Just put a note on the target's talk page that the redirect exists and that the article should be improved or split. Alsee (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment we should write a set-index at B star that lists all the subtypes of B with articles. We could then retarget there. -- (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the same place as B-type star per CoffeeWithMarkets, and add a comment about Be stars.[11] Praemonitus (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There have been suggestions to keep, retarget to Stellar classification#Class B, and to write a (set index) article, with not much consensus from any of the suggestions. Perhaps someone could write a draft of what that would look like?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hook Mountain and Nyack Beach State Park[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedily deleted by GB fan. --BDD (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

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

  • Delete per nom - I created the redirect back in the day I believe dm (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D5 confusing. @Dmadeo:, you can ask for it to be deleted at WP:CSD as WP:G7 author requests deletion. It got eight hits on 21 December 2015, otherwise at noise level; no internal links (outside this discussion). Si Trew (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Alaskan rivers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) sst(conjugate) 07:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Alaskan river[edit]

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

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

Iphone 7[edit]

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

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

List of black ice hockey players[edit]

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

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

Talk:Vine Deloria, Jr[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was redirect fixed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Corlo terrorita[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

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

  • Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Search engines tend to be equally nonplussed, some suggesting the colocolo as a good match. Si Trew (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTLYRICS or WP:RFD#D2. Bad in so many ways: as a search term, first you have to use the wrong language, then misspell both words (neither of these are actual Spanish words), and then who's to say you intended on this target? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree completely. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as total nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Irish Messi[edit]

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

I looked at this before creating the redirect. Zak Gilsenan isn't notable enough for Wikipedia - he fails WP:BLP1E, being only known for signing for a football club.
Thus, there are 2 players that use the title, so hatnotes are preferred (I meant to add them, but didn't).
Of the 2, I think Hoolahan is given the nickname more often in reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I note that being referred to as the "Irish Messi" is apparently so significant for Wes Hoolahan that it isn't even mentioned anywhere in his article. Unless reliable sources have talked about him in these terms (I haven't checked) I say we just delete the redirect altogether.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Sources: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. And I'm sure I've seen Sky Sports use it before. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - media nickname, not needed on the article and not a likely search term for a redirect. GiantSnowman 18:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and hatnote based on the information provided by Joseph. Media nicknames, BTW, absolutely should be included in articles and redirects when widely used. And, also, BEAST MODEEEEE! Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

February 5[edit]


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all except reintroducing, reintroduced, reintroductions and reintroduction. BDD said in his relist that we're past the Rubicon, so this is my best attempt to summarise the discussion and draw a conclusion by weighing the comments below with evidence and policy. From the arguments below, "reintroducing", "reintroduced", and "reintroductions" are close modifications and should be preserved to prevent breaking incoming links to "reintroducing" and "reintroductions". Incoming links agree with arguments below that "reestablishment" is primarily used in the political sense rather than the conservation sense, so they should be deleted to make way for a disambiguation page. Where we should put the page currently at reintroduction of a species, and what we should do to reintroduction, is left open for editorial decisions beyond RfD. Deryck C. 23:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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


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.

Radical Mongoose[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) sst(conjugate) 08:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Iron Man of the WWE[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 12#Iron Man of the WWE

(Far from) Home[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) sst(conjugate) 08:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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

It's a redirect because the song itself wasn't notable, so I BOLDly redirected it to the album from which it came rather than AFDing it. I have no objection to re-redirecting it to the band. Or to scrapping it altogether and having the DAB page merely point to the album as its one bluelink. DMacks (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've added {{R from song}}, and redirects are cheap. The article Tiga (musician) indicates the song charted on UK and AUS singles charts. The parentheses in the title are unlikely to be confused with other entries in the dab Far from Home. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Animalparty. Unlikely to be confused with another topic nor to confuse readers searching for Far from Home; saves some users a click. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment Honestly? It confused the heck out of me - But if it makes sense to all of you, then let it be. 🍺 Antiqueight chat 15:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
What you said - "a search ... doesn't bring up this page unless you use the brackets". So it's reasonable to assume that a user searching using the brackets is looking for this song title, otherwise why would you type the brackets? As such, it's reasonable to send that user to a page about the album the song appears on. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. Does not seem unreasonable for someone to search by an exact title; I imagine many readers would guess that the song would not be at Home. Si Trew (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Though there's some interest in retargeting to Wikipedia:Reform, there's consensus to delete. Arguably, a WP shortcut with "Wikipedia" in the title is redundant anyway. And as for the second, well—some editors don't take kindly to that sort of thing. (I don't care too much.) --BDD (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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

  • Delete both per consensus at MfD that this does not belong in project space. These are now cross-namespace redirects. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as they are cross name space redirects.Mrfrobinson (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete both the community was clear that this essay should not be in project space. These redirects are a back door way to refer to it as if it still is. The creator has already tried to quote the "reforms" at ANI [17] and to imply an editor could be subject to a weeks/months long block [18] to chill discussion. With these, or any project space redirects, they can still make such bullshit claims and a naive editor may believe them. JbhTalk 12:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete (both) - normally pseudospace shortcuts from project space to user space are not inherently harmful (WP:XNR generally applies to redirects from reader spaces) however this is an instance where one is being used in a deliberately harmful fashion, to intimidate users based on an editor's non-consensual opinions. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Not only are they cross namespace redirects (which are allowed is some cases - see WP:1AM), but this and this show the clear intent of one of the primary authors of this essay to use it as a club during disputes. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep both. If cross-namespace really was a hard policy no-go[citation needed], then redir to another related traget in WP: namespace. --.js[democracy needed] 23:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @.js: Do you have a recommendation of where these redirects should be retargeted? Steel1943 (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Steel1943: Perhaps one of these:
  • Keep both first or retarget. There is no policy against using them. There is a disagreement whether Wikipedia needs reforms. I have seen numerous user essays with redirect shortcuts. QuackGuru (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Updated comment. QuackGuru (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
While it may be true that there is disagreement over whether Wikipedia needs reforms, there is strong consensus that your proposed reforms are profoundly misguided, if they are even possible (which in some cases they are not, at least without changes in the law). Guy (Help!) 01:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I do not see any disagreement that WP needs reforms, only disagreement what reforms. But here is the place for discussing a redirect only. --.js[democracy needed] 01:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
It appears the reason behind deleting the redirects is that JzG has a disagreement with the essay. That's not a valid reason to delete the redirects. QuackGuru (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
This were all deleted save one retargeted. Being fair to QuackGuru and the other authors, I don't think there's any proposal to re-create those. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ivanvector. If they are to be retargeted, Tavix' suggestion makes the most sense, but I don't see the value of doing so; "cheap" as far as I understand it is just a warning not to base a suggested course of action on the consequent size of the database. Si Trew (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Reform which is more appropriate, encompasses all the possible targets, and isn't a cross-namespace redirect.Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I would normally be for this but when the target is shorter than the redirect we shouldn't have a redirect. Mrfrobinson (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Telling lies to children[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. The general consensus is that this target isn't helpful to the reader. Deryck C. 22:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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