Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion)
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

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

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

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

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

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

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

Reasons for deleting[edit]

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

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 may apply.) See also: § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange. (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply in some cases.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to itself or to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then it needs to be deleted to make way for move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion. If not, take the article to Requested Moves.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

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

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

I.
Tag the redirect.

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

{{subst:rfd|content=#REDIRECT [[Foo]]{{R from move}}}}
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page.
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the rfd tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination
II.
List the entry on RfD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contents

Current list[edit]

August 17[edit]

List of Recurring Characters on 6teen[edit]

The word "recurring" is unclear and ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Minor characters of 6teen[edit]

The section is unclear on what is meant by "minor character". Steel1943 (talk) 04:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Redirects from non-main characters of 6teen[edit]

None of these characters are mentioned or identified at 6teen#Characters or even 6teen. (Note: Starr (6teen) is a {{R with history}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

6teen All Characters[edit]

The target does not contain all characters in 6teen, but rather just the main characters. Steel1943 (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Characters of 12 oz. Mouse[edit]

The target is not a list of characters. (Oddly enough, both of these redirects are {{R with history}} with Characters of 12 oz. Mouse being WP:BOLDly redirected in 2010, and List of 12 oz. Mouse characters being WP:BOLDly redirected in 2015.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Blair–Brown government[edit]

A bizarre redirect, Blair was irrefutably the dominant figure of his ministry for ten years. --Nevéselbert 10:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. I know nothing about British politics, but the fact that there's several incoming links (Blair-Brown government has 17 mainspace links!) shows that it's being used. -- Tavix (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    I have fixed those links as this redirect should not be used. It is strictly informal and refers more widely to the four Labour ministries between 1997 and 2010.--Nevéselbert 21:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks, that makes sense. How about a retarget to New Labour then? -- Tavix (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
    I guess that would make sense. As long as it is tagged {{R unprintworthy}}.--Nevéselbert 22:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should this be retargeted to New Labour?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 12:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Deprecate then delete. This title is ambiguous: it could either refer to the 10 years when Blair was Prime Minister and Brown was Chancellor, or the entire 13 years when Blair and then Brown were Prime Ministers. I don't think there's enough reliable source use of this word to push us either way. New Labour is a faction of Labour that started before 1997 and continued beyond 2010 so I wouldn't say that's the obvious target either. I think we should fix this by changing the targets of incoming links to these titles. Deryck C. 11:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I fully concur with Deryck. Ambiguous and blocks the search function.--Nevéselbert 09:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Methamphetamine and sex[edit]

Delete or stub, the target has no relevant info on methamphetamine and sex. Klaun (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak refine to Methamphetamine#Sexually transmitted infection which seems to address most of the major issues concerning the two otherwise WP:XY topics. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Potential retarget to Date rape, as it's rather easy to find references online (and I didn't even check print medical resources) to methamphetamine being used as a date-rape drug. Lacking that, retarget per Angus. Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 10:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as a classic WP:XY redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Ruslik0. Yup, this seems obvious now. -- Tavix (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak refine per Angus. This section is what has remained from the more extensive previous content on metamphetamine and sex. This is the only article that discusses the topic at all. – Uanfala 16:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Retarget as suggested by Ruslik below – how haven't we spotted this article... – Uanfala 21:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a reasonable search term and Methamphetamine#Sexually transmitted infection, as suggested above, most likely contains the type of information the searcher is looking for. Deli nk (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an ambiguous redirect title pointing to a partial topic match. I've been reliably informed by the developers of mw:Search at Wikimania last week that page views will soon be turned on as a metric for ranking search results, which strengthens the case for deleting these partial topic match redirects and letting search do its job. Deryck C. 11:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Re-target to Party_and_play (Chemsex already redirects there.) Ruslik_Zero 18:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Desert Archaic Culture[edit]

Not all North American archaic cultures are in the desert. However, this does seem to be a legitimate topic for an article. I suggest deleting, to create a red link and encourage article creation. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per X1 criteria. Another implausible redirect created by Neelix. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oiyarbepsy, can't Desert Archaic Culture be regarded as a subtopic of Archaic period (North America)? – Uanfala 12:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Uanfala It certainly can be. However, that article doesn't specifically address desert cultures at all, only discussing cultures from much wetter parts of the continent. If the article was expanded to actually discuss the desert cultures, I'd have no problem keeping the redirect as is. However, as the article stands now, it's not a suitable target. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
      • In that case, the redirect is marginally useful: readers following it will find out that the Desert Archaic Culture is a kind of North American archaic culture. I think this utility is of the same magnitude as the benefit of redlink encouragement of article creation if this gets deleted. – Uanfala 10:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • retarget to Archaic Southwest which seems to cover the topic. Mangoe (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Lists Bosnians and Herzegovinians[edit]

  • Delete Unlikely that a user would combine the plural with the omission of the "of". UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep It's standard search term shorthand, and yes, many people omit "of" in searches. The Transhumanist 08:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

1-900-MIXALOT[edit]

Delete We don't normally redirect from lyrical phrases to the songs in which they are found. Especially when the phrase is not found in the target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. This connection is quite notable, even if the phrase is not mentioned in the article. The connection is rather unambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and add "R from quotation" or "R from phrase" (whichever one that would be the equivalent of R from lyrics) [1] [2] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Alasdair Seton-Marsden[edit]

Target article not on this topic Whizz40 (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

That;s where the link came from. It may be the only use. Whizz40 (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC) Propose to Delete. Whizz40 (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense but the article barley mentions him and, unless you understand the context of who he is, it's unlikely to serve that purpose for most readers. Whizz40 (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean by "the context of who he is"? I don't know anything about him except that he stood as a UKIP candidate and was involved in the Charlie Gard case. Roberttherambler (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, redirecting to Chelsea and Fulham (UK Parliament constituency) is confusing for a reader from around the world, that's all I'm saying. It would take them some time to work this out from the article, if at all. Whizz40 (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair point. I did think of creating an article for Alasdair Seton-Marsden but I have so little information that I thought it would immediately be deleted as non-notable. Roberttherambler (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hinduism in Ascension Island[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

You wouldn't learn anything about Hinduism at the target, but you would learn that there's no permanent residents on the Island. Any lasting impact of Hinduism is nil. -- Tavix (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Pone (honorific)[edit]

Redirect was created by Neelix also may qualify for WP:X1 for redirect created by Neelix. 38.96.9.224 (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

August 16[edit]

Chernabog[edit]

I have looked around via third party search engines for a while, and I am unable to verify that this is a plausible alternative spelling of misspelling of Chernobog. All results I have found connect the redirect to the Disney character in Fantasia. For this reason, I propose that this redirect be retargeted to List of Disney's Fantasia characters#Chernabog to match Chernabog (Disney). Steel1943 (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I haven't looked for sources, but at the very least Chernabog can be the Russian pronunciation spelling of Chernobog. – Uanfala 22:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The Breeze (Thames Valley, Reading)[edit]

Apparently the station will be rebranding however no sources confirm this as of yet and as such this is more or less WP:CRYSTAL, Station's never been known as "The Breeze" and as I said no sources indicate this is happening so IMHO it should be deleted for now and if sources crop up then it can be re-moved at a later date, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Princess Snow White[edit]

Not sure if these should target their current target, or if they should target Snow White. The reason I am not sure is due to the state of Snow White; from what I can see, the aforementioned article does not identify Snow White as a princess. Steel1943 (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom. In the absence of a page about Snow White the fairytale character, the fairytale page is better than the Disney one. The Snow White page does mention that she is the daughter of a queen. —Kusma (t·c) 05:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

August 15[edit]

Leonardo Retardo[edit]

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

OH GOD THE DOCTOR HAS A VAGINA NOW[edit]

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

So fucking[edit]

redirect to Sofa king, the target "Fuck" contains no relevant information about the specific phrase "so fucking", whereas Sofa King lists a number of works which are derived from a pun on the phrase Prisencolin (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget as proposed. – Uanfala 16:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Fire eaters[edit]

seems like the act of Fire eating is a more apt redirect Prisencolin (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Macedonia Airport[edit]

Someone searching for this may reasonably be looking for one of the articles on List of airports in the Republic of Macedonia. feminist 13:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment Unfortunately none of the airports in Macedonia are called Macedonia Airport, so the Greek one may still apply. I'll add a hatnote. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
It's reasonable to expect readers who want to look for an airport or airports in FYROM, but do not know the name, to search for "Macedonia Airport". Just as how readers may search for something like Singapore Airport or Malta Airport. feminist 11:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

List of Apple Software[edit]

Obvious misleading redirects, Apple software is not restricted to that of Mac OS, it could also refer to iOS, watchOS software, etc. Note that Apple software is red. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Create list It should be a list of software developed by Apple and organized like List of Microsoft software. It shouldn't be about third-party software developed for Apple's platforms as that's way too open-ended. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The idea of turning List of Apple software into a disambiguation page has been brought up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow the discussion of the several targets that have so far been proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 11:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Codename Lisa and AngusWOOF: Would you please draft a list of lists for other editors' consideration?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Rugrat[edit]

The singular form of this word was never widely used to refer to the TV series, so it may be best to retarget this redirect to the historical use of this word. In the past, this redirect targeted Toddler, but the wiktionary entry for "rugrat" states this term refers to a child. Maybe the better option is to create a disambiguation page? Steel1943 (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm not too familiar with the show, but would one of the "Rugrats" be called a "Rugrat"? Either way, I'm leaning towards maintaining the status quo. The hatnote at Rugrats explains the slang usage well, and I imagine the show helped in spreading that usage anyway. -- Tavix (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hinduism in Equatorial Guinea[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

The current target does not do a good job painting a picture of religious beliefs in Equatorial Guinea. Equatorial Guinea#Religion gives a percentage breakdown but there's no mention of Hinduism. Someone using this redirect will not learn about Hinduism in Equatorial Guinea, so this redirect is misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Gnomeo & Juliet (franchise)[edit]

It'd be a stretch to call this a "franchise". The article doesn't do so, and I can't imagine using the disambiguator as a search term. -- Tavix (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Suspected wishful crystal thinking, but it was not to be. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

August 14[edit]

List of mountain peaks of Saba[edit]

This could be seen as misleading because the target is not a list. -- Tavix (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete only one mountain of note for the entire island. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DIU[edit]

This redirect is odd. It's an interwiki link to a page on the Greek Wikipedia ... but the target is in English??? My gut answer to resolve this issue is transfer the English translation to the English Wikipedia over this redirect (then move the redirect to a more appropriate title), but ... I'm really not sure. Steel1943 (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep soft redirect and add summary of Greek Wikipedia page onto the soft redirect page as appropriate. Interwiki soft redirects from the Wikipedia namespace is the appropriate way to link to a project page on a different Wikimedia site which may be of interest to English Wikipedia editors. Deryck C. 13:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Normally, I would agree with that. However, the target Wikimedia project isn't compatible with the English language (such as Commons, MediaWiki, etc.) My primary concern with the soft redirect to a project is that it targets a page on a project that is in a different language by default. If the target page is supposed to be in English for English readers on a version of Wikipedia, then the page should be hosted here. Leaving an English translation of a page on a Wikipedia of a different language reduces the likelihood that an English reader/speaker will ever find this page. Steel1943 (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Also, I find it rather odd that a shortcut redirect was created for a page on a alternative-language Wikipedia. There is no way to track what other redirects that target the alternative language Wikipedia page. It creates issues with determining if redirects on this Wikipedia have been edited improperly. And if there is ever vandalism performed on the English version of the target page, a good portion of English readers may never have an idea it happened since the page is not hosted on the English Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Paul canero[edit]

No obvious connection between page title and target of redirect. Certes (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per RFD #4: self-promotion / spam. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Microsoft Explorer[edit]

WP:XY, also could refer to Internet Explorer and also others like MSN Explorer, but not a commonplace synonym for any of them. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Make it a disambiguation. Googling "Microsoft Explorer" (and clicking out to page 18) shows almost as many hits as for "Internet Explorer", and about 1/4 of the Microsoft Explorer hits refer to the browser, although few of them refer to File Explorer. Art LaPella (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Minor characters of the Powerpuff Girls[edit]

The target does not specify what makes a character "minor". Also, the redirect was an article with a list of "minor" characters, but at the present time, it seems that none of the characters in the "minor characters" article are listed at the target (meaning the content that was added as a result of the merge has been removed since the merge.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Only recurring and major characters should be listed as the rest are not notable, and this isn't The Simpsons where there are a bunch of random minor characters and guest stars that garner attention. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Pediculidae[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

AA320[edit]

"AA320" is an actual flight. I sort of get it (A for Airbus, then A320), but I don't think anyone would type this in to look for the aircraft. feminist 17:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Cocksuckers[edit]

Why is this suitable as a redirect to fellatio, when cocksucker is not? feminist 17:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Re-target to cocksucker. This might be a soft redirect page, but I think that's the best thing to do. Cocksuckers is a likely search term anyway. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Buttercup(The Powerpuff Girls)[edit]

No space between titles and disambiguators, and are thus WP:COSTLY to maintain. Their versions with a space, Buttercup (The Powerpuff Girls) and Bubbles (The Powerpuff Girls), exist. Steel1943 (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Buttercup (Buttercup Utonium)[edit]

Not a likely redirect, the character "Buttercup" is never given a last name in the series so this is also WP:OR. We already have a redirect that is more neutral: Buttercup(The Powerpuff Girls) (or Buttercup (The Powerpuff Girls) which is right as it includes a space). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

World Championship Wrestling/Wrestlers[edit]

Messed up attempt at an RfD but the intent was correct. Redirect is too general a topic to make any sense. PRehse (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hinduism in the West Bank[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

There's no mention of the West Bank at the current target. The only other mention of religion in the West Bank is at West Bank#Religion, where there's not mention of Hinduism. Since this cannot be redirected to a place where someone can learn about Hinduism in the West Bank, it should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

AARON THE JUST[edit]

WP:RCAPS, no affinity with this capitalization -- Tavix (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

August 13[edit]

Harpreet Singh (weightlifter)[edit]

Redirects to a list of people who are not weightlifters Certes (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Texmati[edit]

Just created this redirect. But now, I'm not sure if it should remain as is or be retargeted to RiceTec as a {{R from product}}. My concern is that there is currently a limited amount of information about the subject of the redirect, so thus I am not sure if the redirect should target what it is a variation of (Basmati) or if it should target the company that makes it as it may be a trademark (RiceTec). Steel1943 (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment would this be similar to the discussion regarding Tylenol? Or is Texmati more strongly tied to the brand than its "active ingredient"? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Fucking[edit]

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

Cummins China[edit]

The redirect should be deleted. Non-exist alternative name for the joint venture "Dongfeng Cummins". Moreover, Cummins had other joint venture with other manufacturer [3], such as Chongqin Cummins [4] Matthew_hk tc 11:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Cummins#See also as that list mentions two companies that are China based: Dongfeng and LiuGong. If it were Cummins India, then it could go to the Cummins#India_operations section of the article. This is a likely search given that there is an article for Cummins UK. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse Slim[edit]

Doesn't seem to be an alternative name for its target. All results I get on third-party engines for "Mickey Mouse Slim" are for school supplies with no connection to the target of this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No such product branding called Mickey Mouse Slim. The word "slim" is used in the context of products that are slim like slim jeans, slim wallet, slim bottle, slim sippy cups [5] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep If you look at the redesigned characters in these shorts compared to the original classic shorts even the house of Mouse/Mickey Mouse Works shorts, you will notice how much slimmer each of them look. If I recall correctly it was mentioned when the show was annonced that the characters would be redesigned. DoctorHver (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

TOON DISNEY STUDIO[edit]

Not seeing how this is a likely search term for its target. In addition, this is the only redirect targeting its target that has the words "toon" and "Disney" in that order. Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete for all-caps. It could redirect to Toon Disney but other than the infobox mentioning a headquarters, it doesn't mention what studios were designated for Toon Disney work. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep At very least the reversed orders of names. Since there is some misunderstanding going on what the actual name is of this sub-division of Disney. I don't know why its all CAPS though. DoctorHver (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Ordinary burin[edit]

Unnecessary redirect Pariah24 (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  • That's a tricky case. Burin (lithic flake) and Burin (engraving) were only recently split into separate articles, and there does seem to be some blurry overlap at the boundary between the two topics. The results of a google books search for "ordinary burin" seem to all be about the stone tool, and one source in particular [6] uses the phrase in a way that makes it apparent it's a specific term of its own (rather than merely a phrase for a burin that happens to be ordinary). In the same text, "ordinary burin" is equated with Burin en-bec-de-flute (which currently redirects to the engraving tool), so it seems the two redirects should point to the same place. – Uanfala 22:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
So are you recommended it go to (engraving) then? Are there any cases where it would need to go to the flake? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I was simply observing, and I don't think the engraving use corresponds to what I saw in my brief search. I'm deferring to the experts here, and I see we've already had a relevant opinion just below. – Uanfala 13:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep but retarget to Burin (lithic flake). It's a technical term for a specific type of burin, where "the burin face is backed against another burin face on the opposite side of the blade or flake" [7]. – Joe (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

August 12[edit]

Crontonville, New York[edit]

Probably a misspelling of Crotonville, part of Ossining (town), New York Certes (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Afghanica (cannabis)[edit]

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 17#Afghanica, which I have closed as delete. "Afghanica" isn't mentioned at the target article, so someone searching it is not going to find anything on the subject. -- Tavix (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Pinging Plantdrew, Doc James and Kingofaces43 who have recently been involved with some of these redirects (or their former content). – Uanfala 20:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. The term not being in the article it is redirected to IMO is not justification for deletion. These direct new editors to were the content should go. It is one way we deal with spammy content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Restore article, since I now realize there used to be an article on the subject. That would solve my initial concern about not having any content to redirect these to. Delete the last two as implausible. -- Tavix (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Human equality[edit]

Not exactly the same thing. Egalitarianism is the pursuit of human equality, not human equality itself.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Ass (insult)[edit]

There probably is a better target for this. Created by a user indefinitely blocked for creating vandalous redirects. May need to be deleted.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

That would be a more appropriate redirect. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure . I (the nominator) am ok with that too.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Ass" as an insult has two implications: (1) as USA pronunciation for "arse", the human posterior; (2) the animal Equus asinus (donkey, burro), referring to its alleged stupidity. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Labour Party Marxists[edit]

Like the category Category:People targeted by the Anti-Defamation League created today, this has a heavy dose of pov. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep - the project called "Labour Party Marxists" also known as "Communist University" is specifically and open a group of people from the Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee). It doesn't warrant a stand alone article, but is significant enough a campaign to warrant a redirect. I suggest you assume good faith and create a better rationale rather than just lazy accusations of POV (without specifying what exactly the POV is supposed to be). Can you clarify what you are trying to claim is POV here? Claíomh Solais (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment "http://labourpartymarxists.org.uk/" is not a reliable secondary source. It's not even a "project", as far as I can tell - it's just a website. Could've been created by anyone. See WP:RS. Rockypedia (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete Completely POV redirect. No basis in reliable secondary sources. Created to make a political point. Rockypedia (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
What "political point" is being made here and what POV? This is the official website of the Communist Party of Great Britain (PCC) laying out the programme of their project called the Labour Party Marxists. On the right hand side of this official website, you can see a tab adversing their LabourPartyMarxists.org.uk subproject. I think some of the bourgeois liberal-orientated editors who (presumably) do not knowing anything about British Marxism and the various factions within it need to stop jumping to conclusions and assuming bad faith when there is none. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I assume good faith until I see a POV edit like this one. Care to explain how that addition is helping us build a better encyclopedia? Rockypedia (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, absolutely. Trotskyist groups engage in a policy known as entrism, to try and change larger political organisations to a position inline with their own (a strategy they have adopted since the 1930s). As happened with Militant tendency in the Labour Party 1980s, which had 3 MPs elected (of course, you have no knowledge in this field, you have just Wikistalked me to this article as a form of harassment). Now I have answered your question, care to address the glaring fact that all of this info regarding the Labour Party Marxists is mentioned on the CPGB-PCC's own official website? Claíomh Solais (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
That's a wonderful diatribe. Do you have even one reliable secondary source to back up any of those opinions? Because we don't publish opinions on Wikipedia. That's for your own personal website, where you can expound at length on the infiltration of the Labour party. Rockypedia (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
So you haven't clicked the link to their official website then where this is openly discussed? Or our own article on entryism? Why bother following me around to articles when you can't even be arsed to look into the subject matter at hand? In this case the CPGB-PCC attempt at entrism through their group "Labour Party Marxists" has been much less successful than say Militant in the past, but it still exists and is a notable part of this groups current activities, it isn't a "diatribe" to mention it. It just shows your lack of basic knowledge on the standard tactics employed by Trotskyist grouplettes. Perhaps stick to what you know; the American military invading countries, or whatever your field is. Claíomh Solais (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Reading past your personal attacks, I see your answer is "no, I have no sources, only my own opinion." That is what I had assumed. Rockypedia (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I love the bit suggesting I'm not assuming good faith followed by the attack on me for creating a "lazy accusation of POV". And accusations of stalking, which we refer to as WP:Hounding is an accusation that an editor is following another editor "with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor.". That's a pretty serious accusation, especially coupled with the explicit claim of harassment. In any case, even if there is a project called "Labour Party Marxists", most people searching for Labour Party Marxists are probably looking for Marxists who are members of the Labour Party. Rockypedia's removal of a claim stated as fact but only sourced to a website was correct, not harassment. Anybody can claim they are doing something, we need reliable independent sources to state that they are actually doing whatever. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Parnassus Press[edit]

This is certainly not the press's most visible author, and so this redirect is very strange. Vanamonde (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Did the small press put out more than the "at least three picture books" mentioned at the target article? It would not be unusual for a small press to have such a small output. If that was the entirety of the press's works, this could be weakly appropriate, since there are no articles on anyone else involved with the press, and it's not discussed elsewhere. A Google search revealed another press of this name, part of the non-notable Pegasus Books, so there is potential for confusion, however. --BDD (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hinduism in Svalbard[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Svalbard#Religion consists of a small, unsourced section of barely two sentences. As far as religion goes, there's simply not much to discuss in this Arctic archipelago of less than 3,000 people. Hinduism in Svalbard is either non-existent or not noteworthy at all. Either way, this redirect does not help anyone find out which one it is. -- Tavix (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable and the redirect misleads just by existing. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

List of current child actors from the Canada[edit]

Delete. the Canada? I don't think so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

This redirect sounds like something Starfire would say. Steel1943 (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

August 11[edit]

Bernard Lafferty (butler)[edit]

Unsure that this redirect is necessary since someone searching for this title would already have typed and been pointed towards Bernard Lafferty. Home Lander (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Agree - no need for re-direct (or disambiguation) since there are no other entries with that name.Pajokie (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)pajokie
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Dillard Tramar[edit]

While we do have {{R from sort name}}, are these worth it? We don't have Dillard, Tramar and that isn't his common name. And even if you were to make a sort name of his stage name (e.g., Rida, Flo), which is questionable, one of these has a capitalization error and the other has a hyphen, which really ruins the point of a sort name. --BDD (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete all none of these are used in any form in news articles. If the artist has a song with such a title then reconsider, but I don't see it. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Lacel[edit]

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

Bone flowers[edit]

I am unable to confirm that this plant is known by this name. If not, probable delete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Another facepalm head-scratcher from Neelix. Softlavender (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Softlavender, I brought this here because most of Neelix's common name redirects are correct and reasonable. So, I presumed that Neelix knew something that he didn't explain when he created this redirect. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
      • In nearly all instances, you can check a revision of the article around the time when Neelix created the redirect. Invariably, the article will mention the term as an alternate name. It is not his fault if the scope of the article changes at some point in the following decade. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Dabify. It's the literal meaning of the Nahuatl name for the target: this shouldn't normally warrant inclusion on dab pages, but the phrase seems to appear often enough on its own (without reference to the either the English or the Nahuatl name). It's also a common name for a species of daisy. A dab page has been drafted below the redirect and mentions added to the two articles. – Uanfala 10:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Uanfala: Do you have an English-language source calling Polianthes tuberosa "bone flower"? That might help resolve this discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I remember seeing quite a few gbooks results, but I'm not sure if there were any that use "bone flower" as a term of reference by itself (as opposed to just the meaning of the Nahuatl term/s). The latter are common, and there is one that has been added to the article, but I'm not sure this is what you're after. – Uanfala 08:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:X1. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Dabify, I guess. Not sure a translation of the Nahuatl name (that isn't being used in English) is necessary on en.wiki. But usage in reference to Bellis perennis is also pretty obscure. No great loss if these are deleted though. Plantdrew (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Neelix delete Searching for the phrase finds literal bone flowers. It may be a literal translation of a Nahuatl word, but that's not a good reason for a redirect. Mangoe (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Uanfala. Disambiguation is almost always better than deletion. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Bellis perennis, the only thing that appears to be called "bone flower" in English. --BDD (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer deletion to retageting, as this is a really obscure name for Bellis perennis, whereas the search results would at least display it along with the article about the Mesoamerican plant. It might not properly be known in English as "bone flower" but I think it's more likely to be what readers are looking for when searching for the term. After all, if I had to search for a plant that I had earlier heard being referred to using either 1) a pair of long incomprehensible Latin words, or 2) a shorter, but even more incomprehensible string of seemingly random characters that is actually its native name, or 3) a simple and meaningful English phrase, then I'm not sure I stand a chance of having remembered anything but the third item. – Uanfala 21:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete for now due to lack of evidence that this is a non-obscure synonym to the target--Lenticel (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per BDD. Bellis perennis has a source offering evidence of use in English. The current target does not. -- Tavix (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Cultural decay[edit]

No mention of this term in the target article, so no indication of relevance of the redirect. PamD 22:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep: The Cultural diversity article states that monoculturalism is "cultural decay", analogical to how multiculturalism is "cultural diversity". From the article: "Cultural diversity is the quality of diverse or different cultures, as opposed to monoculture, the global monoculture, or a homogenization of cultures, akin to cultural decay." I have edited the Monoculturalism article to reflect this in both articles. 93 22:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • delete The first sentence of cultural diversity is an eyebrow-raiser, but in any case searching for "cultural decay" in GBooks shows that it isn't synonymous with monoculturalism, but indeed means pretty much what you would expect: any kind of cultural breakdown. It could be argued (as one ref I found said) that cultural decay leads to something more like a monoculture, but that doesn't exhaust how people use the word, and it seems to me to be a somewhat uncommon usage. Mangoe (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not keep. The fact that one thing has been regarded by some[who?] as being akin to something else,[citation needed] gives us no reason for redirecting one to the other, even if a mention has been added (and even if that mention were sourced and contextualised). Cultural decay should be explained either in an article of its own, or in some related general article, like Culture. – Uanfala 23:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - The general concept of "cultural decay" is something that deserves its own article, probably? To be frank, I feel like the current cultural diversity probably violates Wiki guidelines in terms of its lack of sourcing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to decadence, which covers the concept of decay in a culture. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Decadence per Nyttend. The article doesn't specifically put it in those terms, but it seems to be speaking of the same thing. I see the argument for monoculturalism, but Mangoe outlines the problems with it well. --BDD (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

New Yorke[edit]

Delete this as unlikely misspelling; New-Yorke (with hyphen) was redirected to HP Saturn#New-Yorke per discussion — JFG talk 01:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I think New Yorke is a likely misspelling for New-Yorke, and I would prefer to keep it but redirect it to HP Saturn#New-Yorke. Tea2min (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, and delete New-Yorke too. An entirely unnotable printer, which never even made it to production. Since neither of these two redirects pointed to the HP page until the past couple of days, I don't think they're at all necessary.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. At this point, I added New-Yorke to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Good catch, Tea2min, I hadn't noticed that one. Actually, "HP New-Yorke" makes perfect sense as a likely search term for this admittedly obscure HP product; does no harm at that title. Knowing this, I would now move to delete both "New Yorke" and "New-Yorke". — JFG talk 15:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Certainly not! It would be mindless to destroy carefully constructed and established infrastructure elsewhere not interfering with the restructuring of the New York disambiguation page at all. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep.
    • "New-Yorke" should redirect to HP Saturn#New-Yorke, because that's the proper target for it. The HP community would fiercefully disagree with a characterization of that processor (not printer #-|) as "obscure", it is well documented in the literature...
      • Delete

        it is well documented in the literature...
        — User: Matthiaspaul

        Documented in the literature where? I can't find any primary, secondary or tertiary sources that support the existence of any "New-Yorke" CPU. I searched groups.google.com and also used google to search for anything related to the "New-Yorke" CPU but I couldn't find anything except various quotes and mirrors of the mentioning of "New-Yorke" in the HP Saturn Wikipedia article. Also, on the HP Saturn page, "New-Yorke" has no supporting references, inline or otherwise. I think that this redirect should be deleted and that "New-Yorke" should also be removed from the HP Saturn article until such time as reliable sources can be found for it. I'm not saying that it never existed, it's just that with no reliable sources, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia since it's essentially hearsay. Jdbtwo (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Comment I should also mention that I did a pretty exhaustive search for '8MHz OR "8 MHz"' via google, groups.google.com ( searching in comp.sys.hp48 ) and hpmuseum.org and I could find no reliable references to the claim of an 8MHz CPU. Jdbtwo (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
          • Comment It seems I misinterpreted your statement. I'm only referring to the supposed "New-Yorke" HP 8Mhz SoC/CPU prototype, not that the Saturn processor wasn't used in some HP printers, which I think is supported in the literature somewhere but I couldn't find anything with a cursory search. Some of these comments are probably more appropriate on the HP Saturn talk page, but I needed to mention them here as they directly affect the need for a redirect. Jdbtwo (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
    • "New Yorke" should be considered a spelling variant of "New-Yorke" and thus be redirected to HP Saturn#New-Yorke as well.
    • However, since "New York" is such an important term and "New Yorke" could also be a misspelling of "New York", the HP Saturn article should have a hatnote pointing to New York (disambiguation).
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
While "Yorke" is a bona fide old English spelling of "York", "New Yorke" is not a likely misspelling of "New York". As the processor prototype is correctly addressed by HP New-Yorke, we should delete "New Yorke" and "New-Yorke" which only cause confusion in search results. — JFG talk 22:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Treat them both the same. If it's reasonable to have New-Yorke go to the HP Saturn, having New Yorke go there too is reasonable; people aren't likely to spell the state with an "e", so the most likely use is the HP Saturn. And if it's not reasonable to have New-Yorke go there, it's also not reasonable to have New Yorke go there. Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Redirecting to New York is bad: following the spirit of WP:SMALLDIFFS we shouldn't redirect a term to something it's a misspelling of if there exists a topic of which it is the proper name. Still, the proper target HP Saturn treats the processor only within a large list containing ten or so other processors. That amount of coverage allows the existence of a redirect, but I'm not sure it necessitates it. I'm tempted to think, à la WP:XY, that it might be best to defer to the search engine. – Uanfala 23:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep New Yorke as I believe it to be a plausible error or misspelling for New York. Add the HP usage to the dab, and I think all the bases will be covered. -- Tavix (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Dried citrus peel[edit]

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

  • Retarget to Peel (fruit)#Uses as that section mentions chenpi, zest. I've also added candied. Note if the redirect were dried mandarin orange peel, dried tangerine peel, or dried orange peel then favor chenpi first. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC) updated 16:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment from the page creator No objection to recreation as a disambiguation or retargeting. I'm satisfied either way. --Talitiainen (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Chenpi is the only topic with an article that is literally a "dried citrus peel" and nothing else. Disambiguation is useful when the reader may be looking for information that is spread over multiple pages. But in the case of "dried citrus peel" we simply have no information about anything other than chenpi. If someone creates an article of a type of dried citrus peel in a different cuisine we can create a set index in the spirit of stuffed flatbread, but until then the current target is correct. (Full disclosure: my ancestors come from the main chenpi-producing region. Deryck C. 14:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Deryck. While other suggestions do in fact involve citrus peels, Chenpi is the only target I can find that is a dried citrus peel. -- Tavix (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 10:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't disambiguate, as the result would be a WP:DABCONCEPT article. Rather, if there is enough to talk about other than Chenpi, create a separate supertopic article at Dried citrus peel to explain the various uses of this ingredient, culinary or otherwise. bd2412 T 13:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete or retarget to a general article. Chenpi is defined in its article as dried tangerine peel. But tangerines don't exhaust the space of citrus fruits, and neither is chenpi the only kind of dried citrus peel: zest can be dry as well. "Dried citrus peel" seems like a plausible search term, but it's too generic to have a specific article as its target, and it's too specific (as a topic) to warrant having any sort of article (dabconcept or other). If kept, this should best target the relevant section of a general article, like the Peel (fruit)#Uses proposed above. – Uanfala 23:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Uanfala. I appreciate that chenpi is a specific, clearly defined topic, but this phrase is neither. I think Dried tangerine peel would be acceptable there. --BDD (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Because this discussion was listed in June, I read and re-read this discussion several times to attempt to ascertain consensus, but could not determine a solution. However, in my opinion, in the discussion's current state, closing the discussion to "no consensus" with no changes made may actually be against consensus; there seems to be consensus for change, but at the present time, I'm not finding consensus for a specific change. I hope that another 7+ days higher on the RfD board will help consensus, but I am not sure. (But, of course, if anyone disagrees with my stance on this, feel free to close this discussion early per WP:RELIST.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

List of Virginia fire departments[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close

ٍSayf al-Dawla[edit]

Delete Implausible redirect --93.169.201.93 (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Can someone explain how this redirect is different from the main article? Is it using some weird alternative lettering? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. The initial S is modified by a kasratan, which is an Arabic-script diacritic, and one that as far as I know can't be used for this name in this position even if it were written in Arabic. A mixed-script typo that ranks really high on the scale of implausibility for typos. – Uanfala 22:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Delete then. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hinduism in Greenland[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Delete. No mention of Hinduism at the target, nor at Religion in Greenland, nor at Greenland#Religion. Someone searching this is not going to be able to learn about (the lack of) Hinduism in Greenland, and would end up confused or disappointed. -- Tavix (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and the comments in the previous batch RfD. – Uanfala 09:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Tycho Brache (crater)[edit]

Delete Adding an extra "c" is a very unlikely misspelling. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

  • This is a plausible misspelling, I can never remember which of the similarly pronounced sounds in his name was spelt with ch, h, or g. – Uanfala 09:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

List of political parties in Ascension Island[edit]

No such list exists. The target doesn't even mention political parties. -- Tavix (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

August 10[edit]

ﭐَاِشَه[edit]

Delete. This is not how to spell “Aisha” in Arabic. In fact, a Google search only produces one result, a Wikipedia mirror, indicating that this sequence of letters doesn’t mean anything in any language. Gorobay (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as per Gorobay. Onel5969 TT me 20:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Double sharp (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, given how many spelling variants of the name could have been used yet this brings no notable search results. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This does look like a phonetic respelling of the name that could be used in one of the myriads of languages written with the Arabic script. Not that implausible, but if there are really no ghits for that I guess it can safely be deleted. – Uanfala 10:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Firstbit rotting[edit]

Delete. While I find the redirect amusing, having read Poul Anderson's Uncleftish Beholding, it remains a completely implausible search term. Double sharp (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment. Interesting that someone noticed that this exists. Poul Anderson's Uncleftish Beholding does use the word rotting where physicists use the word decay, and firstbit where physicists use proton, but doesn't actually refer to "firstbit rotting", since proton decay would have been going rather far afield. At worst the existence of this redirect seems harmless. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I noticed it because you posted about it on the talk page under Talk:Proton decay#Firstbit rotting. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Ontario Pro Wrestlers[edit]

Not specifically mentioned in target article. Non-sensical search term for such a general target article. PRehse (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Lis of Dueños del paraíso episodes[edit]

Delete Still another pair of mis-named list redirects, very unlikely to be valid search terms. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Bulgaria in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2017[edit]

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

August 9[edit]

2006 Louisville vs. West Virginia football game[edit]

Not in target article shoy (reactions) 16:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete this game doesn't have any particular notability that it needs its own redirect. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. The game was notable. WV was undefeated and ranked #3 before being upset by Louisville. The more natural redirect is to 2006 West Virginia Mountaineers football team#Louisville, where this game is actually discussed. I suggest redirecting there instead of the current generic redirect. Cbl62 (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
An equally apt redirect would be 2006 Louisville Cardinals football team#West Virginia where this game is also discussed in detail. Cbl62 (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Os Videos Mais Increveis Do Mundo[edit]

Translation of the English title into a language that has no obvious connection to the subject of the target article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Strong delete: No affinity for any Portuguese speaking countries, and also seems to be a misspelling (it's either "incriveis" or "incríveis", neither of which are represented in the redirect) though I'm not great with Portuguese.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTPROMOTION This appears to be a name of a segment from some YouTubers called "Canal Top 5" or "Canal Top 10", but I can't see where they are connected to any Wikipedia-notable media channels. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a Portuguese name

Novum Eboracum[edit]

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

Nova York[edit]

Yes, I know, nova = "new" in Latin (see Wiktionary:Nova#Latin). But I don't think this is common term used to refer to the city, state, or any other entry at the target disambiguation page. Delete.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep - although not linked, the term is used in 60 articles and someone may want to look it up. Certes (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • retarget to Nova Iorque which is commonly transliterated to "Nova York"— that's what most of the hit are for. Mangoe (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000[edit]

Classic WP:XY, similar to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_2#Mac_OS_X_10.6_and_10.7, this isn't useful. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment It was probably about 10 years ago, but as I recall the reasoning behind the creation of this redirect was a "missing topics" redlinks page from a computing encyclopedia. I'm not that fussed about it, it's a pretty unlikely search string, but I think it is a bit different from Mac OS X 10.6 and 10.7 in that this represents a distinct generation of the pre-XP Windows OS. --Canley (talk) 06:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Canley Except it doesn't. At the time, MS made two Windows lines, with 95/98/ME in a consumer-oriented line and NT/2000 part of a business oriented line. These two OS lines weren't combined until XP in 2002 or so. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Double sided random access memory[edit]

This is a real thing, but the target article does not discuss it. Is there a better target, or should this be deleted? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Better target: "Single-sided" and "double-sided memory" are ambiguous, obsolete terms for what is today known as memory ranks. I've added this information there, maybe we can also redirect there. Please note that since this is history, it's practically impossible to find an RS. Sourced now. --Zac67 (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, this is a train wreck Between page moves and a couple of bad edits the connection to the original text was simply left behind. The trail goes all the way back to this version of single sided/double sided which User:Neelix not unreasonably split apart to deal with a shared name situation. The problem is that the RAM article got beat up some more and then just reduced to a redirect without retaining any of the content (because it was unsourced, even though it's not exactly hard to get Ghits). I think that somehow this is trying to get in the direction of memory rank, but again the notion isn't really discussed in a way that would be obvious to someone following the redirect; somewhere along the line the lost content has to be merged somewhere, and all these redirects made to point to that spot. Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Note Please add Double-sided random access memory to this nomination. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hinduism in Saba[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

I wasn't able to find any religious information about Saba, so someone wouldn't even be able to deduct how many people aren't Hindu. We don't seem to have a Demographics of Saba or a Religion in Saba article. -- Tavix (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as misleading. I've not been to Saba yet but I've been on it's closest neighbor and supply base St Maartin, and if there is one hindu on either island I'd be shocked. Legacypac (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

August 8[edit]

IPod Touch OS[edit]

There's no need for this redirect Creeperparty568 - It and all! 22:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. @Creeperparty568. It seems like something that users might conceivably type in. Redirects are cheap. Why delete it? (ping me if you respond) — InsertCleverPhraseHere 23:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep – Plausible search term. — JFG talk 08:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep since the target is the location of the content pertaining to the subject of the redirect: The version of iOS used for the iPod Touch. Steel1943 (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Waifu[edit]

Non-soft redirect to Wiktionary masquerading as article, many have edited page to make it an article,although it shouldn't. groig (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I've added some RS news articles that legitimize the term. Another option is to add it in Glossary of anime and manga? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Retarget to Glossary of anime and manga#Waifu as I've added the definition to the glossary and supported the mainstream definition with some RS'es. It is in the fandom section. Also okay with keeping it pointed to Kimura. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Support retargeting to the glossary article. It has grown outside of just being an Azumanga Daioh quote, so this seems more appropriate.--IDVtalk 13:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

IPod touch hacks[edit]

No reason to have this redirect Creeperparty568 - It and all! 22:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep – Plausible search term. — JFG talk 08:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Nattpu[edit]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. According to the creation request, the language is Tamil. -- Tavix (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd also be fine with a retarget to Natpu. Thanks for finding that, Angus! -- Tavix (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to NattpuNatpu which has an article where it explains in the header that Natpu means friendship. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC) updated 17:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Uh, what, Angus? It looks like you suggested retargeting the redirect to itself. Nyttend (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
oops, I meant Natpu. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 04:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • If kept or retargeted, this should probably be marked as {{R unprintworthy}} as I'm not seeing any indication that it can be used as an alternative spelling. – Uanfala 22:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Cognoscente[edit]

Two of these were up for deletion on the Neelix list, but Cognescenti is not a Neelix redirect (created to disambiguate Cognoscenti (comics)). I'm unsure what to do with these, so I'll bring them up for further input. From reading wikt:cognoscente, it seems like Connoisseur would be a closer match? -- Tavix (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

  • From reading the OED entry the same impression is made that Connoisseur would be a closer match. Cognescenti is a misspelling, and should be marked up as such. – Uanfala 22:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I just came across this while trying to find out what the singular form of "cognoscenti" was. It is helpful encyclopedia info. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Move Cognoscenti (comics) over redirect as an existing article using that spelling. Add Wiktionary for the definitions. If the comics character is not notable, make an AFD and revisit. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC) updated 13:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
    • The comics character uses the same spelling as the generic meaning and fails being the primary topic by a wide margin. – Uanfala 07:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm just trying to figure out how it can survive WP:DABDIC if the comics character is not involved. Use a "redirects here" hatnote instead? If it's a dab, it can have the comics character, the PTM as a See also, and other close words like: Cognizant, Cognescent (Thomas Reardon), Cognizance AngusWOOF (barksniff) 13:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep because 173.228.123.121 found it useful.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
@Mr. Guye: That's an argument for not deleting it, but that's not all this discussion is about. What would you think about retargeting to Connoisseur? -- Tavix (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
@Tavix: Disambiguate, since Connoisseur says: A specialist in a given field whose opinion is highly valued, especially in one of the fine arts or in matters of taste, Expert: A person with extensive knowledge or ability in a given subject. Cognoscente: Someone possessing superior or specialized knowledge in a particular field; a connoisseur. In terms of scope: Expert > Cognoscente > Connoisseur. These are 3 different words with 3 different meanings and 3 different connotations. I prefer disambiguation. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

New-York (disambiguation)[edit]

Ditto. The correctly-spelled dab page New York (disambiguation) was moved to New York; we are cleaning up useless links. The misspelling of this title is addressed at New-YorkJFG talk 13:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. The reason why these three redirects with "(disambiguation)" appendage were created was that all incoming redirects to a disambiguation page should have a "shadow" redirect including the "(disambiguation)" qualifier as well - at least this is how I understood the system so far. The rationale for this is that some hatnote templates automatically append "(disambiguation)" to parameters when creating links to disambiguation pages.
To put it in other words, if we have a redirect like "New-York" to a disambiguation page like "New York", we also need a redirect named "New-York (disambiguation)". In a perfect world, the latter would point to "New-York" in order to make things easier would "New-York" be changed to point elsewhere or changed into an article later on, but since double redirects are avoided for technical reasons, we have no other option than to point it to the target of the "New-York" redirect instead, that is "New York". Basically, the redirect "New-York" can be thought of as being a disambiguation page in disguise.
If this rational still holds true, the nominated redirect should be kept, otherwise it can be deleted. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Good point. This would be justified if we had incoming links to the misspelled dab title New-York (disambiguation), but we don't (and rightly so): the only pages that link there are this RfD and lists of RfDs[8]. Safely delete, and keep just the misspelled New-York. — JFG talk 23:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Example. Things are easier to explain using examples: We have an article about the HP Saturn microprocessor family. One of the processors has a codename "New-Yorke" (no typo), because it is the successor of another processor codenamed "Yorke" (names derived from York (slave)). So, we could argue that the "New-Yorke" redirect should point to this page. If so, we'd probably add a hatnote using the {{redir}} template. Using the syntax {{redir|New-Yorke}} this hatnote would display:
"New-Yorke" redirects here. For other uses, see New-Yorke (disambiguation).
That is, it would automatically point to "New-Yorke (disambiguation)", not "New York (disambiguation)" or "New York".
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh now I see why we have "New-Yorke" and not "New-Yorki" or "New-Yorku": it's not a misspelling, it's the HP processor! Let's redirect there, case closed. No other use, no hatnote. — JFG talk 23:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 Done, and pushed New Yorke for deletion as unlikely misspelling. — JFG talk 01:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, that was just an example because it nicely illustrated the rationale behind the generic principle for using those "(disambiguation)" appendages. Of course, I thought of your suggested solution as well when I created those redirects originally. However, there were two reasons why I decided against it eventually:
1) Given that "New Yorke" could well be a spelling variant of / typo for "New York", the hatnote on the "HP Saturn" page would still be needed, in particular because "New York" in general is much more important than this processor.
2) Since people may not know the proper spelling of the processor's codename, many would arrive at the "New York" disambiguation page (where we should have an entry for "HP New-Yorke". If so, "New-Yorke" would have to redirect to the disambiguation page "New York" as we typically do for such minor spelling variants.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Wasn't aware of the HP New-Yorke redirect, I believe that's the best title for this, and we should remove the bare "New Yorke" and "New-Yorke". In my opinion the processor wouldn't fit in the New York dab page because it's a WP:PTM and because it was never even produced or marketed under that name. — JFG talk 15:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete. There are two reasons why X (disambiguation) might be useful:
  • X has a primary topic, described in article X, and several other topics, listed in X (disambiguation)
  • X has no primary topic, so X is a disambiguation page; we mark deliberate links to X by using redirect X (disambiguation)
Neither case applies here. Certes (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Entertainment Services and Technology Association[edit]

Seems the two organisations have split (per Ticket:2017062910022621). They have requested this redirect no longer exists Mdann52 (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete: Subject request. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Much as the subject would like not to mention ESTA, it is part of their merger/acquisition history as much as it had started with BADEM. The question is whether any notable acquisitions and merged companies that don't have an article should be redirected to this article. Is it a 50-50 merge or a 90-10 kind of acquisition where the 10% isn't really that notable? I removed the "See also" entry for ESTA. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with AngusWOOF that this is really a notability question. If ESTA is independently notable, there's an article in the history of the redirect we can restore. If not, I'd say to keep it as-is. The two organizations have a lot of overlapping history, and there's a lot of information on ESTA at the current target. -- Tavix (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 21:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

List of Google Street View locations[edit]

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

Walter J. Haas[edit]

Suggest deletion, as it redirects Walter J. Haas to his father Walter A. Haas Jr., and not to an entry about himself. This for example creates (a confusing) circular references in Walter A. Haas Jr. אבגמד (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Unlink and keep. It is reasonable to call "Walter J. Haas Jr." as "Walter J. Haas", as some references on that article do. We should be removing internal links that refer to the non-notable child of his, not delete the redirect. Deryck C. 13:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 10:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Deryck. -- Tavix (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 20:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Crassipes[edit]

Crassipes is a specific epithet for dozens (hundreds?) of species. No reason why this should arbitrarily target one (Oxalis articulata forma crassipes). Delete and let the search results do their job. Plantdrew (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Duraid Qureshi[edit]

I am listing this redirect for @Saqib:. It was initially listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duraid Qureshi with the reason: "redirect of a non-notable person." I personally have No opinion on this redirect. menaechmi (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

  • That's not a reason for deletion, even if valid. The fact that someone isn't notable only means that we can't have an article on them, it doesn't mean we can't have a redirect to some other article that mentions them. Hut 8.5 20:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep how is being the current CEO not-notable? Reconsider if he leaves and is removed from the article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

August 7[edit]

Levantine Films[edit]

Delete: At the moment, "Levantine Films" redirects to the producer Donna Gigliotti, who used to work for the company but has since moved on. Gigliotti's page is a stub and Levantine Films is not mentioned anywhere on her page. I would like to to delete this redirect. I feel like it meets the criteria for deletion on account of being confusing. Shs326 (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

How was that[edit]

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

Erika Heß[edit]

Wrong redirect: Erika Heß was a German mayor of the Berlin-Wedding district after WWII, Erika Hess a Swiss ski champion. Confusion ensues; better have a red link for the mayor. — JFG talk 09:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. Apparently, ß is an abbreviation of ss. As well, from the looks of the, Erika Hess is simply the former German mayor's name without diacritics. More about it here. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 19:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Zhang is correct about the equivalence between ß and ss, but the ß is not used in Switzerland and the ski champion is Swiss. Therefore, Hess herself would never use this spelling. However, in the event an article is made about the mayor, we would need to hatnote it, as Germans do sometimes write ß as ss. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. I came upon this error by following a link to Erika Heß in a page about post-WWII reconstruction in bombed German cities (Trümmerfrau). It was weird to be linked to a much-younger Swiss skier. Face-smile.svg I removed the link[9] and filed this RfD. — JFG talk 00:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete different person, unlikely typo. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Distinguishes[edit]

This target is a somewhat obscure legal term. Is there a better target for this? The past tense form, distinguished, in particular usually means something else. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete "Distinguishes" per Neelix, Keep "Distinguish" pointing to the legal term, and Retarget "Distinguished" to wikt:distinguished, pointing readers to the most common use of the term as an adjective. — JFG talk 09:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep "distinguish" and "distinguished" as {{R from other tense}}. Delete "distinguishes", as the legal term is rarely used in the present tense. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Distinguish seems to have a law term surrounding it. Perhaps these can go to Distinction or a hatnote to that be added to the law page? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SP (d)[edit]

Unlikely/incomplete disambiguator. Steel1943 (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 18:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. As it was the page's title for 8 years until today. Project pages might not be subject to the same level of consideration for avoidance of breaking incoming external links, but I don't think they should be completely exempt: people might have that in their bookmarks for example. I don't see any benefit from deletion that could outweigh the harm of breaking these. – Uanfala 11:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Uanfala: That is true, but it is unlikely that readers will look up this redirect's title for a few reasons: 1) Wikipedia:Subpages (the current/assumed/longstanding WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT target for Wikipedia:SP) did not reference or link to the disambiguation page at either title until I fixed that, 2) The target page, Wikipedia:SP (disambiguation) was not properly formatted to appear to be a disambiguation page ... until I fixed that; the previous edit before my series of edits on that page happened in 2009, 3) the target page stated that Wikipedia:SP formerly targeted Wikipedia:Subpages ... which, per the edit history of Wikipedia:SP was the case for only about 6–7 hours, and 4) again, per the edit history of Wikipedia:SP, seems that the disambiguation page was at Wikipedia:SP until it was moved away in 2009, meaning any historical links to the disambiguation page would have been made to Wikipedia:SP without the "(d)". With that being said, the chance of there being any links bookmarked links or links to the nominated redirect in edit notices is honestly extremely slim to none. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Well, this does show then that deletion isn't very likely to cause harm, but I don't think the potential harm, even if so unlikely, is in any way offset by the benefit of the minuscule overall increase in tidiness that would result from deletion. – Uanfala 21:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
        • In addition, from what I could find, there is no precedence for using "(d)" as a disambiguator for the title of a disambiguation page. (I mean, granted, I would like for there to be another community-accepted disambiguator for disambiguation page titles in order to move the histories of improperly titled {{R with history}} redirects, but until that day comes, I have to refrain from suggesting anything ... but mainly because I do not have a good idea of what that disambiguator could be.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
          • I would definitely welcome a proposal to automatically create redirects with a shorter disambiguator than disambiguation – when a user wants to get straight to the disambiguation page, it's really cumbersome to have to type this long and easily mistypable disambiguator. – Uanfala 08:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hazardous air pollutants[edit]

Cross-namespace redirect. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep WP:R2. Cross-namespace redirects states:This applies to Redirects, apart from shortcuts, from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete BHG is correct, cross-namespace redirects like this are typically deleted, per WP:R#DELETE. BJB, you are referring to the CSD criterion R2, which is not being invoked here and is not relevant. If CHG had made a CSD tagging to the page, you'd have a point. She didn't, she nominated it for discussion here in line with policy on redirects. EdChem (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd say either delete or retarget to National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, which has a list of hazardous air pollutants (as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Either way, I don't think the current cross-namespace redirect should stay. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bosley John Bosley. Mainspace-to-category redirects are excluded from R2 because they're often useful, and this is one of those cases. Both mainspace and content categories, like this one, are reader-facing, and if you go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazardous_air_pollutants, you're taken directly to a page that help you get information on these pollutants. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep or delete to encourage article creation.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Climate forcing agents[edit]

Cross-namespace redirect. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep WP:R2. Cross-namespace redirects states:This applies to Redirects, apart from shortcuts, from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete BHG is correct, cross-namespace redirects like this are typically deleted, per WP:R#DELETE. BJB, you are referring to the CSD criterion R2, which is not being invoked here and is not relevant. If CHG had made a CSD tagging to the page, you'd have a point. She didn't, she nominated it for discussion here in line with policy on redirects. EdChem (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, a redirect to the category (where information can be found) is better than no information at all. "Cross-namespace redirect" is not by itself a convincing argument for deletion. —Kusma (t·c) 18:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Should this go to Radiative forcing which is what climate forcing goes to? I don't see the agents part though, but the primary topic for the Category is that article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 04:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to radiative forcing, which defines "climate forcing" in the lead. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per my comment above (hazardous air pollutants), because having this as a redirect to a category of articles about climate forcing agents is better than having it as a redlink. I don't particularly care whether it goes to the category or to an article about this subject, so I'm neutral on the retarget idea. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: a retargeting suggestion came late to this discussion, relisting to see if there's any more input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • delete per WP:REDLINK. Judging from what I've found, most of the members of the category are not properly members; we need a main article, and it appears that there's plenty of sourcing for that. Mangoe (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per EdChem. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 18:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Bosley John Bosley Flow 234 (Nina) talk 10:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hinduism in Tristan da Cunha[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Delete since Hinduism does not exist in Tristan da Cunha. Per Tristan da Cunha#Demographics: The only religion is Christianity, with denominations of Anglican and Roman Catholic. -- Tavix (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The complication being a red link? I don't see any problem with that. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
If a certain navigation template is so set up that it's impossible to remove a redlink from it, then this is a problem of that template, and not of any other part of the encyclopedia. – Uanfala 21:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per my comments in the other discussions. – Uanfala 21:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as misleading. — JFG talk 21:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Senate House Education[edit]

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

August 6[edit]

Sweden in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2015[edit]

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

Paul Donovan (film)[edit]

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

Spähpanzer Ru 251[edit]

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

Template:PermissionOTRSOnly[edit]

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

Jewish progressivism[edit]

Implausible, misleading redirect; unrelated to article. Please delete. AddMore-III (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Just tried to correct a submission - I have no idea whether this is justified or not.PRehse (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. --George AKA Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 12:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored.[edit]

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

Rashtriya Hindu Sena[edit]

No evidence that this is actually an alternative term for the target. Vanamonde (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment are they the same organization? Rashtriya Hindu Sena seems to be led by Pramod Muthalik [10] [11] [12] and so does Sri Ram Sena [13] . Whether or not it's really a parent organization of Sri Ram Sena would require further research. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 09:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's cited at Pramod Muthalik that Rashtriya Hindu Sena is the parent organisation of the Sri Ram Sena. -- Tavix (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Virginia shooting[edit]

This redirect is vague, the Virginia Tech shooting isn't the only notable Virginia shooting. I found some examples in Category:Murder in Virginia. A few states do have a list, such as List of shootings in Colorado, but I was unable to find one for Virginia. -- Tavix (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Are there similar pages for other states, though, I wonder? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I also support the creation of a disambiguation page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What would the disambiguation page look like?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 11:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete or retarget to a content category, the category being something such as Category:Deaths by firearm in Virginia. Why mention First Saltville but not Second, or any other battles for that matter? Most land battles in the Eastern Theater of the American Civil War were fought here (plus some battles in the American Revolution), and "Virginia shooting" would cover any of those, with the possible exception of the occasional sabres-only cavalry battle. Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 08:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

ِAt-Turtushi[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep At-Turtushi, AlRay AlAam, and Anbaralum; delete the rest. (WP:NPASR, individually)

Desert Archaic Culture[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 17#Desert Archaic Culture

'Murica[edit]

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

August 5[edit]

Hinduism in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

According to the target article, SGSSI has a permanent population of 30. There's no discussion of religion of any kind, aside from mentioning a church. It's safe to say that Hinduism does not exist here. -- Tavix (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Per the baffling arguments in the previous RfD, the nomination's rationale would be taken as an indication of the usefulness of this redirect and hence as a reason to keep. But that's, well, baffling. This is an obvious delete. – Uanfala 23:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

HM The Duke of Cornwall[edit]

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

Lost of names of Freyja[edit]

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

Lists Bosnians and Herzegovinians[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 17#Lists Bosnians and Herzegovinians

Bill windsor[edit]

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

Immigration to SwedenImmigration[edit]

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

1-900-MIXALOT[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 17#1-900-MIXALOT

TEngu[edit]

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

August 4[edit]

Spike(rugrats)[edit]

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

The Duke of Kent[edit]

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

The Duke of Gloucester[edit]

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

The Princess Royal[edit]

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

The Earl of Wessex[edit]

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

The Duke of York[edit]

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

The Duke of Cambridge[edit]

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

The Duchess of Cornwall[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget/delete as proposed.

Madelaine Petsch[edit]

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

Nintendo Co. Ltd. - 任天堂株式会社[edit]

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

Rentiantang[edit]

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

Nintendo underwear[edit]

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

Latamel[edit]

Per pt:Latamel, this is a Nintendo distribution company in Latin America, but we don't seem to cover it on the English language Wikipedia. -- Tavix (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hinduism in the Pitcairn Islands[edit]

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

August 2[edit]

Microsoft Explorer[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 14#Microsoft Explorer

Wikipedia:COCP[edit]

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

Christ's sake[edit]

Shouldn't these target the same place? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • This is a bit of a weird one. According to the principles at WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, I would argue that the expression "(for) Christ's sake(s)" is primary over either the band or the film that have been linked. It's in far more common usage in more groups than either other subject. That said, it's clearly not sufficiently notable to have its own article and would ordinarily be a good candidate for redirection. I suggest that both of the above redirects retarget to Christ's sake (disambiguation) which would list the blasphemy, the band and the film. Hatnotes for the articles. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm ok with the proposed DAB. The curse is obviously the common meaning, and the band named themselves after the curse for shock value. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Please note, per WP:MALPLACED, that if a disambiguation page is made, it will need to be at Christ's sake. bd2412 T 01:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect both to Christ's SakeKeep Christ's Sake as primary, which has a hatnote to the film with "For" in it, and if you're really concerned about the original phrase, then add wiktionary boxes on both. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC) updated 03:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect all to Blasphemy, "Christ's sakes", "Christ's sake" and "Christ's Sake" should all redirect to Blasphemy, and then Christ's Sake (the band) should be moved to "Christ's Sake (band)". –Davey2010Talk 16:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
That would work if the primary topic is that article, but it isn't even used as a primary topic example on the Blasphemy page, so Wikipedia favors pointing to subjects that have an article first. If you want to keep Sakes to the Blasphemy page, that would be fine too, since that isn't the exact name of the band and would favor keeping the phrase. An argument can also be made to redirect to Profanity. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
By the way, "chrissake" doesn't have an entry, although it is mentioned as quotes in multiple articles, and Jesus H. Christ has its own article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not target Blasphemy as that article can't reasonably be expected to accommodate hatnotes for the various blasphemous phrases that probably redirect to it. The band isn't the primary topic, it's the only one whose article has any claim to the title, and its lede could easily be expanded to say what the band's name means, for the benefit of those readers who use wikipedia as a dictionary. I see scope for a dab page only for For Christ's Sake, which is the name of several works mentioned in various articles. – Uanfala 12:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Cathee[edit]

As far as I can tell, Dahmen is the only notable person with this name - but it's not really a name in itself, but a variant spelling of Cathy, even if it's an unusual one. Would it make more sense to target to Cathy (given name)? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as another Neelix redirect. We speedy deleted hundreds of first name redirects just like this during the big cleanup. They just make search results harder to use. Instead of getting directly to the target or a list of similar targets when you type the first name this forces you to a particular model from the 60/70's via the redirect. It's not helpful. Legacypac (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete not that helpful when only one person has used this spelling variant. Revisit as SIA if there are more than one notable Cathees or create article if there's one who uses it as a mononym. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is a standard {{R from given name}}, used when there's only one notable person with the name. As such, Dahmen is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name. -- Tavix (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
If Cathee Dahmen uses Cathee as a mononym, then keep. Can someone confirm? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Given names aren't WP:PTMs. If your name is Angus Woof, people would call you Angus. That doesn't make the name a mononym, but it's definitely reasonable for someone to attempt to search for you in that manner. -- Tavix (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I would redirect it to Cathy (given name) and add Dahmen to the list. There are a couple of other people mentioned on Wikipedia with this variant, so it's not unique to one person. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment target's actual name is Catherine. This is more a nickname. Legacypac (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Redirects to "Zaria"[edit]

Delete "Zaria" is a city in Nigeria. I can't find that these spellings are used for this city. These redirects are part of a series of random redirects requested by 47.151.26.64 (talk · contribs) that seem to be pulled out of a baby name book, and point to random destinations without regard to the topic of the destination. (ie. "Kayson" once redirected to the cargo ship "Cason" ) -- 65.94.42.131 (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Jessica Holbrook[edit]

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

Wikipedia:REGNOW[edit]

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

List of things named Anchieta[edit]

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

Stealth Trading[edit]

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

Defendable[edit]

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

"Untitled" redirects with formerly untitled targets[edit]

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

Untitled Trooper(album)[edit]

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