Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates
Files
Possibly unfree files (PUF)
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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

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

Contents

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

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

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

Shortcut:
Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

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

Shortcut:

Reasons for deleting[edit]

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

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

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut:

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

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

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Shortcut:
I.
Tag the redirect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current list[edit]

January 15[edit]

My anus is bleeding[edit]

All jokes aside, delete as an unlikely search term. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

January 14[edit]

Stereotypes of Arabs[edit]

I wrote a new essay, Wikipedia:In the United States, to address this sort of perennial problem. Either these redirects should be deleted, an article should be written on the subject, or the target article should be moved to a broader title (probably one of these titles). See also the discussion for Stereotypes of West and Central Asians. --BDD (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Charity and Charities[edit]

Delete per WP:XY as Charity is a dab page and Charities redirects to charitable organizations. It's a bizarre phrase, I can't imagine someone searching specifically for both things at the same time unless it was a search suggestion. Stats show that it's not being used, so the potential for confusion outweighs any utility this might have. -- Tavix (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Karmanye[edit]

"Karmanye" doesn't mean "Bhagavad Gita", and the article Bhagavad Gita doesn't mention Karmanye or help understand what it is, so this redirect can only cause confusion and frustration while providing no benefit. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Querulously[edit]

Here's a head scratcher. Sure, plantiffs can be querulous (full of complaints), but that doesn't explain why this variant would redirect there. No mention of any form of the 'word' now or when this was created. -- Tavix (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

John Andrew Tennant Mortlock[edit]

Random redirect to his grandfather. Both his father and grandfather are notable; he is arguably borderline but this redirect makes no sense - there is no useful information on him in that article and no logic behind the redirect. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Dorothy Elizabeth Mortlock[edit]

Random redirect to husband's grandfather - no useful information about her in that article and no reason for redirect. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Rosina Forsyth Mortlock[edit]

Random redirect of other family member to her father-in-law: no useful information about her there. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Posthumous award[edit]

I want to re-target this to wikt:posthumous. There are dozens of links to posthumous award and they are referring to people who were posthumously given some prize, award, metal, etc. The articles specify what they were given posthumously. The current redirect is to a list of awards, and specifically to a section that lists one United Nations award given to people killed while serving in UN peacekeeping missions. This redirect makes no sense and does not aid in understanding these articles. In the context of the articles using linking to posthumous award, a definition of posthumous is the only thing that would be useful. I already made this suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Posthumous recognition (I was originally disambiguating links to posthumous when I found this redirect.) The only comment there was one in agreement, so I went ahead and made the change once already but it was reverted with no edit comment. Mb66w (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK; or Weak Retarget to Posthumous, as an alternative to wikt:posthumous (suggested above). The local target basically covers the content at Wikt and links there. The synonym posthumous recognition should follow suit.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Godsy. Neither the current redirect nor a soft redirect to wikt:posthumous seem very useful. Kaldari (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posthumous is a disambiguation page so retargetting there does not work. I see little potential at this title for any article that would ever get past the mere dictionary definition of "an award you get after you're dead". Soft-redirect to Wiktionary to preserve the history and if someone ever does create a full-blown article, they can simply overwrite the soft-redirect. Rossami (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I strongly oppose soft redirect to Wiktionary since wikt:posthumous award doesn't exist. Wiktionary redirects should be a 1:1 relationship where the soft redirect term matches the Wiktionary term exactly. Other than that, I don't know what to do with it. I think it could be kept pretty easily by adding a blurb about what posthumous awards are and expanding the list to include a few more awards. -- Tavix (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll note that in Wiktionary terms, the phrase "posthumous award" is "non-idiomatic", in that it doesn't mean anything different than an "award" which is "posthumous", so it's unlikely to ever be an entry there. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the tidbit of knowledge! With that in mind, I really don't think there's much that can be said about a posthumous award besides the obvious. I'm going to say keep then, because this is probably the best target for it. -- Tavix (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The nominator placed an RfD tag there but didn't create a corresponding discussion. I'm going to add it to this discussion, which appears to have been the intent. Since Posthumous recognition was pointing to the same place as Posthumous recognition before this discussion, I'm restoring that as well, so these two can be retargeted (or whatever) together.
As for the former article, it was moved to List of posthumous awards before being redirected by SilkTork, who may want to comment. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Mmmm[edit]

The first redirects to Mmmh; the second to an album. As MMMM now exists, I consider logical to redirect them both there. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 04:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

  • retarget both per nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I may have mildly messed things up. Without looking carefully at this discussion, I saw Mmmm! redirecting to Mmmm! (Floor Thirteen album) and reversed the redirect since the title had unnecessary disambiguation. But if we deem that title ambiguous, it could probably just move to Mmmm! (album) with a hatnote to Mmhmm. Definitely retarget the first, but I'd say keep the second as it is now (so that's a move the article over the redirect). An album simply called Mmmm might be cause for disambiguation, but I don't see anything else at MMMM that would plausibly be referred to as "Mmmm!", let alone "Mmmm! (album)". --BDD (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep the first, do what BDD says for the second, per BDD. As it stands, things which might be referred to by "mmmm" or several very plausible variants are listed at Mmmh, while things known by the acronym MMMM are at MMMM (with a few exceptions; these should be fixed). The album is naturally disambiguated by the exclamation mark, and the only other thing we seem to have which is referred to in that way is a sub-grouping of Acid Mothers Temple according to one of these dabs; it could be hatnoted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • It gets even more confusing; Mmmh is also a DAB page (which includes a link to Mmmm! (Floor Thirteen album)). I know this is a little outside the scope of this discussion, but I think the best course of action would be to merge Mmmh and MMMM to create one comprehensive DAB page and retarget both Mmmm and Mmmm! to the new merged DAB page. However, based on what exists at the moment, I would reluctantly retarget Mmmm to MMMM and retarget Mmmm! to Mmmh (while renaming the article for the album), because I think it is more likely than not that readers will be looking for the onomatopoeia that indicates agreement or satisfaction. Mmmh gives the best description of that onomatopoeia, and I think that redirecting readers to an obscure album (even with a hatnote) will likely WP:ASTONISH more than anything else. For that matter, I doubt that the article about the Floor Thirteen album would survive AfD. I couldn't find any reliable sources to substantiate its notability, but I will wait to take any actions re: deletion until this RfD is resolved. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to mmmh per WP:CAPS. As User:Notecardforfree comment. The variants for onomatopoeia mmm/mmmh/mmmmh/mmmm/mmmmhmm/ etc don't have any real difference, acronyms like MMM and MMMM do have a real difference. Mmhmm (Relient K album) etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - if some onomatopoeic titles which are properly "mmmm" are listed at "MMMM", they should probably moved onto the onomatopoeia dab page, and a simple see-also to mmmh listed. It is a good idea to keep acronyms separate: "MMHM" is decidedly wrong as an acronym for anything listed at MMMM (as an example). However, readers could easily confuse "mmmm", "mmmh", "mmhmm" and so on for any of the things listed on the onomatopoeia dab page, and I would strongly oppose any suggestion of splitting it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
And if you were going to merge in the acronyms from MMMM, then you'd also be looking at merging in acronyms from MMH, MHM, and probably several others. It would be quite unwieldly. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

January 13[edit]

Uncovering[edit]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC. An uncovering isn't necessarily an "apocalypse", making these redirects confusing. We have dabs at Uncover and Uncovered, but every Wikipedia entry in both dabs are proper nouns and not verbs, so none of these entries would make sense as "uncovering." I believe the same to be true of "uncovers" so I've added that as well. -- Tavix (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget "Uncovers" to Uncover as plural. (ie. How many Uncovers did you sell this week? ) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Delete the others, as I can't think of a use for them. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete All. WTF? Softlavender (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Also, there are currently no subjects listed on Uncover, a disambiguation page, that could be referred to as "uncovers": All subjects on the page are titles of media. Steel1943 (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all per above. A Neelix hallmark is making implausible formations out of quite distantly related concepts, such as this. The "uncovers" as plural of the song/EP example is quite obscure to the point that I don't think it's plausible; WP:RFD#K5 doesn't apply since Neelix clearly didn't have any sense of what "useful" means. Since in this context "uncovering" and "uncovers" are both apparently intended to be modifications of the verb "uncover", and nothing on the dab can be used in such a context, I say delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all per above. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 20:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Stereotypes of West and Central Asians[edit]

I wrote a new essay, Wikipedia:In the United States, to address this sort of perennial problem. Either these redirects should be deleted, an article should be written on the subject, or the target article should be moved to a broader title (probably one of these titles). --BDD (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment For these, I Oppose moving the US articles. We should stubbify a worldwide article at each location instead. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete those redirect titles do not describe a discrete topic. The target is incoherent enough as it is, even when you limit it just to American stereotypes. No content could be written about supranational or worldwide stereotypes of these two extremely broad geographic groups without falling afoul of Wp:SYNTHESIS, whether you write that content as its own stub under one of these titles or as a subsection of another article. Russian stereotypes of Armenians & Georgians and South Korean stereotypes of Mongolians & Kazakhs have not the slightest thing to do with each other and no reliable source tries to claim that they do. Stuffing them onto the same Wikipedia page would be a mistake, but conversely if you put them on separate Wikipedia pages then we have an Wp:XY problem as a single redirect can't send the reader to two places. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

David Mountjoy[edit]

I discovered this when someone made this into an advert. I reverted it, then realized that the target doesn't contain the title, nor an obvious connection to it. I say we delete it. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 19:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - there doesn't seem to be any connection between this person and the Soviet weapon, nor any other notable persons by this name. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Nuffield Professor of Economics[edit]

Not appropriate to redirect from the name of a changeable office to the current holder. Other entries in List_of_professorships_at_the_University_of_Oxford have their own articles. LukeSurl t c 15:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep - doesn't seem to be an office of sufficient notability to warrant a standalone article, in which case it makes sense for it to be a redirect to the current officeholder rather than WP:REDLINK-deleted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I actually picked a professorship at random from List of professorships at the University of Oxford and to my surprise it is a featured list: Dean Ireland's Professor of the Exegesis of Holy Scripture. From there, I've noticed that most of these "articles" are actually lists of people who held the position. However, the problem I'm having with this one is that I can't find anyone else who has been a "Nuffield Professor of Economics." My search overwhelmingly brings up Keane. -- Tavix (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Is he the first to hold the position, perhaps? --BDD (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
That's what I would assume, but it'd be nice to find some kind of verification of that... I did find this post from 2011. I skimmed through it, but didn't see any references to a previous holder. -- Tavix (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Clothing drive[edit]

WP:SURPRISE! While a clothing drive can be considered an example of a charity, it's not something that's discussed, much less mentioned at that article. There's Drive (charity), but we'd have a similar problem there (you'd learn about a drive, but not specifically about a clothing drive.) We could restore the former article, but it's basically a WP:DICDEF... And, of course, there's always deletion, perhaps per WP:REDLINK. What should we do with this? -- Tavix (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as incorrect, misleading. Softlavender (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 20:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Agressive leaders in Germany and japan[edit]

Delete, unless an appropriate target can be found. Gorobay (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Fingers[edit]

Shouldn't this instead redirect to Finger? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I'd expect it to go there, so retarget per nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: per WP:DPAGE, When a combined disambiguation page is used, redirects to it... should be set up from all the terms involved. Finger (disambiguation) is a combined disambiguation page since it lists corresponding singular and plural forms of the word "finger", including "fingers". On that basis, should Fingers stay as a redirect to Finger (disambiguation)? /wiae ★ /tlk 16:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget as the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. -- Tavix (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as is, per User:Wiae, especially since the dab page has numerous instances (10 so far) of the plural. Softlavender (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to finger per Tavix. Wins both by long-term significance/educational value (anatomy of 7 billion people and assorted other primates vs. some pop culture & sports topics and a candy bar) and page views (finger got 9,000 views last month, Rollie Fingers got 2,400, and none of the other Fingers on the dab page broke a thousand). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per above. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 20:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

January 12[edit]

嘉慶帝[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete per WP:FORRED JMHamo (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

  • NOMINATION WITHDRAWN JMHamo (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you read the guideline you referenced, it instructs that we should only delete redirects that are from a language that has no affinity to the target. This term is mentioned and used in the article, so it's a perfectly cromulent redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • It also says "This is the English Wikipedia, and we serve English speakers. Having a large number of foreign language redirects presents problems for both our readers and editors." JMHamo (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You're taking that quote out of context. It's meant to set up the next paragraph (the Dutch example) to explain why foreign redirects with no affinity to that language present a problem. Since the nominated redirect is used in the article, that problem doesn't exist because we can check the redirect against what is used in the article. I can see where you're coming from though so I've added a qualifier to that sentence to mitigate confusion in the future. -- Tavix (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix. "The major exception is for [foreign language] redirects where the language of the redirect relates strongly to the content of the target", "... such [as] redirects [that are] discussed at their target page" per WP:RFD/CO#Foreign languages.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep since this was his name in his native language. Curro2 (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep the nominator clearly missed the first line stating that we don't keep foreign language redirects not related to the subject meaning thus related redirects can be kept.--65.94.253.160 (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep original language name; clearly subjects should be searchable by the original language name, if you don't know the correct romanization, or you're doing a cut-and-paste search. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Energy Vampire (Robot Vampire)[edit]

While it appears the creator was trying to describe a type of psychic vampire, it doesn't appear to have any notability. Since there's a strange disambiguation, this doesn't appear to be a plausible search term anywhere either. -- Tavix (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

  • delete. If we had any coverage of robotic energy vampires, I suspect it would be at the Psychic vampire article and I would argue for retargetting this there. However, neither that article nor any others that I can find have any coverage of robot vampires of any kind, so there is nowhere suitable to point this whether it is a useful search term or not. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not mentioned in article, and I cannot imagine anyone searching for this. sst✈ 14:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete due to the odd disambiguation. "Robot Vampire" is nothing, but Robo Vampire is a 1988 film featuring what looks like a Robocop-zombie. We don't have an article about it although is mentioned very briefly at List of zombie short films and undead-related projects. According to the article, it has no zombies. This has been a disappointing tangent. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

January 11[edit]

Wide Left (Minnesota Vikings)[edit]

This redirect should be deleted as it is not a common search term for the game in question. Anyone searching for info on the 2015–16 NFC Wildcard game between the Vikings and the Seahawks should look either at the 2015–16 NFL playoffs article, the 2015 Minnesota Vikings season article or the 2015 Seattle Seahawks season article. – PeeJay 17:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. //nepaxt 17:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Wackyparsing[edit]

Per this 2009 thread pointing it out, the term is not used in the article. McGeddon (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

  • The connection between this term and Kibology is explained in the pagehistory immediately before the page was turned into a redirect. That fact that that content has not yet been incorporated into the target article is merely evidence that Wikipedia is and always will be a work in progress. That said, I'm not sure the connection is all that strong and the content was already moved to Wiktionary so a soft-redirect is probably the best solution. Rossami (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support soft-redirect to Wiktionary. Deryck C. 22:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Super Mario Sauerkraut[edit]

Irrelevant nickname Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. Hmm. Steel1943 (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Uh, let's call it an implausible typo. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not sure what this is, but I am sure it's not a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Sauerkraut is finely cut cabbage fermented by various bacteria and is most associated with Germany. I see no connection between the food and the game.--65.94.253.160 (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

January 10[edit]

Bickyburger[edit]

These hamburger varieties aren't mentioned at the target article or included at List of hamburgers. The bickyburger is apparently Belgian; the Japanese ones are mentioned at Jef, a Japanese restaurant, but retargeting there would be like redirecting Chicken sandwich to Chick-fil-A. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I may have spoken too soon. The history of the Japanese burgers shows stubs that describe them as Jef products. If they're exclusive to or primarily identified with Jef, retargeting there could make sense after all. Jef says the burgers are made with "homemade Okinawan specialties", which initially led me to believe that these are just Okinawan variants. I'll ping WikiProject Japan. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect latter three to Jef; keep redirect for Bickyburger. The Bickyburger could probably have a section of its own under Hamburger#Variations based on these sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]. I've added some details on the burger with some sources to get things started. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget latter three to Jef - I have reviewed the ja.wp entry and agree that it's a better target. No opinion on the first one at the moment, will switch to keep if I JethroBT makes the proposed change. Deryck C. 22:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

RI[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. Consider yourselves notified, and comment at the RM if desired. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

This redirect is implicitly being discussed in Talk:RI_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_9_January_2016 PamD 12:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Close Just leave a message at Talk:RI and/or Talk:Rhode Island telling people not to comment there but instead at the existing RM discussion. Opening an RFD in parallel to the RM will have precisely the effect that you want to avoid: it causes the discussion to be split and in the worst case you end up with two discussion with different consensuses. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Israeli involvement in the Guatemalan Civil War[edit]

Propose deletion of the redirect, as it was created for the sole purpose of exaggerating Israeli role in the Guatemalan Civil War with no proper sourcing. Some users even tagged the redirect as "Wars involving Israel", though not even US is tagged as involved (even though it was really active in Guatemala, unlike Israel or Taiwan or Argentina), raising the issue of DUE:WEIGHT. There are no results for searching "Israeli involvement" in "Guatemalan Civil War" on Google Books, while there are plenty results for "US involvement"; we also don't have "involvement" results for neither Argentina nor Taiwan. Israel is one of the top 10 global manufacturers and suppliers of weapons, but it doesn't mean that if Israeli weapons are used - it is automatically "involved" in the war, especially is the sales are made by private firms rather than by the government. Same applies for Russia, which is not involved in all wars using AK47s and for US, which is not automatically involved in all wars using M16s, etc. GreyShark (dibra) 06:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep the redirect with all its categories. Please Greyshark, could you leave the redirect in its actual state until the end of the discussion ? No need to manipulate here: just read [5] and the overwhelming role of Israel in the Guatemalan Civil War becomes crystal-clear. Stefanomione (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep This sounds like a content dispute. As long as there's an "Israeli involvement" section at the target article, this redirect is obviously useful. If there's consensus for your position, the article should be rewritten accordingly, at which time it might be appropriate to delete the redirect. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per BDD, but without prejudice to a renomination iff consensus is that there the section regarding Israeli support/involvement at the target article is removed or significantly reduced. Thryduulf (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

January 9[edit]

Hamsteria[edit]

This cross-namespace redirect, from the mainspace to a hoax article that is being preserved in the Wikipedia namespace, should be deleted. Cross-namespace redirects from the mainspace should be avoided in general, and we certainly should not have redirects to hoax articles coming from the mainspace. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is an example of a cross-namespace redirect that is actually harmful (unlike many that get nominated here) as there is a serious risk of confusing a fake article with a real article. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nom and Thryduulf.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Value Shitty[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted WP:CSD#G10. JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Derogatory nickname for the store; not mentioned in target, unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. When I first saw this title, I thought this may be the name of some sort of store in South Park, but I was mistaken. Steel1943 (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Derogatory Ueutyi (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Islamic Republic of Persia[edit]

Implausible search. The target article does not contain any such phrase. Invented by author - in real world, no entity by such name ever existed or was to exist. Google returns a single reliable hit, likely someone's mistake. Redirect is implausible and useless because any sane person would first go to Persia or Iran. Unfortunately, the original creator has added several dozens of such implausible redirects (the majority of his/her edit history is creating redirects), many of which are now being speedied. kashmiri TALK 12:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: Google shows 217,000 results for that exact phrase. Sounds like a good redirect to me... Rehman 12:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please never accept the first Google number as authoritative! Just click "Next" on the results page and you will be given the real number of results: 32 (THIRTY-TWO). Out of which the vast majority are irrelevant (fantasy tales, forums, etc.). So, result can only be Delete. kashmiri TALK 00:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I used a different search engine and found many fewer sources - and about half of them were false positives. But there were still enough to demonstrate that this was not merely an invention of the original creator. I don't see any probability of confusion with this redirect and the valid hits are enough to substantiate it. Keep. Rossami (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - Iran is also known as Persia (Persia redirects to Iran) and the current republic is officially the Islamic Republic of Iran. There has never been a different Islamic republic in the area known as Persia. Perfectly plausible and perfectly harmless. Kashmiri, your CSD log for this month shows you're on a bit of a spree of speedying redirects, and your success rate is somewhere just below 50%. In particular, I can't imagine why you would think that Doctor Pepper Arena (Dr Pepper Arena), Ben and Jerrys (Ben & Jerry's), bromhydric acid (hydrobromic acid) or chicken tikka marsala (chicken tikka masala) were implausible typos to the point of obvious deletion. Consider taking a break from this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for advice on breaks, Ivanvector. I do not agree that "marsala" is a plausible typo for masala. Why not also "marsarla", "marsalah", "masallah", etc.? We should keep sane and avoid adding junk to Wikipedia as it severely degrades Search experience. I am also surprised that you must have missed the fact that all the redirects I RxD'ed had been created by a single editor whose nearly all contributions to WP have been adding innumerable and mostly implausible redirects - like Muttonhead Quail Movement redirecting to Muttahida Qaumi Movement. A 50% deletion rate already at RxD is not only fair but also gives a testimony to the quality of that editor's work. Consider working on your WP research skills. kashmiri TALK 00:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but my research skills are alright. I did see that you've been on a crusade of exclusively tagging one user's contributions for speedy deletion for the flimsiest of rationales. You've hit on some because you happened to be right, but having found a few questionable contributions by one user doesn't automatically mean that all of that user's contributions are then speediable. Even Neelix did not get that treatment, and we made huge exceptions to deal with that mess; this is not even close. As I noted, many of their contributions are perfectly reasonable redirects. And not just me, many of the admins declining your R3 tags have said the same thing. Marsala is a plausible mishearing of masala, particularly for speakers of non-rhotic English dialects, and possibly confusing with chicken marsala, a similarly-named but distinct dish. I also see that a couple days ago the user offered to discuss their redirects with you when they noticed you were mass-speedying all of their contribs, and you responded with a quite incorrect interpretation of the purpose of redirects. Redirects are not required to be notable topics. We very frequently have redirects from things associated with a notable topic, so that users searching for a non-notable thing can find some information about what they're looking for. The song titles of the Eurovision competition are perfect examples of this. And why not "marsalah" or "masallah" if they help users find the information they're looking for? None of this degrades search, our search engine is smart enough to mostly disregard redirects, except for exact matches. Try it! See search results for "chicken tikka masala" - the "marsala" redirect isn't in the list. It won't be in the list unless you type "chicken tikka marsala" exactly, and then it only shows up as a redirect to the proper topic. What part of that is degrading search experience? They didn't create chickpea titmouse macaroni, that would be R3 implausible. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I can only repeat what I wrote above. But please go back to that user's contributions and doublecheck whether I tagged "all" of them – I recall leaving quite a lot of his/her contributions intact, considering them constructive and valuable. See, else I would reported him/her at ANI. Yes I tagged most (but not all!) of the song titles per WP:SONG – feel free to see the notability guidelines there. The reverts by HW had little to do with policy and more with the history of our interaction, which however is OT here. As to search engine, I had in mind that little box in right upper corner which shows all the redirects. kashmiri TALK 03:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Topkek[edit]

Delete. Topkek is (1) a brand of muffin and (2) internet slang for laughing. It should redirect to an article on one of those, but there is currently no appropriate target. It’s an unlikely typo for “Topeka”, especially as it already means something else. Gorobay (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete Wp:R#D2 and arguably Wp:CSD#R3. New redirect which generates confusion and is unlikely to aid genuine searches for the city in Kansas. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Narasingha Malla Deb[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6. See longer comment below. Thryduulf (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

wrong Article namespace Bongan® →TalkToMe← 16:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete The article was moved to this title by mistake when moving out of draft space to article space and was here for approximately only 1 minute in November 2014 (moving a page to Wikipedia: space when intending to move to the article namespace was (and maybe still is) a very common mistake for reasons I don't know have ever been established). WP:CSD#G6 allows for the deletion of pages obviously by mistake, including those created in the wrong namespace. Although not explicit, discussion at CSD talk confirms the spirit of the criterion allows the deletion of redirects left behind when fixing page moves to the wrong namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Chomps[edit]

A quick Google search for "Chomps" brings up nothing about Sonic Underground, so why assume that Wikipedia readers searching for this will be looking for that. Proud User (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget to List of Sonic Underground characters#Chomps where there is a section about this character. The redirect's history shows that this article has changed titles several times, so there are quite possibly more redirects that need retargetting back here. Thryduulf (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Thryduulf: Your comment gave me the idea to move the edit attribution to a more likely title, so I did. I moved the edit history to a new redirect titled Chomps (Sonic), then retagged the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • so there are quite possibly more redirects that need retargetting back here According to [6], the only other redirects pointing to Sonic Underground are for the main characters (who are actually mentioned in that article). There's no other redirects besides Chomps (Sonic) to the list of characterse [7]. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Chomp (disambiguation). The base title chomp is about a game which can't be referred to in the plural, but there are multiple items on the dab page which could either be singular/plural or are called Chomps. The cartoon character is already Wp:DABMENTIONed there; I don't see how a minor character from a decade-and-a-half-old TV show which only ran for one season (and who shares his name with an ordinary English word) qualifies as the Wp:PRIMARYREDIRECT. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Chomp (disambiguation). There is no way that the Sonic character has more notability than the plural form of the Mario enemy, at the least. Steel1943 (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I prefer to think of them as Link's friend. --BDD (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
@BDD: Yeah, I was basically invincible with that until I was forced to "turn him in" before the third dungeon. Steel1943 (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

seamlessness[edit]

Propose deletion. No articles link to "seamlessness"; it redirects to a disambiguation page which does not include anything that corresponds. There is no article on the condition of being without seams. Mb66w (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • note This was originally placed on Jan 6 for some reason. I have moved it here and blanked the original. Primefac (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The original version of this page was nothing more than a dictionary definition. It was difficult to maintain and was turned into a redirect in 2010. Converting a prohibited dic-def page into a redirect is an established way of dealing with such pages. Keep but not necessarily as-is. I could also see an argument for turning it into a soft-redirect to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Soft Redirect to wikt:seamlessness. A seemingly unambiguous dictionary definition.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep noun-form redirects to adjective-form -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

January 8[edit]

Unglue.it[edit]

Unglue.it is run by Free Ebook Foundation, and not by Open Book Publishers. I cant see any reason why Open Book Publishers is an appropriate target. Unfortunately I cant find a better redirect target as Free Ebook Foundation and its members dont individually appear to be notable. Unglue.it could be notable, but it would require a lot of effort to research/create an article which passes notability policies. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Redlink it. I think the notability of the parent entity is plausible and deleting this redirect might encourage the creation of the article. Rossami (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Comparison of crowdfunding services#Unglue.it, where it is listed and described. Potential Notability aside, it is only mentioned briefly in passing at the current target (i.e. "OBP organized a campaign to republish an out-of-print book by Ruth Finnegan through the crowd source funding platform Unglue.it"), not described there. It is described at the Comparison of crowdfunding services list, hence it would make a reasonable {{R to list entry}}. It is also listed at the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association article in a section, but it isn't described there.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
    user:Godsy, targeting to a List/Comparison article creates a circular problem -- those types of pages usually require an existing article to determine whether an item should be included in the list/comparison, and editors look for non-blue links as a simple proxy for 'no existing notable'. That is the case with this comparison; see Talk:Comparison of crowdfunding services#Weed table of non-notable sites? and other discussion threads. If this is retargeted to the comparison page, it fails the conditions of the comparison page, and will be delisted from the comparison page, and then we need a new RfD. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Xunan[edit]

It's unclear what this refers to or its relation to Rhee. I tried looking for other places to point it; it's the name of Hunan in some other languages, but none that I could find that would satisfy WP:FORRED. When this was created, Unan was also redirected to Rhee's page. I've retargeted that to National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, where UNAN already redirected. I also examined the target article as it stood when both of these redirects were created, but couldn't find an answer there either. BDD (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Question can our Chinese speaking editors confirm whether Xunan is a plausible variant/misspelling of Hunan? --Lenticel (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    • It's not; no Chinese speaker will misread the first character as "Xu", and "H" and "X" are totally different sounds in pinyin. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • According to IMDB, Xunan is the name of a 1983 movie (that probably doesn't meet our notability requirements). It also shows up in search engines as a moderately uncommon first name. The best (least bad) source I could find linking Xunan as an alternate for Hunan was this article in the Azerbajani version of Wikipedia. There is a Xunan Village in Baima, Hunan.
    I'm not sure where all that leaves us. Maybe convert it to a disambiguation page? There's not a lot of existing "Xunan" pages in the English Wikipedia to support it yet. Rossami (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The film isn't listed at List of Chinese films of the 1980s, but it looks like a lot is missing from there. Maybe if we have an article on the director? Failing a way to incorporate the film, just redirecting to Baima, Hunan would work, since populated places are automatically notable. --BDD (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete It's unclear what this refers to or its relation to Rhee - according to Korean Wikipedia one of his alternative names was Unam 雩南. (Rhee's English article doesn't even mention this name, nor is he listed at UNAM (disambiguation).) If you pronounce that name in Mandarin it's either Yúnán or Xūnán (the first character is a bit obscure, plenty of dictionaries don't even list the "xū" reading for it, but Wiktionary does, so I'm presuming that's where the creator got it from). In any case this should be deleted per Wp:FORRED; users are best served by seeing the search results, which contain partial matches for things which are actually called "Xunan" in English. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague at best. Perhaps we can argue that this is a WP:REDLINK issue since the movie might turn out to be notable. --Lenticel (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Undeserving poor[edit]

This is another interesting Neelix redirect. The article for Underclass mentions (in passing) the concept of desert with respect to economically disadvantaged communities, but I think this redirect ultimately does more harm than good by perpetuating the notion that disadvantaged communities are undeserving of assistance. Right now, I think this is both confusing and offensive; this could just as easily target Desert (philosophy) or Just-world hypothesis. If someone wants to create an article about the concept of moral desert and economically disadvantaged communities, that's fine by me, but this redirect should be deleted. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  • delete. While I can see the potential for an article discussing the concept of undeserving poor, a redirect to underclass is not it. I'm not sure that anything we do currently have is better, but I could be persuaded otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete to encourage article creation. The current redirect is offensive. Legacypac (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Offensive to whom? It seems like a positive sentiment, if NPOV. --BDD (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I think Legacypac interpreted the statement as poor people who didn't deserve something as opposed to people that did not deserve to be poor.--65.94.253.160 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - as Legacypac says, there's a legitimate article to be written here but this redirect is not it. To answer BDD's question, it's offensive because "undeserving poor" is a specific term for people who have voided the right to the welfare benefits provided by the state or charities (what used to be referred to as sturdy rogues), whereas underclass is a reference to the poorest section of any given society; the implication of the redirect is that poor people have themselves to blame, and don't deserve sympathy or help. ‑ Iridescent 16:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for clarifying. I was assuming that they were just being considered undeserving of their lot in life. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK as above. Unless this can be salvaged as a redirect to untouchability, but I don't think that's the right meaning. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague. What are they undeserving of? Their lot in life or external help? --Lenticel (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vague. Steel1943 (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Uploading and Downloading[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. There isn't really a specific CSD for such items, but I think WP:IAR covers it. I routinely delete variants like this after closing an RfD; it's just so unlikely that there wouldn't be consensus to delete these just days after there was consensus to delete Uploading and downloading. As always, contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 26#Uploading and downloading was recently closed. However, it forgot two redirects that should have been included: "Uploading and Downloading" and "Uploading & downloading". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete, per the arguments at the previous discussion and WP:XY. Thanks for following-up and nominating these! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
  • I guess this falls within WP:G6 "uncontroversial maintenance". As closing admin of that RfD I agree that deletion of these two redirects is implied by the outcome of it. Deryck C. 21:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. You're probably right about G6; it's very much like a {{Db-xfd}} situation. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

12817Federica[edit]

Delete 12817Federica. Of the 19,585 minor planets on Wikipedia, 0 follow the convention of missing a space between the number and the name. However, 17 redirects, out of ~16,000 redirects, make this exception. Furthermore, this is not a noteworthy minor planet (12817 Federica (with a space) is also a redirect to a list), nor is this a reasonable typo to account for via redirect.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  05:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Creator is neutral (Change of opinion: see comment later in this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)): When I created this about 3.5 years ago, this redirect targeted an article that had the same name but with a space. Also, I, for some crazy reason, back then thought that new CamelCase redirects were useful. I really didn't know that this was actually an old way titles were done before spaces were technically implemented on the site. I can see this redirect's usefulness in the event Wikipedia decided to go back to this style for whatever reason, or if somehow Wikipedia's software goes back to an old version for some reason, but I really don't see that happening. In fact, at first, I wanted to tag these for WP:G7 deletion, but since it seems that Paine Ellsworth had a hand in redirecting the former articles to some sort of list page, so they ended up having some sort of hand in the redirect's current state. Steel1943 (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. I disagree that this is an implausible modification of 12817 Federica, as readers leave out spaces on many occasions while they search for asteroids and such. Strictly speaking, this is not "CamelCase", but a modification of the original article's title, which was deleted and redirected with this edit in April 2015. That made this modified title a double redirect, which was then fixed. This is a harmless repaired double redirect that can aid searches. Happy New Year! Paine  13:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
    • But these redirects are technically CamelCase. CamelCase just requires that all words and characters in a title are pushed together, removing the spaces. That has happened with these. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • It might just be splitting hairs, but I see nothing in the CamelCase article that equates unicase numerals with medial capitals, do you?  Paine  12:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Paine Ellsworth: Eh, it's sort of "toe-mae-toe, toe-mah-toe" situation, I guess. Either way, it's a modification of some sort. Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Paine. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are ~16,000 minor planet redirects, and only 17 of them (10 listed here) are missing the space, creating an arbitrary group of exceptions to the minor planet article naming convention. If they're so useful, shouldn't we have made the ~16,000 others?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Admin note I've merged these different nominations, which all had essentially identical comments so far (the nominator and Paine referred to each item in their comments for each discussion). Please let me know if anyone finds this problematic or if I've overlooked anything, but these seem to have the same issue, and should be dealt with consistently. --BDD (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Some support. I don't see any point in keeping them to improve search. If I start typing either the name or the number or a combination of the two it popsdown at least one correct link to take me to the redirect target page in addition to the above noms. I don't think they are needed for that. The only reason to keep these redirects is to preserve "What links here." If those are cleaned up I would be fine with removing them as unnecessary. In general I think that new redirects should use the same convention as the majority and this style should be discouraged. Eventually these should be "cleaned up" to maintain consistency. If I were to start seeing search results with the missing space is would cause me to wonder if I should change my search entries to find what I'm looking for. --mikeu talk 16:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as harmless modifications that go to the right target; per consensus that existence of "bad" redirects does not encourage creation of more "bad" redirects and is thus not a reason for deletion (not that it was given as one, just saying). Per Payne. Technical note: I've noticed that the search box skips some redirects but doesn't seem to be consistent on which; this one comes up but I assume that's from the Rfd header. Is there an rcat that controls this behaviour, or could we do such a thing? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as useless noise. Praemonitus (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Praemonitus and Wiki already has 15,000 "properly numbered and named" asteroid re-directs to list articles. -- Kheider (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Nuke 'em Pointless and unlikely search term. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all. They are not harmful and meet none of the deletion criteria for redirects. While we do not preemptively create redirects with typos, once they have been created there is absolutely no benefit to the project from deleting them. Redirects really are that cheap. Rossami (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, they're cheap, but they're a nuisance to those maintaining the categories, articles, and redirects. Without these few errant redirects, all minor planet redirects are treated as potential articles which may one day achieve notability. We (WP:AST) operate on them with this assumption, with category maintenance, and comments such as this, etc., which are not intended for redirects which will never be reverted into an article.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
They are cheap, but in this case they are harmful. There is, literally, an astronomical number of redirects and articles to maintain and manage for asteroids/minor planets. Crap redirects screws up bot maintenance, categorization efforts, etc. and need to be handled manually. We do not need this extra work for pointless redirects. Nuke 'em. They serve no purpose. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Your argument on the surface would make me change my !vote if I understood it better. You call these a "nuisance" and give the reason that they will never be reverted into articles as the spaced redirects might someday be. There are literally millions of redirects on Wikipedia that will never be articles for varying reasons. So I don't understand why these few mod redirects have become such a nuisance, when all the others are no nuisance at all. Perhaps you can elaborate?  Paine  12:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The reasoning for these deletions is unique (as far as I know) to WP:AST due to the large number of bot-created articles back in and around 2009; see this long history. I don't believe the general guidelines/practices apply here, as they would for the typical (or just any other) redirect on Wikipedia, nor should the outcome of this RfD set any sort of precedent which could apply outside WP:AST.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your candor! I am an astronomy lover, yet I've never felt myself technically competent enough to actually join WP:AST. I am very much in awe of the project's record of article improvement. The only reason I became involved with these redirects has to do with various page moves and bot-fixings of double redirects that resulted in unsynchronized talk pages to their subject pages. I've restored several of these sync needs, so I'm in the edit histories of those pages. I agree with you in principle; however, these are only ten redirects of how many? Their creations suggest that they are helpful to someone just like any other modified title, whether it be plurals, other capitalizations, typos, and so on. If these ten of all those many others present a problem for the members and bots of the astronomy project, then that must be weighed against the editors who will have the rug pulled out from under them if these are deleted. If the main nuisance is to the bots, and the addition to these redirects of the {{nobots}} template is appropriate, then that may help some. Thank you again, and Happy New Year! Paine  22:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Rossami, I hope you would NOT recommend that Wikipedia create 455,000 re-directs for all numbered asteroids as asteroids numbered above 10,000 almost always point to a very generic list article. This is a maintenance concern as all asteroids were given notability prior to 2012. -- Kheider (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all per my following opinion in regards to the nominator's response to Paine Ellsworth above. Wikipedia is for all readers; if it is plausible, then it is useful to someone. The fate of the usefulness of a space separating two words as a possible typo cannot truly be deemed useless or problematic by the redirect's target's subject matter-related WikiProject. Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as a plausible search term, akin to a misspelling. Allowing this one to exist doesn't mean we should create equivalents for all other asteroids. I don't buy the argument about redirect maintenance - there's very little (if anything) to do in the way of maintenance, and 16k redirects needs a bot to do anything sensible anyway so a few extra entries makes no difference. Modest Genius talk 14:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Procedural note - while this discussion was happening, someone expanded 9341Gracekelly into a stub, which due to the limited content available was actually more of a stub about Grace Kelly than about the asteroid. I've trimmed it. I don't know much about the WP:AST standards as to whether this is worth keeping, it should be moved over 9341 Gracekelly if so, otherwise whatever happens here should apply to it as a redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yet another problem arising from having these redundant, unnecessary redirects...   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The two issues are not related: Ivanvector outlined a possible solution to what could be done to "resolve" the stub issue if it is placed at the wrong title ... if need be. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's hardly a problem at all. If it's decided to keep the stub, then we move it to the right title, otherwise we do whatever this thread says to do with the redirect. Easy peasy. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure this is the correct place to have the discussion, but for me that stub fails WP:NASTRO. The only source is a JPL catalogue entry. It should be redirected to the relevant list section. Modest Genius talk 23:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

January 7[edit]

Miss Tourism World 2014[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. You were told to take this to WP:AFD, so take it there. You can't turn this into a redirect and then immediately nominate it for RFD. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Parent article has been deleted 3x already, so the only annual edition title is an orphan. Delete as commercial spam of an unnotable event. Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Coffret 4 CD[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted, G7, by GB fan (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean or refer to. Google search results are giving me a compilation (I think?) by Franck Pourcel. BDD (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

  • delete (overspecific redirect): looks like Coffret is a French CD publisher, who published, inter alia, a 4 CD compilation of Rihanna songs. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete is was a compilation release, I created a redirect in case anything came up of it. But it's not needed anymore.  — Calvin999 17:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Whipping My Hair[edit]

Another alleged single of Rihanna's not mentioned anywhere. The first two could be seen as incorrect names for Whip My Hair, but obviously not the last one. --BDD (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Question Why not the last one? I'm undecided on whether they are plausible redirects or not, but I don't see why we would do anything other than keep or delete all of them? Thryduulf (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
It does look like this song exists, even if it's not on Wikipedia. (There are such dedicated editors who work on pop songs that I'm reasonably certain we'd have an article if it were notable.) It's not the same song as "Whip My Hair", which is not by Rihanna, but I'm saying "Whipping My Hair" could perhaps be treated as a reader not remembering the exact title of Willow Smith's song. But anyone who includes "(Rihanna Song)" in their search is definitely looking for the latter, and we can't help them with that. It looks like "Whip My Hair" earned Smith comparisons with Rihanna, but I don't see any evidence that anyone would actually think it was by her. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Emergency room (song)[edit]

In 2008, this was a rumored single for Rihanna, but it turned out to not even be her; see D.N.A. (Mario album). Emergency room (disambiguation) doesn't list any songs, and the Mario recording didn't even appear on any albums, so it sort of feels like any attention given to this is WP:UNDUE. But that album would probably be the place to retarget the first item. The second is less certain, and would definitely need {{R from incorrect name}} if retained; the third just seems completely wrong, with no indication that Akon was involved with the track or popularly thought to be. --BDD (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Romans 1:27[edit]

These verses aren't individually discussed at the target articles. The section the first is supposed to redirect to doesn't exist at all. --BDD (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget 1:27 to its old target. The verse is important, it reads:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

— (KJV)
And is hence is relevant, nay - critical, in the discussion of Christianity and homosexuality. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC).
Conversely retarget Romans 12:17 to Romans 12#Verses 17-21. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm cautious with this one because we're essentially suggesting to swap the purposes of the two redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: the way this is organized is pretty confusing. We have Epistle to the Romans with a pretty detailed summary and analysis of the contents of Paul's letter/essay, but in addition we have Romans 1, Romans 2, and so on right up to Romans 16 with a separate detailed analysis of each chapter of the epistle. Also, the Epistle article doesn't link to the more detailed chapter articles, which were written later by JohnThorne. I think that the Epistle article needs to be reorganized to present a set-index of the chapters, and the analysis ported to the chapter articles where possible, or else just merge everything back into the epistle article, otherwise we have a lot of duplication of material and competing analysis going on. As for the redirects, the "verse 27" section was blanked by an IP with no explanation so I have restored it. Without further comment on the redirects, I'm going to ping WikiProject Bible for input on the whole situation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
That removal of the section was probably warranted, because right now it's just giving the text of the verse. That's WP:NOT what Wikipedia is for; it's going to need some analysis or other discussion. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
You're probably right, but that's basically all that's on those pages, so an IP removing just one with no edit summary feels like vandalism to me. Trout me if you like, I haven't had breakfast yet. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
*shrug* A reminder of the importance of edit summaries, I guess. The IP might just as likely have been thinking what I was thinking and figured the removal was a no-brainer. --BDD (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget both to Epistle to the Romans, with appropriate anchors. WikiProject Bible didn't respond and doesn't seem particularly active, so I'm going to throw my own interpretation into this. All of the "chapter" articles seem to be unnecessary content forks. The Epistle article gives a critical review of the content and theme of Paul's letter, while the chapter articles give a technical analysis of the letter's structure. Nevertheless they are all articles about the same thing; they should all be merged or interlinking between them cleaned up, and I'm going to propose it just as soon as I can figure out a good way to do it. I don't like getting involved in Bible stuff on here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Compassion of God[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Compassion#Religious and spiritual views and keep, respectively. I strongly encourage someone to add "Rumjal" to Ramiel, lest we see it at RfD again. --BDD (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

This was tagged for deletion on November 19th, but never listed in the logs. I presume it was to be added to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 19#Evening of God, where Legacypac's rationale was "Incorrect, various languages, created to build edit and page creation count." -- Tavix (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of developing consensus, I'm fine with keeping Rumjal as an alternative transliteration of Ramiel. I would be surprised if Rumjal (Dungeons & Dragons) survived AfD, and as Rossami notes above, a hatnote should clear up any confusion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

ScreenCrush[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

"ScreenCrush" is a movie website unmentioned in the target article (and apparently never mentioned, even at the time of the redirect's creation). ScreenCrush seems to be one of many, many websites owned or acquired by this media company, and from a news search unlikely to deserve even a fragment of a sentence in the company article. McGeddon (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Diamonds tour[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget. Edit history shows this originally described that tour, which at one point was redirected to Rihanna for notability concerns. As there's an article on the tour again, retargeting there is a no-brainer. The edit history also mentions another redirect in the same situation; I'll also fix that one and check for others like it. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Propose retargeting to Diamonds World Tour. sst✈ 05:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

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

History of the Jews in Somalia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to History of the Jews in Africa#Somalia. --BDD (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

We have "history of the Jews" articles for many countries, and I don't see any reason we shouldn't have one for Somalia. I propose deleting this redirect so that the redlink can prompt someone to create an article, rather than having this pointed to an article on a small clan that may or may not have Jewish ancestry. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 04:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

No objection.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC) (formerly User:Felix Folio Secundus
  • Delete to redlink as there has to be a topic here. Legacypac (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete to create a redlink. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to History_of_the_Jews_in_Africa#Somalia were I will put a sourced sentence that says there are no history of Jews or current population of Jews in Somalia other than the Yibir. It turns out there is no topic here, which really surprised me. Legacypac (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Legacypac. As there are multiple "History of the Jews in $country" articles, almost(?) any country is a plausible search term. That there is no history of Jews in Somalia doesn't change this, we educate our readers to this effect at the proposed target. Thryduulf (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Naked taco[edit]

Presumably a low-carb alternative to a regular taco, this dining option isn't exclusive to Chipotle or mentioned at its article. --BDD (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I say either delete or retarget to Ralph Pagano, who operates a restaurant called "Naked Taco" (this fact is mentioned at his article), but I don't have particularly strong feelings about this. I think the benefit of deleting is that it would incentivize someone to make an article about naked tacos, but then again, people may also be searching for Pagano's restaurant. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XY and/or WP:REDLINK. The best retargeting option for this redirect would be a subject related to salad or taco salad (I may change my opinion later if I think the connection is strong enough.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Common willdypop[edit]

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

Delete. I can't find any evidence that this is a common name for the plant Acanthus mollis or that it ever refers to anything else. Plantdrew (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

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

The jealous one[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Greek mythology meaning too general. Legacypac (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Weak dabify to Megaera and the The Thirty-Six Dramatic Situations where the "Jealous one" is one of the key figures in #32 of the situations. It's also a preemptive redlink for the 1942 Turkish film Kıskanç (The Jealous One) by Muhsin Ertuğrul --Lenticel (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • delete as more Neelix junk. Mangoe (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Don’t disambiguate. If there were not a dramatic situation involving a jealous one, this redirect would be deleted without contest as yet another useless Neelix redirect. So there is no reason to include Megaera on a disambiguation page for this. Gorobay (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should we disambiguate or delete? I should also note that "because Neelix" is not a valid deletion rationale - the "Neelix injunction" only permits editors to nominate redirects for deletion in the sense of WP:BRD. Deryck C. 00:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 00:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Disambig. The creator is irrelevant, and both targets are plausible. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Gorobay. Magaera is NOT known as "the jealous one" anywhere, that is simply the English translation of that name, which, we have decided in multiple RFD's are not plausible search terms. That would leave retargeting to The Thirty-Six Dramatic Situations, but that would be a WP:SURPRISE. This isn't like a play with a character of "the jealous one", but more of a teaching aid where a certain character in other works can be represented as a jealous one. Since it's just an abstract idea, it would be analogous to retargeting to jealousy, which I would actually support more than a retarget to Situation #32. Now, my Google searches overwhelmingly show songs and other media with that name, so I would reckon that someone searching for "the jealous one" would be looking for something along those lines. Therefore, deleting is the most helpful course of action for our readers. -- Tavix (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • comment given the many RfDs we have found these translations are not good redirects, I still prefer deletion. Legacypac (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

January 6[edit]

Nona hora[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep and refine to Noon#Etymology. --BDD (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No language has any special connection to the English word Noon. By Neelix Legacypac (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. General topic with no particular affinity for any language -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Refine Target to Noon#Etymology where the term's importance to "Noon" is explained --Lenticel (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Refine target per Lenticel. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Perfumedly[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep. "Because Neelix" is void as soon as the first substantiated "keep" opinion is voiced. Among the other comments, there's a roughly even split of opinion between "yes these are real derivative words" and "no these aren't plausible search terms". Deryck C. 22:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Very rare or non words set up by Neelix Legacypac (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. More Neelix nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think this a case of Neelix creating what he thought were neologisms, but were, in fact, words that have fallen out of fashion in the English language. A century ago, writers were still using these terms (see this book, this book, and this book). It is entirely possible that a reader of one of these old books will want to know more about these words, both of which are derived from "perfume." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Notecardforfree, backed up by WP:CHEAP. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 01:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIC, as we shouldn't have redirects for all possible variants of words, just common ones that facilitate navigation within the encyclopedia. -- Tavix (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • delete as Neelix gibberish. Mangoe (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix. The question should not be "Is this a word?" The English language is sufficiently extensible that you can adverb-ify (etc.) just about anything. The questions, like with any RfD, are, "Will users search for this?" and "What would users searching for this be looking for?" To the first, I'd say probably not. And to the second, I suspect they would be looking for something more specific than Perfume, which they almost certainly would query first if they were seeking it. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible variants --Lenticel (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Deletitionally. To expantify my reasoningness, timewise we permitificate verificational lettercombinatics to expansication into differenty parts of talkingness which notso usefulness in common conversationalities, the useificationness of those languagesymbolstrings beginificates into notreallyrationalunderstandificationnesslies, inespecialmently for comprehensionlookers whose initialknowwordprotocol is antiBritishpeoplespeak. Instead, we should delete these meaninglessly modified variants. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Notecardforfree and Rubbish computer. The creator is irrelevant, and so we are left with the question of whether these are plausible search terms for the target, which Notecardforfree demonstrates they are. Then there is the question of whether another target is more likely to be desired by people using these redirects, and I can't find anything we have that would be more useful. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

MGTOW (Men's rights)[edit]

Please delete the redirect MGTOW (Men's rights). MGTOW are different and separate from "men's rights activists" (MRAs). MGTOW is not a "men's rights movement" but a social phenomenon. Evidence: (1) "At first glance, it's easy to lump MGTOW in with typical Men's Rights Activists (MRAs) who also believe that female oppression is a myth and that it's actually males who are oppressed—but that's not the case. The two groups differ significantly in how they make sure those tricky, tricky women don't pull any of their devious tactics. While MRAs are out to fix the problem through action and activism, members of MGTOW hold self-preservation above all else, and because of this the majority of the community seems to have decided to bow out." [8]; (2) "Though often conflated with MRAs, the Manosphere, or "The Red Pill" communities, MGTOWs are a distinct culture focused less on fighting women or feminists than on living separately, due to what they believe to be a rational assessment of the modern risks of male-female relationships. There is very little malice or combativeness to them. They don’t want to fight. They just, as they say, want to go their own way." [9] Also see the consensus on the the talk page discussion. (Edited to add: Also, there are zero article pages that link to MGTOW_(Men's rights), so this redirect page is in fact completely useless. Also, I think there is no need for Wikipedia to add to the "conflation".) —MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight(talk). 12:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep and tag with {{R from incorrect disambiguation}}. While MGTOW appears unambiguous, "(Men's rights)" is definitely incorrect capitalization if nothing else. If the association with MRAs is erroneous, it seems to be a common error (e.g., "often conflated with" in the source you've given). --BDD (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag per BDD. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 01:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete First, it is unnecessary, even useless, as the user is guided to the same place easily with the system we have now: MGTOW direct to a disambiguation page, each article links to another, and users see and choose from "MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way)" and MGTOW (Aviation) when typing "MGTOW" in the search window. Second, it misinforms the user of the association between MGTOW and "Men's Rights". Chrisrus (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - The issue of whether the two are related aside, in regard to "Also, there are zero article pages that link to MGTOW_(Men's rights), so this redirect page is in fact completely useless." (nom), there are many other reasons for redirects per WP:POFR. {{R from incorrect name}} may be due; whether or not this causes any harm, I'm unsure.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree with Chrisrus and the blocked nominator. There's a negative association to the Men's Rights movement, and this not-particularly-necessary redirect implies an incorrect point of view on the target. We shouldn't do that. The ambiguity with MGTOW can be solved with a hatnote. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag per BDD. This redirect is getting 200-300 hits per month consistently, which does not happen if a redirect is not linked from somewhere. It is up to the article to educate people on why MGTOW is distinct from the men's rights movement, not the presence or absence of a redirect. The existence of the {{R from incorrect disambiguation}}, {{R from misspelling}}, {{R from incorrect title}}, etc templates demonstrates well that an NPOV encyclopaedia is best served by allowing people to find the neutral article they are searching for even if they look for it using a POV or mistaken search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

BDBC[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was dabify. --BDD (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Searches for this don't turn up the target in the first 30 results at least, even with this Neelix redirect in place. Legacypac (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought Business Development Bank of Canada at first but could find no evidence anyone uses BDBC for that organization. They have BDC in their logo and use BDC because it fits the French version of their name too. We should not invent acronyms here. Legacypac (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow further discussion of delete vs disambiguate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pimmally square[edit]

This is the name of the school's gym, which is unquestionably non-notable, and not even mentioned at the target article. BDD (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as no brainer. Now get back to class kids Legacypac (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Unless there is some potential for confusion (and the fact that it's been around without creating problems since 2008 suggests that there's not), keep. Redirecting a non-notable child-topic to a more notable parent is one of the primary uses of a redirect, especially when, as here, the content was moved into the target article. The fact that the content was subsequently removed does not change the fact that it's still in the history. Rossami (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Rossami. No reason to delete this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Thryduulf, what about the fact that a reader searching for it will learn nothing about it? A reader who knows the name of the school's gym will learn nothing, and the rest will likely be ASTONISHed. The only sort of reader this could help is one who knows the name of the gym but has forgotten which school it's located at. To me, the harm to the encyclopedia of keeping redirects that we don't follow up on is self evident. --BDD (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. An alternative to the situation BDD brought up would be to add information about "Pimmally Square" to the article, but I failed to find any reliable sources that even attests the name, much less describes it (I found 22 Google hits, almost all are Wiki mirrors). Unless someone can find some sources, the only logical course of action is deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Joaquim Mulembwe[edit]

Assorted incorrectly marked versions of the guy's name of no value to searchers. Some are based on his middle name making them doubly useless, Legacypac (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
That would fall under {{R from modification}}, perhaps the most versatile of those Rcats. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not a modification, though. It's an error. And an unlikely one: if you're going to type the diacritics anyway, then leaving just one out is implausible. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete the first four as implausible modifications of his name. Weak keep the last four, as I think those are at least close enough. -- Tavix (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Ratty (railway)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 01:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

A Neelix translation of the French nickname for the operation Legacypac (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The local nickname, as in the article, is La'al Ratty. The associated pub is the Ratty Arms, and there's a book which uses Ratty as the title, so there's some evidence for the currency of the shorter nickname. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - well known English nickname. Not ambiguous; harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ivanvector and Peter James. That it was created by Neelix is entirely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Health Sciences basic topics[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. --BDD (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CNR, redirects from the wrong namespace. Since healthcare science isn't a project-space topic, these redirects are misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 07:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Wikipedia:Health Sciences basic topics - this link is included in historical versions of the main outline page. If you get rid of it, the link won't redirect when you are viewing the historical pages (here's one of them). We should retain the history behind the basic topics links. There was a set of about 50 of these created by Larry Sanger in the very beginning. They were wish lists of needed articles, and therefore they were filled with redlinks that you could just click on to create the desired articles. Eventually, the links all turned blue, and the lists were forgotten. Years later, someone discovered these useful lists of blue links, and moved them to article space and renamed them to Lists of basic topics. An unexpected thing happened: people kept adding to them until they were no longer basic. So they were renamed to "Outline of". But if you erase the historical links, someone reviewing the history won't necessarily know what became of those pages if their links are broken by removing these redirects. The Transhumanist 00:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nom. Possible problems that these redirects cause (such as making readers think that these lead to a page in the "Wikipedia:" namespace) outweighs the "linkrot" argument. Redirects are supposed to be useful and not misleading, and these are neither. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree that Wikipedia:Healthcare science serves no useful purpose and should be deleted. But the only purpose that Wikipedia:Health Sciences basic topics serves is as a historical link in page histories. It has zero live links (check "What links here"), except in relation to this deletion discussion. That page was an important part of Wikipedia's development history, and still lives on under a new name. Breaking that link with the past would be disruptive to the preservation of Wikipedia's history. So, the purpose of keeping it would be so that when someone is researching the history of the outlines, they will be able to see what happened to this page just by clicking on it. The Transhumanist 20:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Seems to me that a retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine may be in order. Hatnote if you feel it necessary. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep or retarget. The primary objection to cross-namespace redirects is that they will confuse people looking for encyclopaedic content if they end up in project space. This is not the case for redirects out of article space, and so there is no need to delete history. Oiyarbepsy's suggestion is also good if you cannot cope with the idea of a non-harmful redirect that crosses namespaces. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Oiyarbepsy. They're probably unlikely as searches or navigation aids, but they're pretty harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep or retarget per Thryduulf. No reason to lose the history, though. Rossami (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Improper Fraction Arena[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. The general consensus is that this redirect is a joke that we shouldn't entertain. Deryck C. 22:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Unattested name, with a single (!) -wikipedia Google result. BDD (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as nonsense. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. This was almost certainly a joke as \frac{5}{3} (or \frac{\frac{1}{5}}{3}) is an improper fraction. Thryduulf (talk)
  • Delete as joke redirect --Lenticel (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Zero hits with alternate search engines. Delete as a prank. Rossami (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Meeu[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Gulls live all over the world, not just South Africa, and are therefore not especially related to Afrikaans. Gorobay (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lee Jae Jin*[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. I've speedied this as WP:CSD#G6 uncontroversial housekeeping as it was clear from the edit history (and the short discussion below) that nobody wanted the redirect to be there in the first place. Deryck C. 11:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Created as a result of an inappropriate page move. Despite a couple dozen views per month—perhaps from curious readers because it comes up in the search suggestions—this is an implausible search term. — ξxplicit 04:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  • delete It was only at this title for less than a day and the asterisk does make it implausible. The official website link given with the original move summary does not include an asterisk, nor can I find the name stylised in this way anywhere (either of which would make this a plausible redirect) - I suspect it was a hyphenation issue that motivated the move as the website presents the name with none. That is outside the scope of this RfD though. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible search term --Lenticel (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Posthumous award[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 14#Posthumous award

Template:Ethnic stereotypes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure the generic "Ethnic stereotypes" template should redirect to the more specific {{Ethnic stereotypes USA}} (or even {{Stereotypes in the United States}}, which the former now redirects to). I can't seem to find a better target, so I'm thinking it should just be deleted (after the transclusions are changed to the other template) Primefac (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  • delete after fixing per nom. Ethnic stereotypes are far from exclusively a USA thing. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Deprecate - it's a {{R from move}}: it may have been more generic in the past but it's US-centric now, and not appropriate to be redirected from the generic title. Maybe there's a version in the history that could be restored over this template instead? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
No, there's really not. Before it was moved it was "ethnic stereotypes in western culture" but all of the links are now redirects to United States-specific topics. Best to delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

January 5[edit]

沙盒[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Requesting delete and salt per WP:R#D6. It was created due to the fact that Chinese editors were using it as a sandbox, but the proper solution to that problem would be to WP:SALT it instead of creating an ill-suited cross-namespace redirect. Since it's also a foreign-language redirect and sandboxes have no affinity for the Chinese language, WP:RFOREIGN also applies here. -- Tavix (talk) 06:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete and salt per nom. Target is not the encyclopedic topic for this term. This term is not a particularly Chinese topic. Chinese Wikipedians who are writing sandbox material for Chinese Wikipedia should do it on Chinese Wikipedia. If they are doing it for English, then the WikiData interwiki links should lead them from one language to another, with the proper WikipediaProjectSpace pagenames, so looking at the Chinese Wikipedia sandbox's English interlink should lead them to the proper English language sandbox page. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keepif it is still in use, else Delete. I created the redirect because Chinese-language users were consistently mistaking it for en.wp's sandbox since 2005. When this redirect was brought up for discussion in 2011, it was noted that the CNR was still getting hits three years after its creation (2008). If the redirect is no longer receiving traffic, then it should be deleted. Otherwise, it should stay. (Note that Wikipedia is VERY spotty at the best of times in China due to censorship, and local users may not particularly trust zh.wp.) —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 11:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia:沙盒 has been created once and deleted, and it looks like there's never been an attempt to create 维基百科:沙盒, which is the Chinese version of its name. Peter James (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looking at the stats, this redirect's usage seems only a little lower than in 2011, around 70/mo, so little has changed since then. I agree that a lot of foreign language redirects, many of which targeted for example the Main page, do not belong on the English Wikipedia and have been deleted, but this one is "grandfathered in" (at least until, as Jeremy says, it's no longer used). Happy holidays! Paine  17:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • It's too recent to be grandfathered in. Peter James (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • If seven+ years is "too recent", then I would be forced to agree with you. It was created in September of 2008. That's longer than I've been a registered user. Are you certain that seven+ years is "too recent"?  Paine  05:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Originally there was no project namespace, so pages had titles such as Wikipedia utilities. Most of the redirects were deleted in 2006 but some survived, and it's sometimes suggested that old redirects such as these are grandfathered in (although they are probably no more useful than the deleted redirects). Creation of new cross-namespace redirects has been discouraged since then. Peter James (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much for the history lesson. This is not a "new" CNR, is it? Other-language redirects are generally deleted because Wikidata makes them unnecessary. That is not the case here, as its usefulness that saved it at the previous RfD makes this one still necessary. Until another solution is found, to delete this redirect would slam the door on the editors who still use it. Happy holidays! Paine  11:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Sandbox. This would solve half the issue: though still an inappropriate redirect from a foreign language (as sandbox is not a a topic related to that language), it would no longer be a cross-namespace redirect. Sandbox (a disambiguation page) has a large banner serving as a hatnote directing to the Wikipedia:Sandbox if that is the intended target. "沙盒" = "Sandbox", not "Wikipedia:Sandbox" ("维基百科:沙盒"), so "sandbox" is the proper unambiguous target, if this redirect is to exist.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • That would be reasonable if the Chinese users weren't consistently thinking it was the Sandbox. I created the redirect as I did for a reason. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Most are probably learners/new editors, so their usefulness may grow just like yours/ours did. Happy holidays! Paine  11:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom: This isn't the Chinese Wikipedia. Also, precedence has resulted in deletion of redirects from foreign languages to aspects of Wikipedia itself: back in August of this year, all of the foreign language redirects to Main Page were nominated for deletion with consensus to delete. Steel1943 (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Never state the obviousFace-smile.svg This is a long-standing CNR that is an exception to the rule, and it should be kept until it's no longer useful. It's usefulness saved it at the previous RfD and should save it now. Happy holidays! Paine  11:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • ...And then, there will be other foreign language redirects created towards one of the "sandbox" titles. Keeping a foreign-language redirect that does not have a historical connection to its target is misleading and actually a bit harmful. For example, a Chinese-speaking person could be looking up this term to direct them to create a sandbox article in their native language, but then thanks to this redirect, have their search engine direct them to the English Wikipedia. Imagine if that happened to English words. Let's say that the term "Sandbox" existed on a Wikipedia whose language is not English and the native English reader did not understand that language: The reader would possibly be directed to the foreign language Wikipedia with no way of being able to figure out how to get to the page in their native language due to lack of understanding the page they are reading. We do not want to cause our readers in any language this confusion; it doesn't benefit anyone. Steel1943 (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • You seem worried about something that "might" happen, but as yet it "has not" happened? The stats show that this redirect got about 70 hits a month over the past 3 months, which is just a little less than it was getting prior to the previous RfD linked above. Doesn't this say that it does indeed benefit people?  Paine  19:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • No, that information actually doesn't show if anyone is actually benefiting from this redirect. That information just shows that people are searching the term, not if they are arriving at their intended destination. Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Steel, did you look at the previous deletion log for the title? Almost all of it is Chinese users using the page as a sandbox. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • No Jeremy v^_^v, but even if I did (I still haven't), it would not change my opinion. I strongly believe that this redirect should have the same fate as the foreign redirects to Main Page for similar reasons as why they were deleted, as stated above. Steel1943 (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • You are correct in that this redirect should have the same fate as the foreign redirects to the English Main page, eventually. Those other-language redirects were no longer needed because Wikidata places links on the other-languages' Main pages directly to the English Main page. That is not the case with this redirect. People still use this redirect to get to its target, and when this redirect is no longer used by people to get to its target, only then should it again be renominated for deletion.  Paine  05:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • English Wikipedia is not the International all-languages Wikipedia. If we need such a thing, The WikiMediaFoundation should create an all-languages index site at mul.wikipedia.org (possibly just listing interlanguage links from WikiData) If the sandbox needs a Chinese language link, it should be an interlanguage link off of Chinese Wikipedia. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I will refer you to my comment above about zh.wp and Wikipedia's general spottiness in China. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 11:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • keep until such time as non-existent pages can have interlanguage links. There is no evidence presented or that I can find that people using this redirect are not arriving where they want to be, and evidence that it is useful. There is nothing inherently wrong with either cross-namespace or foreign language redirects, the problem comes when they are causing problems for people looking for English encyclopaedia articles, but the liklihood of that here is very very low. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
    • A WikiData page for zh:wp:沙盒 and link to en:wp:sandbox already exists (wikidata:Q3938); (this setup already exists at zh:wp:关于沙盒 which goes to en:wp:about the sandbox ) The interlang link already exists on zh.wiki -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Yet this redirect still gets ~70 hits/month. Curiouser and curiouser. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
        • And yet people treat English Wikipedia as the international any-language Wikipedia all the time, and we delete these redirects here and via CSD all the time. If this is deleted, then Chinese language users will then understand that this is not the any-language Wikipedia. Perhaps WMF will create an any-language Wikipedia index at http://mul.wikipedia.org if you ask them and point out the perennial problem of non-English on English Wikipedia. Chinese is patently not English, and the use of this redirect is for non-English non-encyclopedic purposes, so should necessarily not be on English Wikipedia. Perhaps a protected notice written in Chinese that English Wikipedia is not Chinese Wikipedia should be emplaced in a giant RED box. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Given that English is de facto lingua franca in many parts of the world, and also the largest Wikipedia, it doesn't surprise me greatly that people try to edit here in foreign languages, and I think that we can be a little more accommodating, and especially so here since Chinese is also spoken by oh quite a few people. Not that we should just keep all of these foreign-language cross-namespace redirects nor provide separate sandboxes in hundreds of different languages, but in a situation like this where editors are frequently doing the same thing, we can come up with a solution that's better than whatever is the Chinese for fuck off. What I'm saying is I'll bet the Gothic Wikipedia doesn't have this sort of problem with Inuktitut-speakers. (Also we do have two interlingua wikis: Interlingua Wikipedia and Interlingue/Occidental Wikipedia) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect per WP:IAR due to its apparent utility. The soft redirect allows a pause to explain to readers who might end up here inadvertently that they're being redirected out of article space, so that whatever it is that happens to be in the sandbox at that time is less WP:SURPRISEing. We could have a note in Chinese too if we feel like it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Provided the soft-redirect is full-protected, that's reasonable. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 00:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Why full protect? Seems to me that creating the redirect solved the problem of Chinese users using the page as a sandbox, and {{nobots}} prevents it from being "fixed" by the double redirect robots (and they ignore soft redirects anyway). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, creating the hard redirect did. If a soft-redirect was put in its place, they may very well resume mistaking it for the actual sandbox. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
You might be right, but I think it's better to apply protection if there's a new problem, not in anticipation of there being one. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Given the extensive deletion log on the title, I'd sooner have it full-protected if it turns into a soft redirect. If it gets deleted again, odds are it's going to be salted. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt per nominator, with Ivanvector's soft redirect a second choice. Let me see if I understand the facts correctly: this is essentially a patch to prevent Chinese users from sandboxing in the wrong place (i.e., at this title)? While I can appreciate the impulse to accommodate people making this mistake, I also want it to be clear that this is not a legitimate or correct way of accessing the Wikipedia Sandbox, any more than Sandkasten or Hiekkalaatikko are. In the long run, I think we're better off sealing this off completely. Failing that, we should at least create a speed bump that tries to discourage this practice. --BDD (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think I understand that, but I believe we ought to discourage it. --BDD (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Discourage it how? When was the most recent CNR from mainspace to project space created, and why? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Jeremy, I don't understand your second question. If you're asking about this CNR, you were the one who made it, so you'd be the one to answer. If you're asking about the most recent such CNR that exists, we'd have to go looking for what it is and who created it, which doesn't seem relevant to this discussion. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) May I summarize? I think what this comes down to is whether you believe that we should enable users looking for a sandbox in Chinese to be bounced to Wikipedia:Sandbox (in which case soft redirect and protect) or we should discourage it and let Chinese users figure it out for themselves like everyone else (in which case delete and salt). Personally, I think that ~70 hits/month warrants special treatment, and you'll note that we already have a bright notice atop our sandbox dab page to discourage users from playing in article space, so soft redirecting wouldn't be very far off the mark. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose soft redirect per BDD. (I already have a "delete" comment above, but I felt the need to make this opinion of mine clear as well.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Compromise? If it's deleted, but the deletion summary includes the link to Wikipedia:Sandbox, wouldn't both sides be satisfied? Our Chinese users would get a link to the sandbox (like the "keeps" want), without needing the WP:IAR solution that currently exists. -- Tavix (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I suppose I could support that, along with create protection. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe it could be mentioned in the salting comment? I considered this before but thought it unlikely because someone trying to access the Sandbox this way might not even have enough English skill to follow such a notice. But I suppose if they don't even speak that much English, we really don't want them editing (cf. WP:CIR). Sounds a bit harsh, but that's part of the reason we have so many other Wikipedias. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Better off in the deletion summary. The protection log isn't visible when a regular user encounters a create-protected redlink, but the deletion log is. Actually I don't know what happens if we click on a create-protected title that hasn't already been created and deleted, I don't know of any examples. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Medical Foundation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete - Many medical foundations exist. No need for disambiguation, as they are referred to by specific names, not just "the medical foundation". —Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which, if any, of the organizations identified by Notecardforfree are referred to simply as "Medical Foundation"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Based on the English language Wikipedia articles and a couple of google searches, none of the other organisations we have articles about are known simply as "Medical Foundation" (with any case) so any dab page would be a list of partial title matches - which wouldn't last long. Any list article would be at "List of medial foundations" or similar title, and would be best linked from the target by a hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Monobook[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. This is a tough close, because there really isn't strong consensus for anything, but a typical "no consensus" verdict where nothing changes is clearly unsuitable, as no one has expressed support for the status quo. In general, we're advised to look for alternatives to deletion, so I won't typically delete in the case of no consensus; instead, I'd usually go with where most editors wanted to retarget. But here, there was no agreement on that either. And since relisting once only led to one further comment, I doubt another one would really lead to solid consensus.
This remains a weak decision, but I'd encourage editors to think twice before attempting to recreate either of these. With Wikipedia:Monobook and Wikipedia:Monobook.js* in existence, it might be best to just let deleted pages lie. --BDD (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
*Oh dear. Those don't even go to the same place. That might be worth another discussion... --BDD (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Monobook is one of the four skins available on Wikipedia, the other three being Vector (the default), Modern, and Cologne Blue. However, the target is about skins in computing in general rather than specifically the MediaWiki skins. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Added Monobook.js to the nomination as well, it fits the same rationale.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - "Monobook" is mentioned on several Wikipedia related articles, along with a Wikia article. None of them are good targets, as it is only mentioned in passing (so disambiguation isn't a good option in this case either).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • keep if and delete otherwise delete monobook, keep/retarget monobook.js or delete otherwise I created that the monobook.js redirect and had it point to Wikipedia:Skin#Monobook.js. It was later changed to Skin (computing), effectively making the redirect useless: a person searching for "monobook.js" is a Wikipedia user learning how to customize things after reading some discussion. They want to know "What is it in relation to Wikipedia?". The original link answers that question fairly satisfactorily. The new link does not. I think the benefit to users outweighs the cost of adding a {{R to project namespace}}. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete monobook; soft redirect monobook.js to Wikipedia:Skin#Monobook.js so that the soft redirect can explain that the reader is being redirected out of article space. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget "monobook.js" to Wikipedia:Skin#Monobook.js. Soft Retarget "monobook" to MediaWiki --Lenticel (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete both due to lack of an encyclopedic article about the actual subject of the redirects, and the fact that most readers are not Wikipedia editors, and thus usually do not know about the technical aspects of sure appearance skins, or better yet how to change the layout of the site at all. Steel1943 (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Non-editors aren't going to be searching for "monobook.js". Editors are, and those editors are going to have a harder time learning about "the technical aspects of sure appearance skins" and "how to change the layout" if this redirect is removed. Leaving this redirect harms nothing but keeping it does. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Your comment makes the assumption that no regular "fly-by" Wikipedia reader would ever look up this term: The redirect is in the article space, so there's no way to prove that, even with the ".js" at the end (since they could very well be looking up an article about the significance of this subject.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Why would a fly-by user search for monobook.js and be unhappy and surprised with the content of the cross namespace redirect? A scenario where that'd happen is not obvious to me. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to MediaWiki (the software that Wikipedia runs) and mention the skins there -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Skin or (soft redirect to) mw:Skin:MonoBook. This is a case in which I think a WP:CNR will actually be helpful, because a reader or new editor of Wikipedia will reasonably search for information about one of the standard Wikipedia skins by typing its name into the Wikipedia search box. Deryck C. 23:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mitch Martin[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. The article has been created. Thanks, Ivanvector! --BDD (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Redirect from a fictional character in a film to the title of the film he was in; the character is not particularly "famous" outside the context of that film, and would be in no way expected as a potential search term or a potential article in his own right. But much more importantly, this is actually sitting on top of a real-world automobile racer (see F1600 Championship Series) who would have a much stronger claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name than the fictional character does — if correcting this wrong link requires us to dab the autoracer while leaving the fictional character as plain title, then that's exactly bass ackward: if any redirect from the character's name is warranted at all, then the character should be dabbed and the auto racer undabbed, not vice versa. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Overwrite the redirect with an article about the racing driver, adding a hatnote the present target. Deletion is not required here. Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
There would have to be somebody knowledgeable (or with access to adequate sourcing) to do the overwriting. I am not that person; I know nothing of the sport, and have access to no sources that would help me write anything more than "Mitch Martin is a dude who exists, the end." But until the Wikipedian who is equipped with the knowledge and the reference tools to do it comes along, it's not appropriate for his name to remain in F1600 Championship Series as a link to the wrong topic — but dabbing him so that he's a redlink in that article is not appropriate either, as he's the primary topic for the name and the existing redirect is not, and unlinking him entirely so that the fictional character still has the undabbed title and the auto racer has nothing isn't appropriate either. So until the time comes that the article in question is ready to be written by somebody, in the interim the name needs to be a red link rather than a redirect to a minor, non-primary topic. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Article drafted. I did better than "he's a dude that exists" but not by a lot. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hello Cthulhu[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 21:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Redirecting to a nonexistent section, this Cthulhu/Hello Kitty mashup isn't discussed anywhere on Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:XY. No info about the mashup, so what's left refers equally to two disparate topics. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Swartvlerksprinkaanvoël[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete. This bird has no specific affinity for Afrikaans. Gorobay (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. This bird seems to be not endemic to Afrikaans speaking countries --Lenticel (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of most massive stars[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was wrong forum - see Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"Known" should be removed from the article title, per this WP:AST discussion. I'm unable to move "List of most massive known stars" to "List of most massive stars" because this redirect exists, and I'd rather do a proper move than a copy & paste move.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  15:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

  • This is a request to move the redirect over the target. You should post the request at WP:RM#TR; you can probably put this under "requests to revert undiscussed moves". Let us know if you need help. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kshatriya Kunbi[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This is another self-glorifying vanity redirect: the only people who use this name are POV-warriors etc from the caste itself who are trying to use Wikipedia to legitimise their mythological claim. A similar issue arose recently with the Andhra Kshatriyas redirect, which was deleted. Sitush (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Al-Anbaat[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Al Anbat. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Misspelled Arabic word for these people, who are Arabs Legacypac (talk) 07:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Googology[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Seems to be used, but very rarely. See WP:MADEUP. A more common use seems to be studies of Google. MathWorld, often the first to create terms for quasi-mathematical concepts, doesn't have it. The redirect is the result of an article move and revert in August 2015, and has no history, in spite of the tag {{R from move}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. The page view statistics show this is a very well used redirect, and the nominator notes that the term is used even if infrequently. WP:MADEUP is not relevant to redirects, but to article content - if people use made-up words to refer to something that is not made up then we should have a redirect from that term. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
    It seems that a more common use would be the study of Google, rather than of numbers like googol. Page use statistics won't help determine whether a redirect is pointing to the correct location, only whether it is used. Perhaps a disambiguation page would be more appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - this was a page move error: [10] [11]. Its one mainspace use is in conway chained arrow notation, in a sentence containing "[...] a means of expressing certain extremely large numbers in googology." Seems in that case that it's a synonym, and we should keep it (but fix that sentence). I was thinking this might be better going to googolplex but the synonym use is better. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. There is clear consensus to change something and each of the non-deleting solutions (retarget / disambig) only has minority support. So closing as "no consensus on alternative, default to delete". Deryck C. 22:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this because I want to get the community's feedback about whether this is truly a useful redirect. Although this redirect receives a few hundred visitors every month, I wonder if either English alphabet or Letter (alphabet) are better targets? At the moment, ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ (song) redirects to Alphabet song. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 00:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is a nonsense search. Redirects aren't meant to catch every conceivable search to a target, only those which are likely or useful in some non-technical logical purpose. I highly doubt any of our readers are going to look for an article on the alphabet by typing the entirety of it out. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget both to Latin alphabet or disambiguate. Contrary to Ivanvector's speculation, the page view statistics show these redirects are actually used and so I see no reason to delete them. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Alright, you're right about the first one, it's quite frequently used but we don't know which target is being searched. Disambiguation is better, then. I suggest also adding Google Alphabet to the dab, as they recently made a lot of headlines for acquiring abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz.com. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete the second one at least, and probably the first too. In this case, I don't think "nonsense search" and "frequently used" are a contradiction. How many readers, in a legitimate query for the Latin alphabet or script, will sit there and type out all 26 letters instead of trying Alphabet or something? I suspect many of these uses come from someone idly typing into the search box, seeing a suggestion, and clicking it on a lark. And the second one just seems ridiculously implausible. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all. This reminds me a lot of the discussion for 12345678. People see what they want to see out of it, but it could just as easily be a nonsense acronym or just a bunch of letters that happen to be in alphabetical order in a few languages. I do agree with BDD that some of the hits come from people trying it just to see where it goes and I'm not sure there's a target that would satisfy everyone who is deliberately looking for something in the noise. -- Tavix (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Aaron Goldstein (rabbi)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. This became a bit of a mess. The target article was redirected to Reform Judaism, but I can't find Aaron Goldstein mentioned in the history of either page based on the time stamp of Steel1943's comment. The redirect is clearly no longer functional, but I declare no prejudice against recreation if the subject is mentioned somewhere later. --BDD (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

deletion, a most redundant redirect. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. The subject is mentioned in the article, but this may be the only thing the subject of the redirect is notable for. Steel1943 (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Redirect' to Aaron Goldstein (currently a DAB page) and create a redlink to encourage article creation. I didn't see an "Aaron Goldstein" mentioned in the article for Liberal Judaism, but I did see that an "Andrew Goldstein" is mentioned in the article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
See MOS:DABRL. We shouldn't do that unless another article already links to Aaron Goldstein (rabbi), which is not the case. We could satisfy MOS:DABMENTION and include a link to Liberal Judaism, but at that point we're really better off keeping this as is unless there's another rabbi by this name. (You have Samuel Aaron Goldstein, but that's only worth a hatnote unless he actually goes by Aaron.) --BDD (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 00:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Follow-up comment: Per BDD's comment, I am going to change my vote to delete because "Aaron Goldstein" is not mentioned in the article for Liberal Judaism and turning this into a redlink may encourage article creation. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

LSNSW[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Law Society of New South Wales. --BDD (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Not abbreviated this way Legacypac (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy close  A Google search on "LSNSW LINNEAN" reveals on the first page "www.mocavo.com/Proceedings-of-the-Linnean-Society-of-New-South-Wales-1901-Volume-26/702839/231", which shows that this acronym has been in use since 1901.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually searching just "Linnean" brings up only pages related to the society in the first 10 results, so that proves nothing. Search "LSNSW" and I found that any association with Linnean is largely mirrors or extracts from Wikipedia. https://www.lawsociety.com.au/ is the top result. I don't doubt someone might have used LSNSW for the society at some point, it does not appear to be a common or primary use of this acronym, Legacypac (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Dabify I've drafted a two-item dab below the redirect, since the Law Society of New South Wales is also notable. This is a logical initialism for either, though I'd be fine with retargeting to one with a hatnote to the other if it can be demonstrated that it's usually associated with one or the other. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 00:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • retarget to Law Society of New South Wales with a hatnote to the present target. My (UK) google suggests that the law society is by far the primary user of this acronym. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget and hatnote per Thryduulf. -- Tavix (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Angelic speech[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Angelic language. --BDD (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Not really. Legacypac (talk) 07:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment we have a disambiguation page Angelic language, suppose we could either retarget this there or delete it. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 00:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Zappa:References[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This redirect just doesn't make any sense. Steel1943 (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete – useless, nothing salvageable from its history. sst✈ 04:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete subpage-type-redirect from 2003 using Zappa as a pseudonamespace for Frank Zappa topics -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=699884696"