Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin

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 criterion 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]

March 29[edit]

APSU 1000[edit]

This is a redirect for a specific class name to the university that has that class. The history shows that the article on this class should have been deleted not a redirect (nothing was merged). Ricky81682 (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ikbal Ali Shah/version 2[edit]

Unnecessary redirect. XXN, 18:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep - appears to be a {{R with history}}, although not tagged. Required for attribution. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

COICAMPAIGN[edit]

Delete as a cross-namespace redirect not really in much use. CSD seems to imply anything from article space to Wikipedia space cannot be listed under speedy deletion, hence why this is here. This redirect is probably here because whoever created it forgot to put WP at the start which I have since corrected. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 12:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:XNR. Creating WP: pseudoshortcuts in main space is a common error which we should endeavour to correct. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

ScreenCrush Network[edit]

This is presumably the parent company article, but it has nothing to say about ScreenCrush (and doesn't even mention it in passing). McGeddon (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Family g[edit]

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 3#Hillary C. This is vague: Family Game, Family Gathering, Family Glue, Family Gekijo, Family Guns, etc. -- Tavix (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - insurmountably ambiguous. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Handicrap[edit]

Delete, non-neutral word that isn't attested at the article. -- Tavix (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Words and phrases from Family Guy[edit]

Despite what the redirect says, the Family Guy article doesn't mention any notable words or phrases from the show. -- Tavix (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not Wikiquote -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Twitition[edit]

From my research, this looks like a site created to sign petitions on Twitter. However, it was created by a third party company called branded3 and someone wanting to find anything out about this won't be helped by the target. -- Tavix (talk) 03:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

$22[edit]

Delete, there isn't any references to a $22 bill at the article, and there hasn't been since 2011, when the following trivia was removed: "Comic performer and presidential candidate Love 22 produces $22 bills." -- Tavix (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete all as misleading. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. I would have loved if there were 22 of these redirects. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Mispase[edit]

Delete per WP:RTYPO, too many typos to be a plausible redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, and also not definitely a typo for Myspace. Could be misspace, misplace, mispace, .... Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Шуберт[edit]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN, Franz Schubert is an Austrian and has no affinity to any of the languages that have been rcatted. -- Tavix (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 07:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I added the creator's only other contribution, another unwikified article in what Google Translate says is Macedonian which was redirected to a non-Macedonian composer (Czechoslovakian, in this case). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

March 28[edit]

Rapelisberger[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:G10 by Keegan. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems kind of self-explanatory. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete WP:G10. Does this really need discussion? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:30, 28 March 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.

Bootgate[edit]

Not sure this is a valid redirect. I can't find any mentions of him and the term "bootgate". WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - Brady suffered an ankle injury requiring a walking boot, right around the time that this redirect was created, but I don't see any evidence that this was ever referred to as "bootgate". -gate implies a scandal, such that this could possibly be WP:G10. More recently it seems to be a reference to something Jeb Bush said about Marco Rubio's choice of footwear, but it would be silly to point to either of them. Just delete it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Q️[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 both a WP:SNOW deletion and a speedy deletion as vandalism. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The title is the letter Q followed by 3 unprintable characters. Nothing on-wiki links to this, so unless I'm missing something very niche, this seems like a redirect that can never be hit. See also:
W
M
C
E
Z CrowCaw 18:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - I don't understand what's happening here, as far as I can tell there's nothing after the Q (no extra characters show up in the URL) yet it's definitely a separate page. Anyone? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • See the full url: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Q%EF%B8%8F&redirect=no and you see the non-printable characters that follow the Q. They won't show up anywhere else, and nobody can accidentally (or intentionally for that matter) type them... CrowCaw 23:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
that's the UTF-8 of BYTE ORDER MARK. Si Trew (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, they don't even show up in the URL for me, even in preview. I tried in Win7 and Ubuntu 15.10. Strange. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, one of the several "useless redirect" accounts I track in past made use of such non-printables. I don't have the sorcery to look through deleted revisions though, so can't pinpoint the one. I do think recent CU's have shown that they've evolved their tactics though, so maybe just CSD R3? CrowCaw 00:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, this is certainly something you don't see every day; how did you even find these? My vote is delete all unless there is some hidden utility to these. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The invisible character is U+FE0F ️ VARIATION SELECTOR-16. Despite what others have said, it is not the byte order mark, and it is one character, not three. These are invalid variation sequences and as such should be deleted. Gorobay (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - clearly useless, probably to the point of vandalism. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:44, 29 March 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.

Daech[edit]

No relationship with the French language. SSTflyer 16:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  • keep this a transliteration of the Arabic abbreviation into Latin lettering, and is also used in English [1][2][3] -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a plausible transliteration of "داعش‎" and 70.51 has provided several examples of this spelling in other sources. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

IGIL[edit]

No relationship with the Russian language. Retarget to Igil. SSTflyer 16:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget or delete: both have the same effect since igil exists, and this isn't an acronym for anything in English. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Changed to just delete, per Tavix. The search engine and URL parser automatically try the lowercase page title, so this redirect is objectively useless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to igil per nom -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RCAPS, the instrument is never "IGIL." -- Tavix (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Playmate of the Year[edit]

The abbreviation and its expansion have different targets, which is rather WP:XY and thus a candidate for WP:RFD#D2 confusing. But I'm not suggesting deletion, rather a retarget of one or the other.

Playboy Playmate pipes Playmate of the Year as "PMOY", which is a bit confusing but easily fixed (the words before it are, in fact, "Playmate of the Year"). Similarly List of Playmates of the Year ( → List of Playboy Playmates of the Year) is in Playboy Playmates#See also section but should probably (also) be at the top of Playboy Playmate#Playmate of the Year as a {{main}} or {{see also}} or something.

Even if I were to make those changes to that target, it would be confusing from a search (or in other articles) that the abbreviation and its expansion target different things. Retarget one or the other: but which? Si Trew (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Target both to the section of the Playboy Playmate article that describes what, exactly, a Playmate of the Year actually is. bd2412 T 15:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • [Re]target both to Playboy Playmate#Playmate of the Year, the section containing the description of what this is, and move the see-also note to the top of that section for readers looking for supplementary information. As a note, "PMOY" does seem to be a noteworthy acronym for this, at least according to Google and Twitter, and seems unambiguous. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget both to Playboy Playmate#Playmate of the Year per Ivanvector --Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Work life[edit]

In addition to Employment, the phrase could refer to Career or Job just as easily. None of the pages use the phrase, but Career uses the word "lifework", and seems to use the word "life" more frequently than the other two. Thoughts? Cnilep (talk) 05:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Perhaps DAB it with those above and working life (→ Employment), shelf life, work-life balance (a weird phrase, as if work was death), working age (→ Legal working age), mean time between failures and so on. But probably unnecessary, we're not a thesaurus. Si Trew (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - our search engine does a fine job of listing articles in which this phrase or two words appear if someone were to type this. The current target is not really correct, and there's a big WP:XY problem as Si Trew demonstrates. Personally I see this as referring to a person's productive employment years, i.e. the time between getting one's first job and retirement. But there doesn't seem to be a perfect article for that. Plus all the other possible meanings. A dab page would be full of partial title matches. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Splot[edit]

Redirect should be re-targeted to Splott, a suburb of Cardiff. Redirect was to Splott when created in 2009. Changed to [[Humble Bundle#Humble Frozenbyte Bundle]] in 2011. #Humble Frozenbyte Bundle section of page no longer even exists, and Splot is not mentioned anywhere in the current revision of the article. Redirect is no longer relevant in any way to target, so original, still-extant homonym should be the new target. Calavicci (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Oh, cripes. Splot (video game) is an "Unreleased Pre-Order" video game that was one of five games in the 2011 "Humble Frozenbyte Bundle" which sold 183,000 copies at $5 each. Can't we speedy such ridiculousness? wbm1058 (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget the first to List of Humble Bundles#2011 as {{R to list entry}}, and keep the second (which I've tagged as that and as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}). While it's a reasonable typo for "Splott", typing "Splot" will find "Splott" easily enough in a search (in fact, when I type in "splo" then "Splott"comes up first). Can't CSD as it has history. Si Trew (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment. If the redirect exists, then typing "Splot" in the search box and hitting Enter will go straight to the redirect page → target, and the live search may not appear for users who limit Javascript, notably those using text-mode browsers. Not advocating either way. Calavicci (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Yup, a hatnote {{redirect|the suburb of Cardiff|Splott}} at the target would make sense. Si Trew (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

15 (song)[edit]

Propose retargeting to 15 (disambiguation)#Songs, because there are songs named "15" and not "Fifteen". SSTflyer 01:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep the hatnote at the target should be enough. If required, we should disambiguate the target's title. There is no need, this is the only one we have an article about, anyway, my vote is still keep. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Untitled Woody Allen film[edit]

Article was created before the film has a name, then moved when the name was released, turning this into a redirect. Now the redirect should be deleted as it is an unplausible search term. No one will search "Untitled Woody Allen film" if they want to look up this film or any of Allen's other works. They would search the name instead. 173.3.76.193 (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

River Road Entertainment[edit]

There is no mention of this company on the target page, and so no indication of what links them or why. The redirect was added a few days ago by a now-banned user here. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. A quick Google search revealed that Bill Pohlad is the president and founder of the company. Not much else substantial, so I don't feel like I can create a new article worth anything in the time I have, but I did add a note about this on the page for Bill Pohlad. The redirect is now relevant and at least somewhat helpful. Calavicci (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - I found the same thing as Calavicci. I don't think the two would be separately notable. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

March 27[edit]

Аллаһ[edit]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target; WP:RFOREIGN, no special affinity to Bakshir or any other language (save the language from which the English word is derived, i.e. Arabic). No incoming links, stats below noise level. Si Trew (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOT a translation dictionary. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 00:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Paul Miller (American journalist)[edit]

Former article about a non-notable tech journalist, now incorrectly redirects to another unrelated article. No articles link to this redirect anymore. Chris Ssk talk 19:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep as an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Not incorrect. Si Trew (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep harmless, useful search term. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, but I'm not so sure this is harmless, since the former article was about a different person than the current target, and they are both American journalists. When the former subject was deemed not notable it was redirected to The Verge. Let's keep it but add a hatnote to The Verge at the target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I was about to add the hatnote, but on second thought, there's really not that much info on Paul Miller in the Verge article. Let's just leave it as is then. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I thought about that – whether external links might end up at the "wrong" article. But taking that line would imply that we could never retarget any redirect, nor move or delete any page, nor substantially alter its content. The remedy is for external sites to cultivate their own gardens, or use permalinks. Si Trew (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Tesla Electric Car[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 Tesla Motors per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This target should redirect to Tesla Motors (just like Tesla electric car is now) as that is clearly a primary topic, not Mr. Tesla's hoax. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 17:45, 27 March 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 space programs[edit]

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_21#Space_program. I'd combine these if it weren't for the five-day separation in dates. Do whatever we do for Space program'. Si Trew (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


Ben-Ami Kadish[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 moved by Ricky81682; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Ben-ami Kadish needs to move to Ben-Ami Kadish because that is the name (capitalization) used consistently in the article. Anomalocaris (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I've proposed CSD WP:G6 for this. No significant history. Si Trew (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Closing note: @Anomalocaris: in future, you can request this sort of move using the {{db-move}} speedy deletion template. Add this to the top of the redirect: {{db-move|1=PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE|2=REASON FOR MOVE}}. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:40, 29 March 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.

Miss february 1990[edit]

Delete! Playboy has featured its centerfold since the first issue in February 1953, but of over 800 possible "Miss (month year)" Wikipedia articles or redirects, this is the only one; if undeleted this redirect could prompt a well-meaning editor to create the entire series starting Miss February 1953, and I don't believe we want that; the capitalization is wrong; nothing links here; even the target article does not use the term "Miss February"; created in error; Delete! —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

  • No opinion - I WP:DEPRODded because WP:PROD is only supposed to be used for articles, not because I oppose deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:XY. Could be Miss Feb of any number of publications. In any case isn't it "Playmate of the Month"? So WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, too. Si Trew (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • delete per Si Trew --Lenticel (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - This unused redirect under consideration here is misspelled, and it could refer to a variety of things, since I don't know how many Miss February 1990s there are out there. Guy1890 (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Bubixaqle[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedily deleted by User:Shirt58 as WP:G7 author requests deletion. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't figure out what this is from my searches. Whatever it is, I believe either WP:R#D5 (nonsense) or WP:RFOREIGN is sufficient. -- Tavix (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

As the creator, I can't recall why I made this redirect. Delete per nom and sorry for any inconvenience.– Gilliam (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete it looks vaguely Chinese to me -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:31, 27 March 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.

March 26[edit]

Real World Cup[edit]

I don't see how the FIFA World Cup would be any more "real" (or Royal) than any other World Cup. -- Tavix (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Chicken amine[edit]

Iranian folklore has no mention of "chicken amine" or anything about chickens, so the redirect seems unhelpful at this time. The article that User:Jac16888 replaced with the redirect was unintelligible over stretches of more than a few words, fundamentally useless, and hadn't been fixed in the few weeks since its creation. Therefore, despite the dePRODding conjecture of User:Kvng that "improvement is possible", I feel that WP:TNT would apply by now if the page had been left as an article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete I'm thinking the now hidden article might even be a hoax, and definitely not written well enough to use. The redirect makes no sense either as there is nothing at the target about this. Legacypac (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing; not at target. Or just possibly retarget to Heterocyclic amine formation in meat. Si Trew (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hundreds-and-thousands[edit]

Not sure per WP:XY, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Both targets mention both "hundreds and thousands" and "hundreds-and-thousands"; nonpareils also has "hundreds & thousands" (not linked) in the infobox, but Sprinkles, which it currently targets, doesn't use the "&" form. Hundreds & Thousands is an album; Hundreds And Thousands and Hundreds-And-Thousands are red.

I've cross-refed the merge discussion (at Talk:Nonpareils#Merger_proposal_with_Sprinkles_and_Muisjes) with this one. Personally I'd merge the two targets and split off chocolate nonpareils, but it doesn't look like the merge discussion will finish any time soon. Si Trew (talk) 06:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment. Hundreds-and-thousands (-> sprinkles) is at Glossary_of_British_terms_not_widely_used_in_the_United_States as "coloured sugar sprinkles used for dessert decoration (US: sprinkles, non-pareils, jimmies)". (non-pareils -> nonpareils.) Si Trew (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not American. British English also has "sugar strands". American English has "jimmies". To clarify, the "new one" was created at 100s & 1000s, not hundreds & thousands. If the pictures at both the targets are what you recognise as 100s & 1000s, why would you prefer one article over the other? Si Trew (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I have fond childhood memories of Sprinkles which came in a container from the cake baking section - Nonpareils used to come on white chocolate buttons which were never my favourite. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate choose one and turn it into a disambiguation page for the two current targets shown, and all other uses (such as "many", as in the first two choices found at many) ; and redirect all the others to the new disambiguation page. Also indicate hundred thousand in the see also. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

There are three issues: typography, lexicography, and the culinary basics. It is clear how to settel all these for the best:

  • for typography, have an article with title (exactly, mind) Hundreds and thousands (disambiguation) and list every last variation, capitalization, and/&, punctuation. DO the usual with music albums, book titles, movies, anything else, and links.
  • for the lexicography, give the article now called "Nonpareils" (which is definitely useless) the title Sprinkled confectionery nad begin by stating that this means a range of products known by a variety of names, then list all the names. Yes, ALL of them, and I mean the other European ones too because this is international cookery, people!! So: sprinkles, nonpareils (North America only), hundreds and thousands (British at least, with spelling & punctuation variations perhaps in a later note not here), strösseli (just in Wikipedia Finland is not enough to justify giving this but paste it into Google, click Images and just see the images you get!!), Muisjes (the aniseed core can be explained below), and any other terms by which English speakers may come across multicoloured sugar-coated stuff to be sprinkled on desserts or anything with sweet or sugary content as part of a fun sweet dish or snack.
  • for the culinary stuff, base the new on the existing page called "Nonpareils"; integrate the page now called "Sprinkles" because the only difference in the items discussed is that the latter are described as "strands"... Here some may quibble because the two definitive shapes are distinct, where the "Sprinkles" shape is the one in the top photo in the box called "rainbow sprinkles". But the 2nd photo there has much fatter, often shorter coated sugar particles that are often not geometrically distinct from the "nonpareils" in the photo in the box top right on that page though literalists might argue that these are by nature spherical and with a glossy finish. That is really just a detail. Then integrate also the page Muisjes.

92.21.221.68 (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  • That is all probably better off stated at the merge discussion, since it doesn't really affect the redirects. But I think we should convert to a DAB per 70.51, at Hundreds and thousands, and retarget all the others to it. Hundreds and thousands (disambiguation) can then be created as a {{R to disambiguation page}}; to put the DAB itself at (disambiguation) would imply a primary topic, which is exactly what we do not have right now. (If we did, we could just redirect all of these to that topic.) Si Trew (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've created a draft DAB below the redirect at Hundreds and thousands. I don't think we need list every permutation of spelling. Si Trew (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Prick[edit]

IMHO a pointless redirect as it only redirects to WP:DICK and then DICK redirects to Meta, Personally I don't think every swear word needs to be created and redirected to Meta, And the only wikilink to Prick is my talkpage. (The only reason this was created was so the creator could link the word and then kindly call me a prick [4]), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 04:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as there are already plenty of ways to insult other users here without another tool. Legacypac (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as a non-expletive version of "dick" -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes but not every swear word needs to be redirected back to Meta, WP:DICK is more than sufficient, –Davey2010Talk 16:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
"WP:DICK" is insufficient, since some people have an aversion to writing expletives due to having some sort of upbringing that is insufficient to use Wikipedia if DICK is the only choice -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:DORK WP:TWIT WP:JACKASS WP:ASS WP:PUSSY which just shows gender bias in WP insults. Legacypac (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Ha ha. I don't think twit is specific to one sex though, at least in British English; WP:TWAT, maybe. Si Trew (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Twit is not gender specific at all, I just think it is an excellent adjective for some people. Legacypac (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral per 70.51.46.39. Doesn't do any harm. I would be at a weak keep as well, but it was created recently and used to make a point, which makes a not very beneficial redirect even less valuable in my opinion.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - This seems to have no constructive worth whatsoever. And if we do keep this, I wonder if we'll see WP:FartInYourGeneralDirection and WP:MotherWasAHamster surface. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as harmless. SSTflyer 13:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete WP:G10 and trout the creator. A clear and unambiguous personal attack ([5]). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedily delete per WP:G10, personal attack. Si Trew (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. I declined speedy deletion, it does not even come close to satisfying the requirements of CSD G10, as there is no identifiable person or subject attacked on this page. Even if it was created for a nefarious purpose, that does not rise to CSD G10. Let this RfD proceed to conclusion. Safiel (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Further comment Not too long ago, I was called a dumb**** (uncensored) in an edit summary. No action was taken against that editor, other than a civility warning. That would be the appropriate action here. The editor who created the redirect and used it as an uncivil jab should be formally warned for civility and the redirect deleted. This was simple incivility, nothing more. Safiel (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Simon Lee Gallery[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedily retargeted to List of artists represented by the Simon Lee Gallery by nominator User:Legacypac. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 07:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Xnamespace redirect from an illogical move of a decent article back into the namespace of a user that departed years ago. The subject reps a long list of bluelinked artists, which strongly suggests the gallery is notable by association. Legacypac (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

feel free to improve the article so it can be moved. As a stale userspace draft it will never help anyone. Legacypac (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@Legacypac: I've moved the user space article to the list aforesaid and tidied it up a bit. That's still an unreferenced article, but I think it's reasonable to retarget this to there as {{R to list}} or some such. Si Trew (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I've retargeted Simon Lee Gallery to the new list article. This RfD is now moot. Legacypac (talk) 05:36, 26 March 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.

DRIBBLESOFBLUE[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedily deleted by User:RHaworth per WP:G7 author requests deletion. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete per WP:R#D6, as it is a WP:CNR out of article space. -- Tavix (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - learned something new. Still say delete. Legacypac (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. DRIBBLESOFBLUE was an error in being created in article space, not WP space, and I should know, as I did it. My apologies to all for not cleaning that up earlier. I will proceed to delete it myself, per WP:G7. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:13, 26 March 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.

Poochie dog[edit]

Might be confused with a type of dog breed. Music1201 (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak retarget both to Poochie (The Simpsons), which I found on the DAB at Poochie (disambiguation) → Poochie, which I found on the DAB at Pooch. But at Poochie, there is only one entry that is not a dog (the Peanuts character), so that is a good if not perfect fit, too – we can split the DAB into sections for dogs and others. Si Trew (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've taken the liberty to add Poochie the dog to the nom, with the section they both target. Si Trew (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Poochie -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep/Retarget I don't get the logic that a redirect to an informative article might lead to confusion with a type of dog breed. I would have thought such confusion would result from the lack of such a link. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
So which is it, keep or retarget? If retarget, where? Si Trew (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
It is a Keep which is the most important part; but I worry that if someone feels the Retarget is the better option...and someone feels it is not...my keep vote will be used to argue that age old fallacy that there is no consensus to move. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Nobody has suggested moving anything, and an argument that there is no consensus to move is not in itself a fallacy. Sometimes I find it difficult to follow your logic. Si Trew (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

March 25[edit]

Secretary of the General People's Committee[edit]

Incorrect title; corrected title is at General Secretary of the General People's Committee. --Neve–selbert 09:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. Both have been used. Sites such as rulers.org, which seem to be regarded as authoritative on other matters here (whether acknowledged or not) use "Secretary of the General People's Committee." Unless there is another country that uses this title somewhere, there is no reason to change. —Sesel (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't really make sense: it's not an incorrect name for the list. (Or, it is waaaay incorrect.) Si Trew (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

dynamic instability[edit]

Delete, with ideally creation of new stub or DAB. The notion of dynamic instability is far broader than the business of microtubules. It just so happens that is a famous example. This is a general phenomenon occurring in nonlinear dynamics and dynamical systems. I think at least a stub/DAB page with links to various article sections is warranted. As it stands now the redirect is too limiting and potentially confusing (e.g. I read an article about dynamic instability ecology [6], and when I enter the phrase into WP I get taken straight to a page on cellular biology). Here is a list of research publications that discuss dynamic instability and have nothing to do with microtubules [7] SemanticMantis (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. If nothing else mentions dynamic instability, there is nothing to DAB. (Anyway, isn't instability by definition dynamic? What would be static instability?) Si Trew (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
— it would be another name for convective available potential energy, apparently. Si Trew (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - While the terminology is broad and relates to multiple fields, we still have what appears to be a primary topic by far. I don't doubt that we could have other pages created, possible hatnotes put in place, and so on in the future. We'll see on that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep – if and when another article is created where it makes sense to have a redirect from the same name, then we can convert the redirect into a disambiguation page. Per SimonTrew, right now there is nothing to disambiguate. Boghog (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Create a DAB - It's true that "dynamic instability" is a popular meme among the structural biologists and has produced a recent flurry of MT papers. But dynamic instability is an old and important concept in fluid mechanics: we have the category Category:Fluid dynamic instability, it is mentioned in Instability#Fluid instabilities where the microtubule redirect is inappropriate, and in Atmospheric instability#Forms. The term is also used in aeronautical engineering, for instance it is discussed in Aeroelasticity#Flutter. All aerodynamic and hydrodynamic instabilities are dynamic instabilities. Disambiguation seems needed. --Mark viking (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Note This redirect was not tagged for deletion. I've just tagged it. Please do not close until 7 days after the timestamp on my signature. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Easter basket[edit]

I think, that in ENwiki would be new article called as Easter basket. This subject is developed in theese articles. Relevan informations there are also for example in pl:Święconka. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget the first' to Easter Bunny (as the second goes), mentioned in lede of that but only buried further down in easter egg.
It's wholly encouraged to convert a redirect to an article, it doesn't have to come here first. There's no case for a WP:REDLINK delete because there is information at the target. The singular form is tagged with {{R with possibilities}}) already. Si Trew (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Reintroduction[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

"To put among or between others again" isn't exclusive to species (e.g. a product can be reintroduced). —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete if any of these were appropriate redirects that target would be named after one of them. Legacypac (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - ... Well reintroduction can mean anything....., Anywho pointless redirects that should've wiped the first time!. –Davey2010Talk 04:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all per previous discussion. Reintroduction was the title of this article since about 2006 and still gets a whole lot of traffic. We owe it a hatnote at least if there is a more appropriate target. The others have hits above noise level as well. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Ya but are people finding what they are looking for with those hits? Legacypac (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all. As far as I can tell, there are two definitions of the term "reintroduction." First, you have the common-sense dictionary definition (i.e. "to introduce something again"), but per WP:NOTDIC, we don't have an entry in the encyclopedia for the dictionary definition. Second, there is the definition that refers to the reintroduction of animal species. Because we don't include dictionary definitions in this encyclopedia, I don't think it will be a surprise to direct readers to Species reintroduction. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Reintroduction as the original name redirect from a page move, a large number of legitimate incoming links, many page views, and a good match to the target article name.
Delete From best to worst: Reintroduce (3 legit incoming links) Reintroduced (4 legit incoming links) Reintroducing (2 legit incoming links) and Reintroductions (1 legit incoming link, and half the page views). The first three average ~1 hit per day, and the last one has a half-a-view per day. Changing the incoming links to point to Species reintroduction will probably drop the page views to about zero. (In fact I'll make those edits right now.) And as Legacypac comments, if someone types those terms in directly then I am not so confident they are even sending people where they want to go. Alsee (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all- at least until we have appropriated all the knowledge from these documents into the "Reintroduction of Species" article, if the articles other than Reintroduction pertain to this form of conservation. It seems blasphemous to the very notion of 'shared knowledge' if we do not accrue as much as possible and add it to this one article, before teh articles' deletion. I am very sure, having edited Reintroduction, that there is a substantial amount to save- which subsequently I cannot access if the current action of 'redirection' is put in place. SuperTah (talk) 7:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
SuperTah, everything at Reintroduction was moved to Species reintroduction, and there is no content at the other titles. They were created as redirects. Alsee (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all until we have some evidence upsetting the notion that these point to the primary topic of the terms. bd2412 T 12:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, plausible search term. The only way Wikipedia could help people who use these terms but aren't looking for species reintroduction is to point them to Wiktionary, but that kind of thing is frowned upon. Siuenti (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all, per Notecardforfree. Unless someone can find a different encyclopedic concept/extant article these could go to? I don't see anything other than conservation biology/species reintroduction in this google scholar search [8] (there are a few uses of the regular English word). SemanticMantis (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all. I think in the past some of the links have been from things not meaning species reintroduction, but that's the fault of the editor in not checking the target of a link. The only other meaning of it that we cover is Reintroduction of episcopacy which targets Restoration (Scotland). Si Trew (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

March 24[edit]

Canon Sinuum[edit]

Since Schwilgue says that "Canon Sinuum" is ambiguous, this redirect should not be here per WP:XY. There are three options: either the target article can be moved back as a primary topic and an article about another "Canon Sinuum" can be created, this redirect can be turned into a disambiguation page with another "Canon Sinuum" article created, or this redirect can be turned into a primary topic article about another "Canon Sinuum". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Move the target article over the redirect unless we have coverage on another notable topic of this name. --BDD (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Move the target article over the redirect. I cannot see that any ambiguities have yet to crystalised in our wikispace. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hulless Oatis[edit]

Delete. Implausible typo. Presumably "Hullless Oat is" was intended. Also note the redirect is missing an "l" (easier to see if it's hyphenated as "hull-less oat") Plantdrew (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Monuments destroyed by war[edit]

This unused (0.08 average daily views) redirect is counterintuitive as it targets a broader topic to a much narrower one—the equivalent of redirecting Wars to List of wars involving Iraq, for example. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The target article is clearly too narrow for the term. Is the proposed alternative too broad?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think that the proposed alternative is too broad, and any list of structures destroyed "by war" is too open to debate about its contents (would it include structures purposefully demolished for security reasons, for example? Would they have to be "official" wars?) Si Trew (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of destroyed heritage. Is the proposed alternative too broad? No. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of destroyed heritage. The current redirect moves from general to specific. Faizan (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sufferance[edit]

A Neelix redirected, nominated for speedy but denied. Still should be deleted, since sufferance and endurance aren't really the same thing, and never have been. The only reference to this word that is actually a link is in the article Seven virtues, where it is a synonym for patience, a completely different concept. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as nonsense though the words are synonyms, they are different concepts.

suf·fer·ance noun 1.absence of objection rather than genuine approval; toleration. "Charles was only here on sufferance" 2.archaic the suffering or undergoing of something bad or unpleasant

en·dur·ance noun 1. the fact or power of enduring an unpleasant or difficult process or situation without giving way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 March 2016‎

Comment: Thank you to Oiyarbepsy for notifying me. I declined the speedy as there were incoming links and also because I noted that 'sufferance' is mentioned in the Endurance article as a related term and that Wikitionary (linked in the Endurance article) describe sufferance, among other things, as an archaic meaning of endurance. On that basis, I felt it better for a discussion to be had. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Mélaleuca linariifolia[edit]

Delete. Is the accent intended to indicate pronunciation? Scientific names don't contain accents. Nobody is likely to search for a term that contains a character that is difficult to produce on a standard keyboard. Plantdrew (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target.
I don't know what you mean by "standard keyboard", but on my laptop's US keyboard, on which I use Windows US International layout, I type diacritical marks rather a lot as the apostrophe and quote keys act as compose keys – although I'd be unlikely to for this. And AltGr+E produces it on many standard keyboard layouts: British layouts, for example.
But in any case, the search engine ignores diacritical marks except when two or more topics differ only by them. Si Trew (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Simply because it was required once. 3700-3709. Its kind of ridiculous when one element of the project is systematically deleting redirects without reference to that that element of the project that is systematically creating them. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Si Trew. It's a stretch to say it was ever "required" given that WikiProject Red Link Recovery created it based on some type of data dump or report. We are not bound by the fact that someone at one time inserted what amounts to an implausible typo in an article. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment the diff above linked by User:Bosley John Bosley is for something completely different, Ménétries. The mention is farther down in the report, at section 3700 - 3709. Si Trew (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
    I had noticed, but thank you for providing the correct link. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    That wasn't meant specifically in reply to you, sorry; outdenting. Si Trew (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Rock lobseter[edit]

Implausible misspelling. I propose deletion.

Note that if consensus is to keep, this should regardless probably be retargeted to Spiny lobster, to which rock lobster points. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep/Retarget Plausible misspelling. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as an unused, implausible misspelling (numbers don't lie), and please let's not go down the path of creating Rock lobsater, Rock lobsbter, Rock lobscter, Rock lobsdter, and so on. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, implausible per nom. Not a plausible typographic error (one that a user would be likely to mis-type) nor a plausible spelling error (one that a person with less-than-perfect grasp of English would be likely to make). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Etherium[edit]

Most people searching for Etherium will probably be looking for a video game by that name, not a public blockchain platform called Ethereum. Dodi 8238 (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

What makes you think that? We don't have an article for the video game (that I can find, anyway). If we did, we could just move it over and hatnote. In the meantime, without prejudice, I've tagged it as {{R from misspelling}}. Si Trew (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
The thought came after another user commented on the Ethereum talk page that Etherium shouldn't redirect there. I googled "Etherium" and most of the first page results are about the game that's developed by Tindalos Interactive. Searching "Etherium" on Google News, on the other hand, does give support to the idea that Etherium is a misspelling of Ethereum, at least in the blogosphere. I guess it's OK not to change the redirect as long as there isn't an article about either the game or the company that develops it. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

NO NAME[edit]

Delete per WP:XY. Note: has history. SSTflyer 12:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Redirect to No Name. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • A retarget to No Name makes sense. "No Name" only appears in the prose of AKB48 once, and not in CAPS. Retargeting to the dab would satisfy the principle of least astonishment. -- Tavix (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to No Name -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Regarget as above, although deleting it would have the same effect. Si Trew (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

DellenDirecto[edit]

No relation with the Spanish language. SSTflyer 09:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment I don't think that WP:RFOREIGN applies here, but delete per WP:R#DELETE #8. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 08:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Not Spanish (or any other Latinate language) as far as I can tell (I tried variations such as "Dell en directo", "Dell'en directo", and so on). We don't have Dell Direct or similar. Si Trew (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ultimate Boot CD[edit]

Not the same product, despite the name (see [9]) I notice that this was an article before, but it was better to delete it rather to redirect it into something unrelated. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment The target article has now been prodded. If that article gets deleted, the redirect will also be deleted per WP:CSD#G8. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Marcus the Wise[edit]

It doesn't appear that anyone ever called him this. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete, I couldn't find anything. Si Trew (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Progressive conservatism[edit]

Are these really synonyms? "Progressive conservatism" probably sounds like an oxymoron to most, but other pages like Red Tory make me think there's a concept here. If it's synonymous with compassionate conservatism, it should probably be mentioned there. BDD (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget maybe to Progressive Conservative Party dab page, as the leading proponents of self-styled progressive conservatism (but really just the outcome of an opportunistic scheme to bolster the failing Conservative Party by poaching the Progressive Premier of Manitoba) for the better part of a century. Anyway, in Canada "progressive conservatism" refers to whatever the parties listed on that dab page are up to, and elsewhere I suspect it's political gobbledygook. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Red Tory as the strain of conservatism tempered by progressivism is the mark of Red Tories. Or retarget to Progressive Conservative or Progressive Conservative Party as the adjectival form. It should NOT target compassionate conservative ; it can become a disambiguation page between the three. I prefer "Red Tory", with hatnotes to the other two. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Progressive Conservative since that disambiguation page mentions not just the general ideology of being a "Red Tory" but also the political parties in various places CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the dab as it can be ambiguous. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@Champion: Two dabs have been suggested: Progressive Conservative Party and Progressive Conservative. Could you please specify which one you prefer? -- Tavix (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Class not registered[edit]

WP:NOTGUIDE - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete does not make sense, there are many things this could refer to -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Extreme vagueness CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, in the absence of List of OLE errors, List of COM errors, REGDB_E_CLASSNOTREG or similar. Wikipedia is probably not the place to search for Windows error messages, but even if someone did, they'd likely be disappointed at the current target, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Si Trew (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Infobox, WP:INFOBOX, etc.[edit]

Retarget to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes and its talk page, respectively. People expect "Wikipedia:Common_wikijargon_here" titles and "WP:COMMON_WIKIJARGON_HERE" shortcuts to go to the guideline (or policy, or major essay if neither) page that defines the topic and how it's done here, not to a wikiproject page. The standard-ish naming convention for wikiproject shortcuts that need to disambiguate from guidance pages is WP:WPFOO, so WP:WPINFOBOX is probably what the wikiproject should advertise as its shortcut (and it's talk page is already using the irregular "WT:INFOWATCH" for some reason, but whatever). People are especially likely to try WP:Infobox or WP:INFOBOX (or the plural versions) for the infobox guideline, not knowing it's an MOS page in particular (which already has the WP:INFOBOXES shortcut, and MOS:INFOBOX, MOS:INFOBOXES as well).
[Yes, the wikiproject has been notified of the discussion. No, this is not some "anti-infobox" thing; I've created several and work on many frequently, and defend their inclusion in articles. No, this isn't some "anti-wikiproject" thing; I've started many, and am drafting two more, on the English language, and domestic animal breeds, and I'm in quite a number of them.]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget the singular ones, Keep the plural onesall.changed Si Trew (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Hatnote as necessary. It's unfortunate that WikiProjects and Wikipedia share a namespace. Si Trew (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to the MOS page, and add a hatnote there pointing to the WikiProject. Project guidelines trump WikiProject content, and the guideline receives about 3.5 times more views than the WikiProject page. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

March 23[edit]

List of features new to Windows XP[edit]

The targets of these redirects are not list articles, as stated by Codename Lisa in the reason for reverting the moves. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep all - it's hard to imagine that someone looking for a list of features new to Windows 7 would be disappointed by being pointed at an article discussing the features which were added when Windows 7 was released, and it's extremely unlikely that we would have a list alongside this article. Frankly I think the issue of whether or not this page qualifies as a list or not is a bit of rampant pedantry, all in good faith of course but still unnecessary. Also note that the features removed are in lists: List of features removed in Windows 7 and so on. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Ivanvector. Steel1943 (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all harmless, useful search terms, @GeoffreyT2000: you have not provided a valid reason for deletion. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all. The search engine can handle this. Icanvector is right for the most but deleting them is just good sense. They are harmless though. But again, I haven't seen a harmful redirect yet. Fleet Command (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Plausible search terms, in line with other "list of ..." redirects. SSTflyer 13:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Jasmine van den Bogaerde, best known as Birdy[edit]

I don't think any reader would type this into the search box. sst✈ 10:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - unlikely search term. If someone knows the person's name, there's no need for them to continue typing the "best known as" part. Stats are near zero. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Walker Bush[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 Bush family. Thanks for the suggestion! (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete, no one is known simply as "Walker Bush." It also has the WP:XY problem as both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush use "Walker Bush" as part of their names. -- Tavix (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

  • There's a Walker Bush mentioned a couple times at Bush family, but he doesn't have an article. - Eureka Lott 04:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Bush family. That page pretty much covers it, and includes convenient links to the two presidents. sst✈ 08:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Bush family per SSTflyer, good find. Our discussions over similar Neelix redirects recently (not that this is one) have shown consensus for not keeping redirects from unusual selections of parts of a person's name (middle and last, first and middle, etc), plus the WP:XY problem. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Bush family is a good target. It also discusses the Bush connection to the Walker family, the reason they have "Walker" in their names. Consider it withdrawn. -- Tavix (talk) 15:35, 24 March 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.

March 22[edit]

ŞARAP[edit]

No affinity for Turkish. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Scooby scoobert doo[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) SSTflyer 10:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Laber□T 23:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I do feel that some people might search for this as some do believe this is his full name.Ilikeguys21 (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - No action/rationale given, and seems appropriate. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The article explains that in one episode, Scooby's parents reveal that his real name is "Scoobert." Scoobert Doo also directs readers to Scooby-Doo, and I ultimately think that the extra "Scooby" at the front is harmless (see also Henry Jones, Jr., which directs readers to Indiana Jones). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep As no rationale was given for deletion, this should be immediately speedy kept. Also, redirect are cheap. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:45, 23 March 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.

Stewie Just said that[edit]

Laber□T 22:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  • This can be deleted if you want. I should've figured no body would search this anyway.Ilikeguys21 (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, helpful to our readers. — Cirt (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Cirt, can you elaborate? What does this mean? Know Your Meme has a page on it, but it's listed as rejected. --BDD (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - We don't need a redirect to a TV show character from individual jokes from that TV show when the article doesn't even mention it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Also, if someone knows this joke, then they know Family Guy well enough to know Stewie's surname, so could just search for his actual name. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

'Microsoft Corp[edit]

Unlikely search term, as there is only one quote (who would search with quotes anyway?) - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete Unlikely typo that is not useful. Meters (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Seems like a typo then creating a page, but regardless of where it came from it doesn't seem at all necessary. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete We don't need to account for every typo someone might possibly make. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

North Atlantic Terrorist Organisation[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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Not a valid synonym. Just a derogatory redirect that someone made up one day years ago. Edgeweyes (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete G10 attack page. Meters (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Same as above, and also not used by any reputable source 24.192.250.124 (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as offensive/abusive redirect --Lenticel (talk) 00:36, 23 March 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.

Giant Panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca)/Catalogs[edit]

Delete, redirect makes no sense. There aren't any "catalogs" mentioned at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

McKinleynomics[edit]

Delete this redirect as it is an irrelevant Simpsons joke not mentioned in the target. MelanieLamont (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of feminism[edit]

This redirect is misleading. "Criticism of feminism" is not exactly the same as "ideological opposition to feminism". Criticizing feminism does not require being antifeminist. Delete to encourage article creation. sst✈ 16:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Feminism#Critique of feminism and anti-feminism as {{r to section}}. While critique ≠ criticism in all cases, the content seems to fit alright in this case.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - While the nominator's point is a good one -- it's certainly not the same subject -- it does seem like a likely search term and the most appropriate target. The content of the "Critique of feminism and anti-feminism" section of the feminism article is more or less just antifeminism (and indeed points to that as the main article). In other words it doesn't actually offer much by way of criticism outside of antifeminism aside from mentioning a few people that criticize feminism while identifying as feminist (at least some of whom are often lumped in with antifeminism). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget. The solution is not to create a POV fork. Antifeminism shouldn't be the main article for Feminism#Critique_of_feminism_and_anti-feminism either. Split Feminism#Critique_of_feminism_and_anti-feminism into Feminism#Critique_of_feminism (without a main article) and Feminism#anti-feminism (with its own main article) and redirect to Feminism#Critique_of_feminism Mduvekot (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, current target is fine for our readers and editors to learn more about the extremely closely related topic, and per above it contains a good deal of information on the subject in the article it is pointing to at present. — Cirt (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Mduvekot. Kaldari (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to section per Godsy. There's already a {{main|anti-feminism}} at that section. Si Trew (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per above. MB298 (talk) 04:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

List of ICC Champions Trophy records[edit]

Non notable redirect with nothing linking to it. Qed237 (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep It actually redirects to ICC Champions Trophy#Records which list records, therefore it is a sensible redirect to a subtopic. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Without prejudice, I've added the section to the nom, and added {{R to section}} to the page, and courtesy comment at the target per WP:RSECT. Si Trew (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

ICC Champions Trophy hosts[edit]

Non notable redirect with nothing linking to it. Qed237 (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep Redirects are cheap, and it does redirect to a sections mentioning who the hosts nations were. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Without prejudice, I've added the section title to the nom, tagged the page as {{R to section}}, and commented at the target per WP:RSECT. The section could just be called "History", though. Si Trew (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

MVY[edit]

Propose retargeting to Martha's Vineyard. I don't think "MVY" is a suitable WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to the airport. sst✈ 11:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I looked around, but I couldn't find anything in the Manual of Style (or any project-specific manuals of style) about conventions for International Air Transport Association airport codes. Because "MVY" is the code for Martha's Vineyard Airport, I think it's entirely plausible that readers will be looking for the airport. We may want to consider establishing some sort of uniform guideline about how to deal with airport abbreviations, though I think that most discussions about airport abbreviations will need to be decided on a case-by-case basis. LAX, for example, is commonly associated with Los Angeles International Airport, but readers who search for JFK will likely want to find information about John F. Kennedy, rather than John F. Kennedy International Airport. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as is, I believe it is more likely that readers looking "MVY" will want the airport, and it is connected to the regular Marhta's Vineyard article so potential to WP:Astonish is low. MelanieLamont (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - {{R from airport code}}. I'm not terribly convinced about primary redirect either, but I'm less convinced that this needs to be fixed. Per MelanieLamont. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per both of the above. In most cases it seems like the airport code should point to the airport rather than the city/area it's in (unless there's a dab of course). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep since MVY (disambiguation) doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate not only is this an airport, it is also an airline code for VIM-Aviaservice, and a language code for Maiya language -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment I have mocked up a dab page at the redirect for examination -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
      • I am fine with a note to the page on the Martha's Vineyard Airport article. I believe it is still the primary topic, because the Maiya and VIM articles are stubby and do not get much views. MelanieLamont (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hera Pheri 3 (2016 film)[edit]

Useless redirect. It redirects to an un-disambiguated title. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 06:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

IPhone 5SE[edit]

Should this be retargeted to iPhone SE? sst✈ 05:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:XY. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I disagree with deletion. "iPhone 5SE" was a rumored name for the iPhone SE. sst✈ 08:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I also disagree. After all, the SE is essentially an iteration of the 5S; I can imagine a handful of people typing "iPhone 5SE" instead of "iPhone SE". Philip Terry Graham 08:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to iPhone SE. It's a plausible mistake to make per above. -- Tavix (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. In addition to this redirect having an WP:XY issue, there are other issues. For one, the redirect is somewhat erroneous to a point where it could be misleading since Apple Inc. has a specific way they number their iPhone product, and this redirect could be thought to redirect to a phone in the "iPhone 5" series, which it doesn't, nor did the iPhone 5 series have an "SE" version; this redirect could make readers believe that the iPhone SE is part of the "iPhone 5" series when it is actually part of the "iPhone 6" series. (Speaking of which, I think I'll create IPhone 6SE now.) Also, this redirect reflects some of the criticism that some people have seem to have stated about the target that may not be encyclopedic: There is criticism that the target is an iPhone 5S case with iPhone 6S series hardware. Lastly, this could potentially be an erroneous title for the iPhone 5S anyways since a reader could think the redirect means "iPhone 5 Special Edition". For these reasons, it would be best to delete this redirect as erroneous, misleading and ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Dell.se[edit]

Implausible search terms, not an official or affiliated domain name. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Educational institution[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 reverse redirect. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 10:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:REDLINK We do not have a article on this general topic, similar to the Space program nomination. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Reverse the redirect. The article is about educational institutions, so it should be titled that way. -- Tavix (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Reverse the redirect per Tavix. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Reverse the redirect, as above. Types of educational institution also targets there (among others); I don't know why people think that "types of x" needs to be "types of xs". Si Trew (talk) 23:41, 26 March 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.

SIP COMMUNICATOR[edit]

Fails WP:RCAPS. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:RCAPS is a "common outcome", not a policy or guideline. A redirect can neither "pass" nor "fail" it. Si Trew (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

March 21[edit]

بیماری کرون[edit]

per Wikipedia:RFOREIGN as its a common concept Igotrekt (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOT a translation dictionary, no affinity for any particular language. --- Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. General topic with no particular affinity for any language -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Samsung(Name)[edit]

While the target does mention the etymology of the name Samsung, the "(name)" disambiguator is usually reserved for anthroponymy articles. There doesn't seem to be any notable people with the name, and it's got a couple formatting errors. It's best to delete this. -- Tavix (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The formatting issues alone are reason enough to delete. - Eureka Lott 14:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:G8, pages dependent on a nonexistent page.
Samsung (disambiguation) was deleted on 18 March 2016 by User:Graeme Bartlett as WP:G6, since it was a redirect to something other than a DAB. This title was originally moved to that target (in 2007), at that time this was a {{R from page move}}. In 2008, I think, the disambiguation page was changed to a redirect (I have asked for undeletion to check the history to be sure, but clues for bot-fixed double redirects tend to indicate so), and the target was moved in 2011 from Samsung Group. So with the bot fixes to avoid double redirects, it escapes the speedy deletion criterion of being a redirect dependent on a nonexistent page (WP:G8, was WP:R1), but that is essentially what it is. Si Trew (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Warning: Audit trail follows; not very interesting. A deletion discussion of April 2007, here, recommended this be moved to Samsung (disambiguation) (presumably without leaving a redirect; one !vote says "delete the redirect from Samsung(Name)"). The page Samsung(Name) does appear to have been moved to Samsung (disambiguation) on 4 May 2007; this page redirected there until 7 July 2008 when a bot fixed the double redirect so it went to Samsung Group: I presume that at that time, Samsung (disambiguation) was converted from a DAB into a redirect (I have asked for an undelete to check this for sure, but the bot-fixes give strong circumstantial evidence i.e. clues that it is the case).
At that time, Samsung Group was the article that is now at Samsung, it being moved there on 12 May 2011 by User:David Levy, who changed the target for this at the same time (rather than leave it to a bot: nothing wrong with that).
Samsung (disambiguation) was deleted on 18 March 2016 by User:Graeme Bartlett with the deletion remark "G6: This page has a "(disambiguation)" qualifier that's not redirecting to a disambiguation". Nothing should have linked to it by that time; certainly right now it has no links beyond this discussion.
In all this time Samsung(Name) has been following the target around like a stalker, just because nobody acted on the (implied and express) consensus to delete the d—d thing in 2007 after moving it. I presume the aim was to disambiguate uses such as Samsung Town, but that in the end it was felt that these were evident enough in the target article not to warrant disambiguation (Samsung Town being a company town.) Si Trew (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
16:50, 17 March 2016 . . Tavix (146 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G6). (TW))
15:45, 22 October 2011 . . 171.4.132.109 (38 bytes) ({{R from merge}})
20:49, 12 May 2011 . . David Levy m (21 bytes) (←Redirected page to Samsung)
18:40, 30 June 2008 . . Propaniac (27 bytes) (fixing double-redirect)
18:39, 30 June 2008 . . Propaniac (21 bytes) (redirect to Samsung; there do not appear to be any articles about any other meaning of Samsung and thus a disambig page is not necessary)
This seems to confirm that indeed it was converted to a redirect (by User:Propaniac) as unnecessary; I do think therefore this falls under the same hammer. Si Trew (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as there never was useful content to make any kind of article, and it does sound like a useless redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

ROH's Untitled PPVs[edit]

Delete as outdated. Since these PPV's all have titles, the redirects are incorrect and misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete these are like 9-10 years old and were only untitled for a short amount of time, no one would search for them on Wikipedia - Maybe on Google as trivia.  MPJ-US  11:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yaoo[edit]

Delete per WP:XY, this could equally likely be a typo for a few things. Since the typo would involve someone leaving out an "h," why not a "z" for Yazoo? Or perhaps someone was looking for Yao and held the "o" key a little too long? -- Tavix (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Cherophobia (phobia)[edit]

Unnecessary disambiguation in title (we already have a redirect to the same page at cherophobia). This title was created due to a misguided page move. Gnome de plume (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - I think this can be deleted under WP:G6 or WP:G7. For future, there is a section for requesting that undiscussed moves be reverted at WP:RM. An admin can move the page back without leaving a redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Cherophobia" in the target's lede is tagged as {{cn}}; searching around there seems little RS for it, and I'm not the only one to think so. I don't know how much that comes under WP:RFD#D8 "a novel or very obscure synonym" since we can reliably say that it is used unreliably. this says that "The origin of the word chero is Greek (meaning to rejoice; gaiety or happiness) and phobia is Greek (meaning fear)"; Wiktionary has its etymology as "probably" from Ancient Greek χαρά (chará), meaning "joy, pleasure", and -phobia, and notes that it "mainly appears in novelty word lists". Si Trew (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Space program[edit]

retarget, not every space program is run by a government Prisencolin (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Spaceflight. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. If we don't have an article entitled "X", it makes sense for "X" to redirect to "List of X", but in this case List of space programs redirects to the list of government space agencies, so we redirect Space program to that list because we'd have a double redirect otherwise. Unless you want to bring List of space programs to RFD also, it looks like the best choice is to suggest renaming the target list and expanding its scope to include non-governmental space programs. Nyttend (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete It is a bad name, which implies there is one, single monolithic space program. There is no such thing, and I can't think of an appropriate target to redirect it to. Plus, it omits private space programs. If this were the 1950s or 1960s, and Wikipedia were only concerned with the United States, the name would be appropriate (but then the target list would not exist.) I don't think anything worthwhile is lost by deleting it. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget at suggested above. My first choice is Spaceflight, second is Space policy. Gnome de plume (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. Odd to have a redirect target an article about a subject that doesn't even accurately describe the subject of the list article. (Yes, I believe that List of space programs should be deleted as well.) In my opinion, there is currently no subject that has either been recommended thus far or that I can find that accurately describes this subject, especially given that space isn't exclusive to humans. Steel1943 (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've Listed List of space programs at 27 March's log. I think we should do for that whatever we do for this. No objection if they are combined, but the listings are six days apart. Si Trew (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

IBM Canada Ltd[edit]

All not mentioned. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

In mainspace, IBM Canada Ltd is used only in Santanu Paul, piped as "IBM Canada Fellowship", and Corruption in Canada, piped as plain "IBM"; IBM Canada Limited is not used at all. IBM Canada is used in five biographies. All these uses are better served by redlinks. Si Trew (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Acer India[edit]

Not mentioned in target (Gee, there are a whole bunch of these!) - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Nokia Pakistan[edit]

Not mentioned at target. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

G00gl3[edit]

Not mentioned at satiric misspelling, and not official. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment I don't think leet-speak based spellings is satirical... -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, implausible search terms, stats are at bot levels. -- Tavix (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • De1337 - implausible. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • De1337 as implausible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Microsoft Pakistan[edit]

No mention of this at the target page. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep a Google search of this suggests that Microsoft has operations in Pakistan. This info should be added somewhere. --Prisencolin (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Someone searching for information on Microsoft's operations in Pakistan or Canada will not be helped by the target, making the redirect misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix. Steel1943 (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete both per WP:REDLINK, per Tavix and previous RfD discussions about country-specific redirects to targets that don't mention them. Plenty of other articles mention these specific entities, so to send to a target that doesn't mention them is WP:RFD#D2 confusing and harmfully inhibits a reader's casual search (e.g. I searched for "microsoft in canada" and "microsoft in pakistan" to avoid the automatic redirects). Si Trew (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Apple's[edit]

Vague search term, not sure if apple will do. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment this does not make sense to me. If kept, retarget to apple (disambiguation) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Ambiguous: It could used in regard to the fruit (e.g. "the apple's stem was broken") as well as the the company (e.g. "Apple's new IPhone was released yesterday"). There is no capitalization distinction as the first letter of a page title is always capitalized. The fruit would be the primary topic if it comes down to a keep/retarget consensus (WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT), though it's probably more commonly used in the other sense present day.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Redirects with 's are usually a piping shortcut. Instead of typing [[Apple Inc.|Apple's]], it's easier and more convenient to use the redirect. There's 10 mainspace incoming links, and it appears they all take advantage of this shortcut. As far as the word "apple's" (think about it separately from the word "apple"), I do think Apple Inc. is the primary topic. The fruit is rarely used in the possessive, although it's possible (eg: the apple's stem is broken). It's much more likely for the company to use this form (example from SpringBoard: "Apple's release of iPhone OS..."). -- Tavix (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Godsy. An expectation cannot be set for the reader that an "Apple" subject with the 's at the end always refers to the company when that is not what the article at the base name Apple is about. Steel1943 (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing per WP:XY. While it is used in the mainspace as a shortcut, the primary purpose of redirects is to help readers, not editors: the uses are not so numerous that fixing them would be onerous. It could equally go to Apple Corps (we are not bound by the decision in Apple Corps v Apple Computer). To suggest it should go to apple, like apples, is to suggest that our readers suffer from greengrocer's apostrophe; but perhaps I am comparing Apple's with Orange's. Si Trew (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Photo.jpg[edit]

I think that doing what File:Map.jpg or alike redirects do, is better than having it as a soft redirect. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 00:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Strong delete Will be harmful if there is eventually a file uploaded by that name. --- Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is what's done at Commons with generic names: instead of having lots of generic filenames with the same "pick a more descriptive name" image, we have one with the "pick a more descriptive name" image and redirect the rest to it. See Commons:File:Untitled.JPG or Commons:File:Me.jpg for a couple of examples. Could you explain why you think this is a bad idea? Among other things, it makes it seem as if there are lots of files with identical content, because we're using the same image as the warning for each of them. Champion, how do you propose that someone would be uploading a file by this name, anyway? After creating the redirect, I protected it fully. Are admins going to override the protection and upload a file by this name? Nyttend (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt per recent FFD outcomes. - Eureka Lott 19:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

March 20[edit]

Yahoo.cm[edit]

Delete, while this one appears to be owned by Yahoo, the security concern is still a problem for me, see .cm#Reputation, where .cn was rated "the world's riskiest domain." I don't think it's worth the risk, especially since it's not used (.05 hits per day over the past 90 days.) -- Tavix (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment It is a typo by omission of the "o" in ".com" -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Yahoo.c[edit]

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 28#Wwwmyspace.com: " misspellings involving websites that aren't owned by the target are more harmful than helpful. These can be owned by domain parkers or other malicious sites and it is not something that we should be promoting." -- Tavix (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment is "Yahoo!.com" even a valid address? If not, then the reason for deletion does not apply, and {{R from typo}} does apply, since it is a similar character off, and that character is used in the logo as "Yahoo!" and plugging in a ".com" -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Yahoo!.com as a valid erroneous name for the company's web page since "Yahoo!" is the name of the company. I'm neutral on the rest. Steel1943 (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is water green[edit]

Not sure if this is a plausible redirect, or if it has any encyclopaedic purpose. It was originally an article about algae and water. Adam9007 (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I question whether there should be redirects in the form of a question in this encyclopedia, but there are already a fair number of them floating around (no pun intended). Consequently, I think we should retarget this to Ocean color, which explains: "phytoplankton [in the ocean] preferentially absorb the red and blue portions of the light spectrum and reflect green light." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
That wouldn't be a good idea, as there can be green water that's not ocean water: ponds, rivers—even artificially like the Chicago River this time of year. -- Tavix (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I've tossed this around my mind and, upon further reflection, I think deletion is the way to go here. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, compounded by the fact that there isn't a perfect target that addresses the question. -- Tavix (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete wP:NOTFAQ] -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - we did previously determine that redirects from questions of this sort are acceptable if the target provides a definitive answer to the question. This one does not, and we don't have a better target without creating a Q&A-like article. For one, not all water appears green, and even if it does there are many reasons why that might be the case. Delete per WP:XY then. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - This seems like a 'snowball close' case. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Amy Brett[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, G8. Lenticel (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Non notable artiste; link is to non-notable song which is at AfD TheLongTone (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Moot: TheLongTone, if the song gets deleted, all redirects to that article will automatically be deleted per WP:G8. You don't have to take this redirect to RFD since it'll share the same fate as the song. -- Tavix (talk) 17:16, 20 March 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.

Marxist culture[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. I note that there may be a real topic here, though. Marxist archaeology and Socialist realism both touch on the intersection of Marxism and culture. --BDD (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Most sources mentioning Marxist culture do not identify it with Cultural Marxism - this seems to be either pov or confusion by an editor who has made a lot of redirects that are not always appropriate Doug Weller talk 10:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Creator of this redirect now blocked both as NOTHERE and as a sock. Doug Weller talk 21:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete WP:G5. The creator is a sock of Bozo33, and blocked users are not allowed to contribute. -- Tavix (talk) 22:10, 21 March 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.

Ruiqi Zhang[edit]

"Ruiqi Zhang" is obviously a personal name, and I don't see how it can be redirected to that page. I also don't see that person's name on the page (I did find a "Zhangjue Ruiqi") Timmyshin (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Jordan,Michael[edit]

Delete. Unlikely search term or spelling error. Note there already exists another redirect at Jordan, Michael. 1985Chapa (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anyone looking for Michael Jordan will have the common sense to correct their spelling. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 01:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete If you are going to make the mistake of searching last name first, we expect that you do so with correct spacing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I say 'weak' because I can imagine someone typing this, but if we had a whole bunch of these, I would go "weak keep". - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - this redirect averages 15 hits per day over the last 90 (which incidentally is several times more than Jordan, Michael). It's being used by someone, and it points at the correct target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Caety Sagoian[edit]

Caety Sagoian is the voice actor for fictional character Bowser Jr., but that's basically it. She is not discussed in the article in any way, thus bringing potential confusion, and there's no sense in redirecting a BLP to a fictional character. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep I cannot see any other mention on Wiki that isn't in the context of Bowser Jr. and since this person is likely not notable the current target seems fair. MelanieLamont (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - this redirect provides readers with information which is not incorrect. I don't think this is a BLP issue. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per the similar discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 24#Kenny W. James. If this is the voice actor's only notable credit and the subject of the redirect may not be notable themselves, the connect makes sense. Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep She's mentioned in the article's infobox, so I don't see any confusion issue. Meters (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Deanna Mustard[edit]

Deanna Mustard is the voice actor for fictional character Princess Daisy, but that's basically it. She is not discussed in the article in any way, thus bringing potential confusion, and there's no sense in redirecting a BLP to a fictional character. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Sergecross73 msg me 00:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Per rationale above in Sagoian discussion, only you can replace Bowser and Daisy MelanieLamont (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - this redirect provides readers with information which is not incorrect. I don't think this is a BLP issue. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per the similar discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 24#Kenny W. James. If this is the voice actor's only notable credit and the subject of the redirect may not be notable themselves, the connect makes sense. Steel1943 (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep She's mentioned in the article's infobox, so I don't see any confusion issue. Meters (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

March 19[edit]

Bobby (given name)[edit]

"Bobby" is rarely a given name. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Move target over redirect per Tavix and others. Steel1943 (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't understand the argument, lots of people are named Bobby, even if it's short for something else, and they're listed on that page. Do you think it should target to something like Robert instead? (Robert (given name) is red) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the argument is that if it is "short for something else" it's not a given name, therefore the redirect is incorrect. Very very people have the given name Bobby, so why even have a redirect? Might as well have Silver Lampost (given name) and have that redirect to Bobby (personal name); the numbers involved are very similar (at or near zero, that is). And having the redirect makes a false and incorrect connection between the two.
I'm guessing that's what the argument would be. I don't buy it myself. Herostratus (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep "Bobby" is frequently considered or called a given name; and even if it is rarely a legal name, it would still occur, so the redirect is correct. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm sure there are a fair number of readers that don't understand the difference between a given name and a personal name. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Reverse redirect per WP:APOTITLE. "Personal name" is someone's full name, so that doesn't even work as a disambiguator. While "given name" has it's flaws, it has been taken to mean the same thing as first name, forename, etc. (Personally, I'd prefer the use of 'forename' instead of given name for this very reason, but that's a different discussion for a different day.) -- Tavix (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Move the page over the redirect per Tavix. This was an undiscussed move of a stable title for pedantic reasons, and it really should've come up at WP:RM#TR instead of here. I hope the closer takes this into account. --BDD (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Move per Tavix and BDD. - Eureka Lott 16:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The booty[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. Unanimous consensus. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 04:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Should this be retargeted to Booty? Many things are named "booty". sst✈ 12:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom. Arrr me hearties -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:22, 25 March 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.

Tekir[edit]

Should this be redlinked to allow the creation of an article about the modern-day settlement Tekir, at the same location that Knidos was? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep - while there is very little information about the modern settlement at the ancient village's article, it at least informs readers as to where it is, and is therefore at least marginally useful. Furthermore, the existence of the redirect is not preventing anybody from creating a page on the modern settlement if they so choose. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Kasey Campbell[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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No such mention in the article. No such connection found through Google. No one by the name of "Kasey Campbell" is even notable. The subject may be promoting themselves with mistruths. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

There is mention in the Wikipedia Pussycat Dolls article- read the article. Google Kasey Campbell. IMDB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaseyinla (talk • contribs) 05:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawing due to creator's justification above.--Mr. Guye (talk) 00:35, 20 March 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.

Regions fo Spain[edit]

Based on mistyping "of" quickly and mixing up the letters. "Of" is contained in many titles, there isn't a reason this is more likely to happen in this particular case, and the search engine already takes care of the typo. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - we often keep redirects from common or likely misspellings. This is neither. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ivanvector and nom. Even I don't make this mistake. Meters (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

USHOUSE[edit]

Delete per WP:RCAPS, improper spacing, and vagueness. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment I think it's supposed to be an acronym like POTUS and SCOTUS. I've never seen it spelled this way, I usually just see "U.S. House," but that doesn't mean it hasn't been used (and its next to impossible to search for it, since search engines are caps insensitive.) -- Tavix (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Without this redirect having an established official connection to its target, it's erroneous and ambiguous at best. Besides the fact that it doesn't fall in line with the somewhat unofficial standard of capitalized acronyms representing United States positions having each of its letters stand for a word, "USHOUSE" could possibly erroneously refer to the White House. Steel1943 (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. It looks like the genesis of this may be a Twitter hashtag, #USHOUSE, which refers to topics associated with the the United States House of Representatives. However, I am hesitant to set a precedent where Twitter hashtags are searchable in this encyclopedia. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Steel1943: I certainly agree with your assessment, and I think it fits nicely with the longstanding precedent of creating redirects for notable nom de plumes. I also wouldn't be opposed to creating articles or redirects for hashtags that receive independent notability in secondary sources; you can find some interesting examples at Hashtag activism. I'm not too familiar with the mechanics of the search function, but it appears that there are no articles in the encyclopedia that begin with the "#" character, and any time I search for anything that is preceded by the "#" symbol, I am redirected to the homepage. If there is some technical limitation for creating articles that begin with "#", then that may also limit the ability to create articles and redirects about hashtags. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: Wow, that was created just last month... Steel1943 (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@Tavix: I have now nomimated that template for deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • ...And I withdrew it. I think my distaste that these redirects exist temporarily clouded my judgement somewhere. I'll probably revisit those redirects later. Steel1943 (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, too much potential for confusion with the White House. -- Tavix (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: Indeed, it looks like someone on Twitter is trying to make this a "thing" in the same vein as POTUS/FLOTUS/SCOTUS, but I don't see it as meriting an exception to the practices we have in place. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - As stated above, while this term is used a bit as a Twitter universe thing, the redirect still doesn't seem helpful. The redirect is also potentially confusing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • delete per above. I also don't want to encourage people on using the wiki as a tool for marketing --Lenticel (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Current prime minister of Canada[edit]

Retarget to Prime Minister of Canada, where the current prime minister will be listed for as long as the position exists, removing the need for this redirect to be updated. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Prime Minister of Canada per nominator. The current target is easily subject to going out of date. Agree --Mr. Guye (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep or delete (do not retarget). Only one person is ever the current prime minister of Canada; if it's not useful as a link to that person, it's even less useful as a link to the position generally. I'm kind of neutral on whether or not it actually is useful, though. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Steel1943: noted, but I see retargeting due to future maintenance issues as poor service to readers. Someone typing this in is clearly looking for information on the current prime minister, and while they'll find out who that is at Prime Minister of Canada, there is no substantive information there unless they click another link. I would prefer these not exist at all rather than require the reader to find another link to click through to get to the information they're looking for. As you know, our mission is to provide as much substantive information as feasible, not to be a question-and-answer site. I was on a phone call this morning with a vendor's sales department - I called their published sales phone number, was taken into their menu system, and the very first question I was asked was "for sales, press 1". It was not the only time I was asked to press 1 for sales before I got through to sales, by the way, after having dialled the number for sales already. That's what this retarget proposal is doing - when a user calls our "current prime minister of Canada" line, we're going to take them to page that asks them to press 1 for the current prime minister of Canada. That's silly. "Current prime minister of Canada" couldn't possibly refer to any other page than the current target. At some point in the future there will be a different, discrete target, and this redirect will need to be updated, but asking users to push more buttons because of a maintenance issue in the indefinite future is just bad design. </rant> Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I also note that there aren't any "[ordinal] prime minister of Canada" redirects, nor are there for any other countries with prime ministers (as far as I can find), so deleting this one wouldn't be terrible. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to deletion, in fact I prefer it on this type of redirect (i.e. "current"), but consensus hasn't generally gone that way often on these in the past that I've seen. At least it won't go out of date and need an update with a retarget, which is my concern, because readers will then harmfully be led to the wrong information. There is no good way to ensure these type of redirects get updated in a timely manner or at all currently (a system could be set up with a bot). Bottomline: redirects that go out of date within a short cycle or period of time and will need updating shouldn't exist.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Ancient rome.[edit]

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 3#Greece. and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 3#Fly. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I agree that it meets precedent, but I wonder about the precedent. Redirects are cheap; it's an unlikely typo, but there is very little harm done in keeping such redirects around. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

NFL Bowl[edit]

Retarget to Bowl game#Professional bowl games. Past bowls that existed within the league aside, the NFL currently has more than one "bowl" game (Super Bowl and Pro bowl). —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, NFL bowl most always refers to the super bowl, and the Pro Bowl is quite insignificant compared to the former.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Roker[edit]

Retarget to Roker (disambiguation) or alternatively delete. Mickey Roker, Raymond Roker, Samuel Roker, Wally Roker... Ambiguous with no clear case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (unlike what the consensus held at Mr. Obama). Ms. Rodham as a precedent. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom. Multiple misters Roker -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. No one named Roker notably uses "Mr." as part of their name (like Mr. Rogers, for example) so there's no affinity between the title and the name. People don't search that way because of this and the stats prove that this redirect isn't being used. -- Tavix (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I completely agree Tavix, deletion would be my first choice. However, community consensus seems to be leaning another way on these type of redirects at this time, and I do think retargeting is better than keeping the current target in this case.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Unless, of course, Al Roker is the primary topic of those with the name, and I think one can make a case for that. Overall, I'm not too bothered by the existence of a few of these here and there, and there have been some good points made about them. I just don't want someone to take this as an invitation to create these en masse. -- Tavix (talk)
  • Retarget to Roker (disambiguation). In some news outlets, it is common practice to refer to individuals by the formal "Mr. X," even if they are not commonly known by that name in popular culture. Additionally, a reader who is unfamiliar with the English language and English naming conventions may want to learn more about the family name "Roker" by searching for "Mr. Roker." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Retarget per nom. I'm not okay with the "Mr." term but they can generate plausible synonyms with the entries at the dab page--Lenticel (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Dancing Banana[edit]

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 26#Dancing banana. Lacking a mention at the target, suffering from the same problem that the un-capitalized version did. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Buckwheat Boyz. I don't know why I didn't think of that last time. It is discussed there, though more information would be appropriate. --BDD (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
That's alright with me as well.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Damn, Daniel[edit]

Not mentioned at the target or at list of internet memes. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 January 25#Internet meme redirects and to a lesser extent Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 26#Merged to List of Internet phenomena but no longer mentioned there as precedents. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. If there's nothing mentioned at the target, there's no sense in redirecting to it, since someone looking for information about "Damn, Daniel" isn't going to find it. However, if information about "Damn, Daniel" is ever added to the article, we should reestablish the redirect, as it will then be relevant. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 01:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete given the lack of Damn, Daniel content on the memes page. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Elee[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. At several other targets generally as a name, though I noticed a place in Hawaii with an article that is a partial match, and a group named that in a book article plot summary as well. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - There's plenty of vagueness here, but it seems clear that there's not a particular association with the current target. I could maybe also see a redirect to Port Allen, Hawaii as that's alternately known as "Elee Landing, Hawaii". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Recalcitrants[edit]

Two pages:

These two pages have different targets, but at one time, both targeted Recalcitrant seed. I don't think the wiktionary target is good, and the seed target is weak too. I lean towards deleting both, but maybe there's another target? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

  • The Wiktionary redirect at Recalcitrant seems helpful, and gets regular traffic. I don't see a good reason to delete it. - Eureka Lott 16:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Nutrition Party[edit]

Delete both per WP:REDLINK. Could equally target United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2016#Nutrition Party and United States presidential election, 2016#Nutrition Party. The search engine handles searches for this term appropriately. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

"Nutrition Party" redirects to Silva, so in accordance with Democratic Party (United States), Republican Party (United States), etc. it should be kept that way until a Nutrition Party article can be created. MB298 (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • ...Huh???? Since both of those parties existed before the birth of Wikipedia, I don't understand what precedence this comment is based. Steel1943 (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Without the subject of the redirect being notable enough for its own article, it's confusing and vague at best. At the present time, until more notability is established for any "Nutrition Party" subject, a disambiguation page would be unwarranted: Search results would be more helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep U.S. political party with ballot access in at least one state, potentially a search term. As it currently does not have an standalone article, it seems appropriate to redirect to the party's founder and inaugural candidate. No compelling reason for deletion.--JayJasper (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

March 18[edit]

Milk snatcher[edit]

Should be merged with Milk Snatcher. --Neve–selbert 23:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Err...but that also redirects to Margaret Thatcher. Incidentally the name Milk Snatcher relates to an incident that occurred while she was Education Secretary in the 1970s and was widely used in the UK. This Telegraph article tells you all you need to know. This is Paul (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @This is Paul: I am totally familiar with the terminology, although I think that having two separate redirects differing in only capitalisation is unnecessary.--Neve–selbert 00:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
If this is retargeted Milk Snatcher should be as well.--67.68.210.65 (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with that --Lenticel (talk) 07:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

September 2007 deaths[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 Deaths in September 2007. Discussion doesn't seem necessary for this rather obvious retargeting option. GeoffreyT2000, I recommend to be WP:BOLD with changes/edits that are as uncontroversial, such as this one, in the future instead of starting a discussion. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The current target does not actually list the deaths in this month. Deaths in September 2007 is a better target. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 17#January 2014 deaths. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:02, 18 March 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.

我到河北省来[edit]

I have no idea what this means. Google Translate provides "I went to Hebei Province". Maybe a line from a Chinese Downfall parody? But it's not mentioned there, nor anything else having to do with China or Chinese. --BDD (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment It's explained on this Baidu page [10] ; it seems to be a Mandarin language pun; it appears a ZH.wiki zh:空耳 -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. I understand what it means, but delete as WP:FORRED that is not mentioned in the article. sst✈ 12:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Und doch habe ich allein[edit]

This may be a line from Downfall used in its internet parodies, but it's hardly an important or well-remembered line in either context. It's not mentioned at all at the target article. --BDD (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - It's indeed neither a well-known nor important line in the parodies (same is true as well for the actual film scene). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Florentine[edit]

Retarget to Florence. Redirect existing since 2003 was changed recently to point to the cookie, with the edit summary "clear primary usage". As Florence has given us many, many notable topics (type "florentine" in the search box and see what autocompletes) I strongly disagree that a Florentine biscuit is a WP:PRIMARYTARGET here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Is this a British thing? The user who retargeted is Chiswick Chap,(ping) so maybe so. To my American ears, "Florentine" makes me think of spinach first, and then something associated with the city. Moving Florentine (disambiguation) over the redirect is an option if we think there's no primary topic. --BDD (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Well, Florentine means the food all over Europe, from Sweden to France certainly, not only in Britain, so if it was a matter of international spread and the largest number of countries, there'd be no contest. I note that googling "Florentine America" returns pictures of the cookies, exactly as I had expected, so the cookie usage is on BOTH sides of the Atlantic. I've never heard anyone call an inhabitant of Florence by this name, whatever they did in Shakespeare's time; they just say "people from Florence". The other possible meanings strike me as far behind (search engines throwing up remnants indeed of many obsolete and quaint historical usages), and I confess I never heard of its meaning anything to do with spinach at all. So I'm indeed surprised to be commenting here. I also can't see any difficulty with having Florentine (disambiguation) as a comfortable home for all the other meanings. Redirecting to Florence I consider simply silly: the two terms cover wildly different things. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Careful, Google has generally gotten less reliable for geographic measures as it tries to customize results. Only two of the top 9 results are related to the cookie when I do the search. There are also a couple of spinach dishes, and some other disparate results. --BDD (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
This would work too. Strangely I didn't find the disambiguation page, or I might have suggested that. I didn't have any primary topic in mind for this, I just happened to be surprised when I clicked on a link describing someone from Florence in the middle ages and ended up on a page about a biscuit. And yes, I would now also like to have Eggs Florentine for dinner. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Castle of Montalegre[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) SSTflyer 15:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

no needd. Winterysteppe (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. Redirect points at the correct target and is harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:CHEAP -- it is a castle called Montalegre -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:53, 19 March 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.

2018-19 UEFA Europa League[edit]

I think this, even being a redirect, is WP:TOOSOON. UEFA current regulations end for the 2017-18 season and it is not even confirmed this season will be played (however very likely). Also no article currently links to it, so we dont have reason to keep it to avoid redlinks. Has been speedily deleted in September 2015. Qed237 (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. As above, no evidence that this will exist (UEFA could change the format/names after all). Joseph2302 (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - far too soon, and adds nothing as a redirect. GiantSnowman 09:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - While this obviously should exist at some point, I have to agree that it's WP:TOOSOON. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Despite the fact that redirects are WP:CHEAP, this one is far WP:TOOSOON, especially given that the regulations have not been published. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Neisha Pratt[edit]

Pointless redirect – target contains no information on the subject. IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as not mentioned in the target article. As a sidenote, she's played for Hong Kong women's national cricket team previously, so could probably have an actual article written about her. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm now drafting an article about her at Draft:Neisha Pratt (she passes WP:NCRIC), so this redirect should definitely be deleted, to allow me to place the draft into article space. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hinduism in Djibouti[edit]

Delete, this is a non-topic. There isn't anything noteworthy to say about Hinduism in Djibouti, so someone searching for this topic won't learn anything about it. -- Tavix (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Do You Love Me (Ariana Grande song)[edit]

Unreleased song, doesn't appear in any of her albums, and isn't mentioned at Ariana Grande or List of songs recorded by Ariana Grande. Without a place that gives information on the song, there's no point in having the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

List of legendary Pokémon[edit]

No such list exists at the target. The best retargeting option would be Gameplay of Pokémon#Legendary Pokémon, but that section doesn't have a list; Legendary Pokémon already redirects to the aforementioned section, so a "List of..." redirect targeting there without an actual list being in the section could be misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Rod Durham[edit]

Delete. The name is not even mentioned once in the article 92.72.198.54 (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether he should be or not, I think it's worth pointing out the nominator's statement was true, and you've just added this information. It would probably be helpful to discuss this person's significance. Should a reasonably complete article on the subject discuss him? --BDD (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@BDD: - does a list of contestants of a reality TV show deserve a mention in this article? Probably yes (see e.g. List of Big Brother 7 housemates (UK) and similar) hence why he merits inclusion. GiantSnowman 18:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for elaborating. It might make sense to have a sentence or two about each contestant where they're listed, or an additional column in the tables with space for notes. Do we have a good reason to exclude surnames from the lists? If not, the problem is solved. Unless there's broader significance to his participation, Durham should probably just be discussed in the Season 4 section. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I note that the CSD seems to have been improperly contested as there was no reason provided. I also note that the administrator who removed the CSD tag is also the editor who created the redirect, so I feel that there is inherent involvement on the part of that administrator. As BDD noted, GiantSnowman added the mention of Durham in the article literally just before !voting here. Unless Durham's death is confirmed to be related to his participation in the show, then there is no need to mention it in the article, thus there is no need for the redirect. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jkudlick: - the CSD was botched and the non-standrad rationale was clearly not accurate any more, so that's why I removed it, not because of this. Furthermore your accusations of involvement/administrator misdeeds (aimed at me) are unwarranted and I invite you to withdraw them. GiantSnowman 18:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Please accept my apology, as I do agree that I did not AGF – due to the bombings in Brussels and the impact upon my work, I was in a state of mind where I should not have been editing. Upon review, I agree the CSD was malformed as not meeting R2 or R3, thus anyone would have been correct in removing it. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think his death is inherently important to have in a description of the show. Obviously, that could change if it's determined that his weight loss created fatal health problems or something. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

March 17[edit]

Wikipedia:Triple redirects[edit]

No such thing. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Umm. Let's say 4 redirects to 3 which redirects to 2 which redirects to 1. Triple redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
    @Steel1943: Interesting concept, but not sure if the project space will ever mention it, see User:Champion/Redirect test. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 00:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Champion: Yeah, who knows. With that being said, I just wanted to point out that the subject of the redirect could exist, the current target is probably the best target for it ... but, I'm honestly neutral if it remains or not. Steel1943 (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment see User:Champion/Triple redirects. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Steel, a more extreme form of double redirect, and they clearly exist in article space, since I hit them sometimes. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Double redirects[edit]

Not appropriate, neither is an XNR to this non-reader content. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – this is an actual encyclopedic topic. sst✈ 23:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • ...And the current target is a disambiguation page, so unless everything on there can also be called a "double redirect", the redirect could be misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Action potential threshold[edit]

Which target is better? Action potential or Threshold potential? Or something else? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Convert to set index? which lists both? -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XY. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Threshold potential, for which it is a synonym. Action potential is the more general topic, of which a threshold of electric potential is a particular aspect, so redirecting to the direct synonym is the better choice. --Mark viking (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Threshold potential, exactly per Mark viking. There actually is a section of Action potential, Action potential#Stimulation and rising phase, which paradoxically deals directly with the subtopic where the threshold potential applies, but which does not even link to it, because it is discussed earlier at Action potential#Process in a typical neuron. Thus, redirecting to AP is unhelpful to readers, whereas redirecting to TP is exactly appropriate, as an alternative name for the same thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XY per the votes above to "retarget". Both cases above me to "retarget" actually validate why this redirect has a WP:XY issue. Steel1943 (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Your comment makes me realize that what I said was not as clear as I intended it to be. My exposition about the action potential page was not intended as an argument that targeting there would be just as good. Rather, I was attempting to convey the reasons it would be both complicated and potentially unhelpful to readers. Sorry if that wasn't clear. So let me say very clearly that Threshold potential is the ideal target. And furthermore, some readers probably will start looking under the redirect name, so WP:Redirects are cheap and it would be helpful to those readers not to delete it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Black gold (liquid)[edit]

Yeah, I know black gold refers to petroleum, but is this the best target? I associate the term with the Beverly Hillbillies more than with oil. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete It could refer to coffee as well. It is probably best to delete this redirect and have reader searches just go to the Black gold disambiguation page. --Mark viking (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Black Gold or possibly Black Gold#Commodities. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 14:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • retarget to black gold disambiguation page, which lists liquids -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. We redirect incomplete disambiguations such as "(film)" or "(footballer)" to the disambiguation page because it's highly likely that someone would either a) create a duplicate article at at that title or b) search using the disambiguator because they know there's a footballer or film by that name. In this case, "(liquid)" is not an intuitive disambiguator, so we don't have to worry about that problem here. I don't think it's plausible that someone would search using this specific disambiguator, so there's no value in keeping it. -- Tavix (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Intergalactic Proton-Powered Electrical Tentacled Advertising Droid[edit]

Non-noteworthy Family Guy reference, I doubt airdancers are actually called that in real life. -- Tavix (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I Don't Wanna Go[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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 15:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete, WP:XY. sst✈ 09:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment. Lana Del Rey recorded a song by this name. I created the redirect for people who may be searching for information about the song. (YouTube). ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: @SSTflyer: Can you explain why this redirect needs to be deleted per WP:XY? With a title like this, a disambiguation page is probably preferable. Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I've drafted a dab. Right now, the Lana Del Rey song fails MOS:DABMENTION. At a glance, the Joey Travolta song might be independently notable. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Pages serves a purpose. No reason to delete. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:31, 17 March 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.

Graduate Programs in Archaeology[edit]

Seeing that Wikipedia is not a directory, someone searching for certain graduate programs in religion or archaeology is not going to find what they are looking for. -- Tavix (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm inclined to think that Graduate programs in religion should be reverted to the article version and moved to Graduate education in religion and then expanded.--Jahaza (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete (agree with initial proposal, disagree with Jahaza's proposal) - The article covered no more than Seminary, but neither seminary nor theology are good redirects (though either is better than the stub that had been there). Jahaza's proposed new article (which would not resemble to the pre-redirect version if it is to have a chance at meeting WP:N) doesn't strike me as a topic suitable for a WP article. Novaseminary (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - These redirects are engaging in a kind of 'false advertising', since we don't have pages that detail how graduate programs work in those areas, and Wikipedia is not a directory anyways. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Airbus Middle East[edit]

Not mentioned in article. sst✈ 09:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - It's a subsidiary with its own website http://www.airbus.com/company/airbus-middle-east/ WhisperToMe (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, but there is no mention of it in the article. sst✈ 09:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
      • I added it. Anyway keep this hypothetical situation in mind: guy A writes the redirect and mentions the subdsidiary, but Guy B removes mention of the subsidiary, and now Guy C nominates the redirect for deletion but is unaware of the history. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and Refine to Airbus#Corporate affairs, where information about it now resides, per the developments in the above discussion.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Illness and death[edit]

Strong delete per WP:XY. A textbook case of where a redirect could equally point to multiple targets. We have an article on both death and disease (the latter being where illness redirects). —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

March 16[edit]

Adumbration[edit]

"Foreshadowing" is really only a tertiary meaning of "adumbration." More frequently, it is used as a term that means "to give a description of something that includes general points about it, but no details." In fact, the OED defines the term as: "to outline; to sketch; [or] to give a faint indication of." Therefore, I think we should delete this potentially misleading redirect. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak retarget to wikt:adumbration. It gets a fair amount of hits (just north of 1/day), so it'd be better than nothing. -- Tavix (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Meghan Trainor filmography[edit]

No such list exists at the target. Readers looking for films which Meghan Trainor are going to find no information due to the lack of any information about the subject of the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete she also doesn't have any filmography credits (that I know of) to begin with, so implausible redirect Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Romancing[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 Romance. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 00:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Return the redirect to point back to romance, not onwards another redirect to an obscure song mentioned on an EP. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:21, 16 March 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.

Sweet, Sweet Pie[edit]

Same rationale as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 16#Redirects to Meghan Trainor - unnotable song redirects but apparently, these redirects' titles are misspelled. Apparently, these titles represent a song by the name "Sweet, Sweetie Pie" on I'll Sing With You, but are obviously erroneous names. For these two, I recommend they be deleted without any retargeting alternative. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom In ictu oculi (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Totally implausible redirects, no other suitable targets. sst✈ 01:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Redirects to Meghan Trainor - unnotable song redirects[edit]

These {{R from song}} redirects are several titles of songs in WP:GNG/WP:NALBUMS-failing Meghan Trainor albums I'll Sing With You and Only 17. These songs are briefly named at Meghan Trainor discography#Independent albums, but they are only listed there as names of songs on the notability-failing albums. (These redirects are not mentioned at all in the Meghan Trainor article.) With that being said, I believe these should be deleted since confusion could exist that these songs redirect to a list of albums where their albums do not even have articles, or otherwise, weak retarget to Meghan Trainor discography#Independent albums. Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Singer Girl[edit]

The connection between the redirect and the redirect's target is unclear. Also, I attempted to see if this redirect is the title of a song or album by the redirect's target, and no such luck. Also, no page titled "Singer Girl" appears on the Meghan Trainor Wikia (meaning I essentially cannot find anything about "Singer Girl.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Juez judy[edit]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Judge Judy has no affinity for the Spanish language. -- Tavix (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep many Spanish speaking users look for her as such. Give them a hand --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 10:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The more appropriate action to help our Spanish-speaking users would be to create Judge Judy on the Spanish Wikipedia so that Spanish-speaking readers will have a full article to read in their language. Having this redirect on the English Wikipedia is misleading because it also sets the expectation that the English article is in Spanish on the English Wikipedia, which it is not. Steel1943 (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Reply - Now that it is created, there is no reason to delete it. Some people who speak Spanish can also speak enough English to get from the article the information that they need. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Your statement is akin to assuming that all those fluent in Spanish also know English, which is far from true. Those Spanish speakers/readers who do not know English could look up this term and then arrive at the English Wikipedia to an article they are not able to read. (This is part of the basis of why WP:RFOREIGN exists: To promote the creation of articles in a reader's native language.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, WP:RFOREIGN redirect in a language with which the subject has no affinity. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Borrar (which is Español for delete) as this is the English Wikipedia. I would encourage a juez judy redirect on the spanish version. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. BTW, shouldn't that be Jueza? --Lenticel (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Aaj Shahzaib Khanzada Kay Sath (Official Page)[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 by JohnCD per criterion G8 since its target page was deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Misleading - no WP page is an "official page". PamD 18:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, it shows the user's purpose: he wants to create an official page for this individual on WP. The redirect target is up for speedy; hopefully that will take care of it. ubiquity (talk) 20:47, 16 March 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.

Compositorial[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 restored article. Since the merged content was removed from Composite number, the preferable action to declare the content in Compositorial unnecessary would be to nominate it for deletion as an article. That can be accomplished at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. For this reason, I believe that this speedy close is warranted. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The merge was completed as suggested by Kvng, but David Eppstein removed the section completely from the target article. 63.251.215.25 (talk) 17:43, 16 March 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.

Azadliq Statue[edit]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. The Statue of Liberty has no affinity with the German or Azerbaijani languages. -- Tavix (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

-cest[edit]

I'm not sure of the validity of this redirect. I think I understand what the creator is doing, but I do not think it's encyclopedic-worthy of a redirect. Izno (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete since this suffix doesn't directly represent the redirect's target ... that is, if it is even a real suffix used in the English language. I'm not finding any proof that this is even a suffix. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom In ictu oculi (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete other -cest topics are not covered at the target -- 70.51.46.39 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't see a reason to think this is a valid suffix in the first place, let alone one with a solid meaning in all cases. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Airbus Japan[edit]

Not mentioned in article. sst✈ 09:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Also exists, will be mentioned http://www.airbusjapan.com/contact-jp/ WhisperToMe (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's now mention of Airbus Japan at the target article. Is it enough?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per content In ictu oculi (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep since it's now included as cited content --Lenticel (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Billboard Korea[edit]

Not mentioned in article. Also per precedents at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 29#Airfrance.ae. sst✈ 04:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Billboard.biz[edit]

Not mentioned in article. Also per precedents at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 29#Airfrance.ae. sst✈ 04:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. It was one of Billboard's official websites. It is linked from many articles because it was where you could search through many charts that weren't available on the main website (notable, the Japanese ones). Now the address redirects to http://www.billboard.com/biz. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Most obvious target if someone happens to search for it by URL. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Title (album)[edit]

Looking at Talk:Title (Meghan Trainor album)#Requested move, should this be retargeted to Title (publishing)? sst✈ 11:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Why? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Move Title (Meghan Trainor album) over the redirect, as primary topic and the only notable album named Title. A hatnote would still be appropriate. The more pertinent Album title already redirects to Title (publishing). --BDD (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Strong oppose "Meghan Trainor" the topic of "title" in relation to the topic area of "album" is the title of an album (ie. album title) which is not a Meghan Trainor album, but the title of any album. In addition to that, there is legal title to an album (ie. ownership). This alternate proposal would use ambiguous disambiguation for the Trainor album making it a failure of WP:PRECISE; and as pointed out above, there's multiple albums named "Title" as well -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Given the possible ambiguity, the current setup make sense. Also, moving Title (Meghan Trainor album) to Title (album) is problematic for two reasons: 1) The subject of the title of an album is explained at Title (publishing), so moving an article of an album with the name "Title" is the equivalent of expecting all readers to have an native understanding of Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and 2) "Title (album)" could also refer to Title (EP), a separate article from the Meghan Trainor album article (and even more confusing is that the EP is also a Meghan Trainor subject.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Title (Meghan Trainor album) and then rename that article to "Title (album)"; as BDD notes, it is the only notable album named "Title" and therefore the obvious primary topic, plus "Album title" redirects to "Title (Publishing)". Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Parent, Ontario[edit]

There is no mention of the name "Parent" in the target article. I could find no such place via Google, though it might have been obscured by the many web pages about Ontario mothers, fathers, etc. Cnilep (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Upon further search, I did find this, but it gives very little information. Cnilep (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It's listed at List_of_townships_in_Ontario#Thunder_Bay_District, so a redirect seems reasonable. I don't suspect the township is sufficient enough to have it's own article, but either reidrecting to the district, or the list of townships makes sense.--kelapstick(bainuu) 07:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Unorganized Thunder Bay District. It seems to be a former/historic(/geographic, I don't know what that means) township in the unorganized part of the district. There is a Parent Lake in the unorganized part of the district, close to Geraldton, Ontario, which is the best I can find of things this could refer to, and this memo from the Ontario government referring to the closure of a waste disposal site in "Parent Unorganized Township" close to Geraldton seems to back that up. Although it's not really significant or mentioned anywhere so it wouldn't be awful to delete this either. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The "geographic" townships are a system of making sure that every piece of land in Ontario has a "name" for land management purposes, such as tracking forest fires and/or recording natural resources (e.g. mining, forestry, etc.) claims. They can occasionally have a more practical application as well — my parents' house is inside the boundaries of one of Ontario's larger cities now, but when they first bought it in the early 1970s it was in a completely unincorporated, not-yet-annexed rural area and their only official mailing address was "Lot #, Concession #, Name of a Geographic Township" (although even today, with their mailing address being "Conventional Street Address, Name of Actual City", the geographic township name still does technically exist for internal government purposes — they're a completely separate thing from the system of municipal governance.) But in reality, for our purposes on here they nearly always mean great gobs of nothing at all, in the absence of reliable source coverage about them — which is extremely rare at best, and usually completely nonexistent. Bearcat (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not an incorporated place in its own right, but is one of Ontario's geographic townships. Per the provincial ClaiMAPS system, I was able to confirm that it is indeed near Geraldton, but is not part of the municipality of Greenstone (although the next geographic townships to its immediate north and east are — if you look at our map of Greenstone, you'll see a small downpointing notch roughly at the midpoint, and Parent is the very next thing immediately to that notch's left. It is not a thing that would be likely to qualify for an article of its own, however, as I'm unable to find any reliable source coverage about it. Our usual standard for geographic locations which aren't notable in their own right is to redirect them to a larger related topic if possible, and this was simply the wrong choice of topic — redirecting to Unorganized Thunder Bay District would indeed be preferable. I also wouldn't object to outright deletion if that's the consensus, however, as this is unlikely to be a thing that very many people are actually looking for information about at all. Literally nothing in mainspace, for example, links to this title at all. Bearcat (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Statute of Liberty[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 Geoffrey Robertson. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

A statue is not a statute. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as it could cause confusion, otherwise I'd suggest bill of rights. -- Tavix (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm also okay with NCFF's suggestion. -- Tavix (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
A reasonable idea, definitely preferable to a keep.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep or disambiguate it is a typo, and a likely one. However, other uses (ie. actual statutes) can turn this into a disambiguation page with a see also to Lady Liberty NYC -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per NCFF. Good catch! Tigraan (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per NCFF. --Lenticel (talk) 03:54, 18 March 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.

GradeAUnderA[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) 19:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Not included in List of YouTubers, hence there isn't any information about the subject there. A local search yielded no results on the subject either. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not mentioned in article, readers looking for the topic would find nothing at the target. sst✈ 11:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom In ictu oculi (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect — I added him to the list alongside a source. Should be fine to redirect it now. Aria1561 (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per the talk page, the list is only for notable YouTubers, so the list should only include those who have articles. If GradeAUnderA is notable, there should be an article created on the subject (so delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation). If GradeAUnderA is not notable, they shouldn't be included in the list, so a redirect targeting there would not be helpful. I will also note that an article can be created at any time, so if Aria1561 or someone else wants to create an article, they can do so at any time and put this discussion to rest. -- Tavix (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Tavix. Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 20 March 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.

Bigy[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) 19:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Could equally refer to Big Y (https://www.bigy.com) along with a few other things from a quick search. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Big Y and add a hatnote to Biggy Smalls -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XY. It's equally a typo for Big Y and Biggy, so the redirect is more trouble than it's worth. -- Tavix (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom In ictu oculi (talk) 21:29, 16 March 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.

Russian propaganda[edit]

Unnecessary redirects combining with mendacious interwiki from the Ukrainian segment. I propose deleting them В.Галушко (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep plausible search term. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not sure how this is mandacious; it looks like a valid search term to me. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful, can't see how this is problematic. sst✈ 12:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as plausible variant --Lenticel (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I closed this, but undid it as I'd like for this discussion to stay open another week. At first glance, it's an obvious keep, but the target in the nomination was incorrect. It's not targeting "Propaganda in Russia" but actually pointing to "Propaganda#Russia," and that section doesn't currently exist. In fact there's zero information about modern Russia in the prose of the article. Because of this, I don't think it'd be helpful to keep it like it is. There's a few things we can do to mitigate that problem. The first option is to restore the previous article that existed at this title and clean it up. I'm assuming the former article is the "mendacious" thing the nom is referring to, but I think there's enough there to have a start-class article once the POV is removed/cleaned-up, but I'm not entirely sure. Another option is to retarget to Propaganda in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was fairly commonly referred to as "Russia" in a colloquial sense, so it's not completely crazy of an idea, especially with how detailed that article is. Lastly, of course, is a WP:REDLINK deletion to encourage a proper article to develop. Thoughts? -- Tavix (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment redirect Propaganda in Russia goes to the same target -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
    • REVERT the conversion of Russian propaganda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) into a redirect, as it was a fake deletion by turning it into a redirect without merger to a non-existent section. That is clearly inappropriate. If the editor wanted to delete the article, it should have been sent to AfD instead of hiding the deletion by converting it to a redirect -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Wow. Revert WP:BLAR per 70.51. Clearly notable topic. sst✈ 11:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Revert to version prior to blanking. Mea culpa for not looking at this article's edit history before voting. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Revert to this edit per WP:BLAR as above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Revert per anon --Lenticel (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Polish electios[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) 19:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Polish elections is reasonable, "Polish electios" isn't, assuming "electios" is not polish for "election". —Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. If this was plausible, I would image that you'd find usage of it somewhere in the "wild." A Google search for "Polish electios" turned up exactly one result: this redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep {{R from typo}} typo by omission of a single letter, "n" -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just stops autocomplete working properly. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom In ictu oculi (talk) 21:28, 16 March 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.

Neurodiversiry and Panrthera[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 delere. --BDD (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 3#Mexicp. Qwerty keyboard location typos based on the letter "r" being directly to the left of the letter "t" (at least the first one). —Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete Panrthera, I can't imagine how somerone can justifry the random insertiorn of an "r" in that worrd. That makes no sense whatsorever. Also delete Neurodiversiry, another "novel or very obscure" typo. -- Tavix (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Two very unfortunate typos. I'm guessing that whoever named them was intoxicated, but, being that we're all (I hope) sober now, we can set things straight. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 01:18, 21 March 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.

Rock Obama[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, but big thanks to Tavix for making me aware of The Rock Obama. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 3#Back Obama. Implausible. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:15, 16 March 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.

Tamagotchi Secret Characters[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. czar 20:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Besides the word "secret" being vague, no such information exists at the target. Steel1943 (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:CHEAP, ten year old harmless redirect. MB298 (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd say the fact that the information in the redirect's title is not present in its target article is quite harmful since it misleads readers into thinking they will find information about this subject at the target article. Being old doesn't cancel out a redirect's misleading nature. Steel1943 (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as misleading. Despite what the redirect says, you won't find any information on "secret characters" at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom , misleading In ictu oculi (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - What secrets? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This seems to be better off covered by its dedicated wikia --Lenticel (talk) 03:58, 18 March 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.

March 15[edit]

Admiral of the Fleet Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma, KG, GCB, OM, GCSI, GCIE, GCVO, DSO, PC[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) 19:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

This redirect is certainly sincere but I do not think that it can be of much use. The Traditionalist (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as entirely implausible. It looks like this has only received 7 hits in the last 90 days. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as this is all kinds of implausible. No one in their right mind would go through this alphabet soup to look him up, even if they are able to remember it all. (I added one more redirect for the same reasons) -- Tavix (talk) 21:27, 15 March 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.

Santorum's Google problem[edit]

This is just a follow-up of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 29#Rick Santorum's Yahoo problem. I would assume that these redirects would have the same problem as the one that was deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep This is actually a fairly common phrase in media, who pretty much have to resort to some sort of euphemism to describe the issue. Rick Santorum has a problem with name searches for "Santorum" in Google. That's true—or at least as true as anything can be here. Yahoo just doesn't have the same sort of cultural ubiquity (cf. Google (verb) and Google bomb vs. Yahoo (verb) and Yahoo bomb). --BDD (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Searches for "Santorum's Google problem" show many mainstream sources using this phrase (often in the titles of articles about it) including Mother Jones, Esquire, ABC News, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, the Daily Telegraph, CNN, and many more. The analogy with the Yahoo redirect does not work at all: doing the same search for "Santorum's Yahoo problem" finds hardly anything, and the things it finds are generally comparisons of Santorum's Yahoo presence with the aforesaid Google problem. -- The Anome (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 29#Rick Santorum's Yahoo problem (Ivanvector's "'Problem' is a weasel word"). Vague. Redirecting based on source's characterizations of this kind is a slippery slope. Weak as usage can be shown across quite a few sources, though in different manners.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Vague? What else could be referred to as "Santorum's Google problem"? --BDD (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
A poor rationale late yesterday, I've adjusted above. Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Caralibro[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) 19:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN (kind of). While "Caralibro" might be a literal translation of "Facebook" to Spanish, it's not the name of the site in Spanish, it's still Facebook... Besides, it appears that caralibro.com is completely unrelated to Facebook, which could be misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:19, 16 March 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.

Arïana Grande[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) 19:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. She's American and has no affinity with any language besides English. -- Tavix (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it's tagged as Kazakh language. I agree, but I gave the creator the benefit of the doubt. -- Tavix (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete target has no relationship with Kazakh. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • COMMENT The redirect's creator should be examined for creating redirects from Soviet Central Asian languages, as there was a spate of them a few years ago for non-local topics. There appears to be several such in Arianator with love (talk · contribs), the editor's history [11]; such as Аллаһ and А. Вега and Arina Grande / Ariyana Grande / Aryana Grande -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, mainly as useless. sst✈ 12:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:09, 18 March 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.

Secretary of the General People's Committee[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 25#Secretary of the General People's Committee

Prevarication[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 the remaining items to the disambiguated Prevarication. --BDD (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Prevaricate and Lie are not quite the same thing. A total of 6 redirects nominated, listed below:

Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget all to Waffle (speech); and hatnote any other articles for prevaricate as needed. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Alternately, turn prevaricate into a dab page and point all the others there, and list waffle, lie and other topics there; though I think just retargetting to waffle is sufficient. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Update retarget all to prevarication new dab page created by The Anome -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. As the nominator points out, "prevarication" is not necessarily synonymous with lying or dishonesty. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Create disambiguation, then retarget: I've made prevarication into a disambiguation page, with targets Deception, Evasion (ethics) and Waffle (speech). If that's acceptable, I suggest we retarget all the others to that page. -- The Anome (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
    • That works for me -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I've now retargeted the other redirects to prevarication. but have left the RfD headers in until someone closes this RfD. -- The Anome (talk) 08:15, 18 March 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.

Chairman of the Presidency Council[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) 18:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Ambiguous title, not just limited to Libya (also to Dahomey and the European Union). --Neve–selbert 01:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as vague. There seems to be a lot of Presidency Councils --Lenticel (talk) 12:43, 16 March 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.

March 14[edit]

Redirects to 1000 (number)[edit]

Redirects to 1000 (number)

None of these numbers are mentioned in the target article. This could cause potential harm for readers trying to find information about these specific numbers. Steel1943 (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

break to facilitate adding comments without crashing systems[edit]
  • Keep all to prevent creation of unnecessary number articles. They are part of a range, so go to the right target. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I actually believe that the whole "1000 (number)#Selected numbers in the thousands (1001–1999)" section should be removed (or, at the very least, just keep the numbers that are actual articles and not redirects to these sections [which are all that I have nominated]) since there are some numbers in 1000-1999 that seem to have their own articles. Also, there is the fact that nearly none of the mentioned numbers in this list have references that could cement their usefulness on this makeshift list, and most times, the number entries do not have any references at all. Steel1943 (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, I agree completely with Steel1943. It doesn't make any sense to have redirects for numbers that aren't mentioned at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all, there is nothing interesting to say about them, which is coveered at the Least interesting number -> Interesting number paradox. And I imagine it would be absurd to retarget them all there. Quod erat and all that, Si Trew (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
and lo and behold, for 1423 (number) which I plucked at random (my screen scrolls slowly) there is exactly nothing said at the target, so that one (or one thousand four hundred and twenty three or if you prefer American English one thousand four hundred twenty three or if you want variations on a shoestring belive me I tried em all we have exactly zero to say about at least one of these numbers. Si Trew (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
have sledgehamm will nutcracker
  • 1003, not at target.
  • 1004, not at target.
  • 1006, not at target.
  • 1007, not at target.
  • 1021, not at target.
  • 1022, not at target.
  • 1039, not at target.
  • 1061, not at target.
  • 1063, not at target.
  • 1069, not at target.
  • 1097, not at target.
  • 1100, not at target, search as binary mid in decimal 1984 (so is 1100 as hex C = 12 = bits 8 + 4)
  • need I carry on?
  • 1111 not at target.
  • 1117 not at target.
  • 1129 not at target.
  • et cetera ad nauseam. As far as I can tell, none of these redirects listed here, from a front back and mid sample, occurs anywhere at the target, not even as a list entry. I am guessing in good faith that they were created exactly to do so, but as I said above, since there is no least interesting number, WP:REDLINK to let the article be created, in the meantime WP:RFD#D2 confusing since none I have tried is even mentiond at all at the target. Si Trew (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. These provide no information to the user beyond what is implied in the title (literally "this is a number"). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment (number) is not part of the title, or at least another thinks so in a previous RfD. Not sure if it is nor not, meself. Si Trew (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
What I mean is, if you were to write the number 1913, or pipe it to 1913 (number), we've provided exactly the same information to the reader, because there is nothing more via the redirect. So whether my page says "there were 1,913 paper airplanes" or "there were 1,913 paper airplanes" I've provided identical information; the bluelink is useless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Redirects have uses other than links. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC).

*Comment 1000 numbers not per nom. --忍者ポップ (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

忍者ポップ is a globally locked sockpuppet. See my comments at Raymond Terrace Roosters above. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep The potential "harm" is much exaggerated. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC).
  • Keep The reason for delete ' This could cause potential harm for readers trying to find information about these specific numbers' is invalid. Wikipedia is not censored - potential harm to readers by information or lack of it in Wikipedia is not our concern. Dmcq (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
This is an astonishing statement, though I suspect you don't know what "harm" is meant in this case. It's about not misleading readers into thinking we have coverage where we don't. It's not about protecting anyone's feelings or anything. If you're suggesting this has anything to do with censorship, that's really quite outrageous. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If we don't have any information on some of these numbers, we shouldn't suggest otherwise. I trust readers will be able to deduce that they're between 1001 and 1999 without our help. --BDD (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and that these are years, and represent other things. The search term 1100 (number) (for example) is not meaningful and there is nothing you can really say about this number or most of the others other then "its a number between x and y". Legacypac (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Gold mine (slang)[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) 18:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete per WP:SLANG. Other option is soft redir to wikt, which as parenthetic doesn't seem useful. Old AfD here.Widefox; talk 19:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see any strong connection to Gold farming. Instead I consider the slang term 'gold mine' to mean any really profitable opportunity. Legacypac (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Nose-picking. If that doesn't work, delete as unclear/ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Steel1943. This redirect is too ambiguous to be useful. -- Tavix (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 00:18, 16 March 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.

Bluerinse[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. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Delete per WP:XY, WP:RFD#D2 confusing, as per previous a month ago.

This was at RfD pn Feb 21 was to delete. (Speedily.) And so it was. On Feb 22 this was recreated to one of the targets I mentioned in the kinda XY rationale, by User:Rich Farmbrough, who is not wet behind the ears, and assuming good faith it must be coincidence it was created on Feb 22 after being deleted with consensus the day earlier, therefore, I think the earlier consensus to delete should stand. Si Trew (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete WP:G4. The situation leading to its original deletion has not improved. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: It was speedy deleted G7 last time, which means that the author requested deletion. It was recreated by a different author, so it's not the same situation. I think it's best to let this have a proper discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, WP:G4 pacifically percludes speedy deletions.--67.68.210.65 (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can see there are three different uses of the term "blurinse" or "Bluerinse", excluding as a nickname or handle, E.G. Bluerinse McNicholl.
  1. As an alternative spelling of bluerinse or "blue-rinse", E.G. engineered to bring the bluerinse shires to their feet at party conference.
  2. A typesetting company in Australia, Bluerinse Setting
  3. An "experiment" in Lilo and Stich.
I'm pretty sure that typesetting company is irrelevant at the moment,as it is not mentioned on Wikipedia. I would be fairly confident that the primary meaning is the first (indeed the others derive from that) therefore Blue rinse is a good target.
If a third meaning was mentioned on Wikipedia then a disambiguation page might be appropriate. As it is this looks like the best solution.

And hence:

  • Keep.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC).
  • Weak keep {{R from typo}} it certainly is an acceptable typo. If there are no other topics, then this is a usable redirect by omission of a space. If there are other topics, it could still be the primary topic of this, so hatnotes could be built or it coult be turned into a disambiguation page -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep since it's a reasonable alternative spelling. The only other topic I could find was List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch, and it seems awfully trivial for a hatnote... -- Tavix (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:04, 14 March 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 Tamagotchi Chracters[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. czar 20:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It's best to delete this, since this isn't a very common typo. 71.57.220.68 (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep while I believe "charcter" is a more common mis-spelling, this redirect is neither new nor harmful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC).
  • Delete. Besides being a typo, no list of the such is present in the article. And on top of that, the redirect could be seen to have a WP:XY issue: Does this redirect refer to different types of Tamagotchi, or does it refer to all characters in the Tamagotchi multiverse? Steel1943 (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Steel1943. -- Tavix (talk) 02:04, 16 March 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.

Exacted[edit]

These words have several different meanings then the target, though they are related in some ways. Neelix creations. There is Exact (disambiguation) which may be a better target. Also Exactor exists. Legacypac (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete all. Standard-issue Neelix bollocks. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep wP:VERB - Exact redirects to extortion, so exacting, exacted, exacts as various verb forms of "exact" should either point there or to exact (disambiguation) since we have a primary topic of the verb "exact" being "extortion" the verb-forms of "exact" point to the right place -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Exact has only pointed there since last week, and I don't necessarily agree extortion is the primary topic. [12] I see exact as meaning [13] precise as the primary meaning, but of course it depends on which part of speech it is used as. Legacypac (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for point out the recent change. In that case, restore Exact (disambiguation) back to exact and retarget all these verb forms to "exact" disambiguation page -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • 'Delete all Exact is an adjective, all these endings are noun endings, none of these even make any sense at all. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment "-ed", "-ing", "-s" are verb endings. wikt:exact is also a verb. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to Exact (disambiguation) as closely related words. I also agree that exact should not direct readers to extortion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedily redab and retarget per above. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC).
  • Note per this talk page it seems Exact has pointed to Extortion in the past.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC).
  • Comment – please check the history of Exact (disambiguation). sst✈ 06:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget Exacter and Exacters to Exactor as plausible misspelling. Weak delete the others, basically as WP:NOTDIC Neelix nonsense that shouldn't've been created, and probably wouldn't've been by anyone else. I somewhat expect them to end up at the dab, though. I'm going to argue the dab should be at the base title, though. See Talk:Exact (disambiguation) if interested. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

March 12[edit]

American Samoa (U.S. state)[edit]

Here are a couple redirects that are misleading. American Samoa is not a U.S. State. Having the redirect might cause someone to think that it is a state, so let's not spread that misinformation. The new tool shows 4 hits in the last 90 days. Also nominating one other redirect for the same reasons. -- Tavix (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm going to vote delete simply based on the fear that these will spread misinformation, though I am also sympathetic to the possibility that a reader who is unfamiliar with the nuances of U.S. political subdivisions may think that these are "states" and then search for these articles based on that false assumption. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic too, but I think it's implausible that someone would search in that fashion, so it's not something to worry about. -- Tavix (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to 51st state where the statehood possibilities for these territories are detailed. (and especially the USVI could be incorporated into PRUSVI if Puerto Rico becomes a state) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to 51st state per above. MB298 (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
That was my line of thought, along with because they were created by the same person at the same time. If these were to be deleted, my plan was to go through the rest of them and go from there. District of Columbia (U.S. state) redirects to District of Columbia statehood movement, for example, which seems different enough (to me) to nominate it separately. -- Tavix (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as misleading and unlikely search phrases (0.3 daily views and 0.01 daily views on average, respectively). I recognize that the statehood possibilities for these territories are covered in the article 51st state, but anyone typing these page titles will easily find the actual article American Samoa and the redirect U.S. Virgin Islands, respectively, before the nominated pages. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag with {{R from incorrect disambiguation}}. Many of our non-American readers—and probably a fair number of American ones—won't be aware of the distinction between US states and territories. Per the comments above, I understand how these seem less likely than for Guam, Puerto Rico, or the NMIs, but I still think the most likely desired topic if someone uses these search terms is the territories themselves. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
    You're probably right about the lack of awareness of the distinction between a US state and territory, but that is irrelevant in the case of a redirect from a disambiguated title to an undisambiguated one... anyone typing American Samoa (U.S. state) will see the actual article American Samoa long before they finish typing the full name of this redirect. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
True, but that's not the only way readers find articles. They may follow external links or type URLs directly, for example. Personally, I do direct URLs sometimes, but more often use a Chrome browser plugin to query the search engine. It doesn't give suggestions for autofill. I appreciate the improvements to the MediaWiki search, but we shouldn't assume it's the only way readers will navigate the encyclopedia. --BDD (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
People can search in multiple ways, but I think the more relevant question would be if people are actually searching using these terms. It'd be one thing if this was a common occurrence, then I'd agree with you, BDD. However, it boggles my mind why someone would want to keep around blatant error to possibly help someone once every 90 or so days. -- Tavix (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD. Steel1943 (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • delete, per Black Falcon (though anything else does not hurt either) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabla (talk • contribs) 21:11, 26 March 2016‎ (UTC)

Mr. Trump[edit]

Same issue as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 2#Ms. Rodham. Eric Trump, Fred Trump, Frederick Trump..... Bad title for disambiguation. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump on The Apprentice was frequently referred to as Mr. Trump, and this is a valid search term. Generally it refers to Donald Trump and not to any of his male relatives. MB298 (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as an ambiguous redirect. I could understand retargeting to Trump (surname) if the redirect was heavily used; however, it is not, and I see no value in having Mr. X, Ms. X, Mrs. X, Dr. X, etc., redirects to each X (surname) article. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
    • WP:CHEAP and it does refer to people of this surname, for which the surname article will list the notable people by this name -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 07:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
      • That's true, and if there was any indication that it was being even moderately used, I would agree that the redirect should be kept. However, it is not used, and someone searching for "Mr. Trump" will just as easily arrive at the disambiguation page, with no need for "Mr. Trump" or any variations thereof ("Mr X", "Mister X", "Sir X", "Hon. X", "Dr. X", "Prof. X", etc.). WP:CHEAP is basically a long-winded way of saying "meh" and, therefore, carries no weight in my opinion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per MB298, retarget to Trump (surname) as second choice. --BDD (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Criteria and indicators[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) 17:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Criteria and indicators could refer to anything. Redirecting to Sustainable forest management seems to violate the principle of WP:SURPRISE. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete - this absolutely could refer to anything. It seems to be a reference to Criteria & Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoudLizard (talk • contribs)
Comment @LoudLizard: I'd agree with you except this redirect was created in 2006! I can't believe it has lasted so long! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment @WikiDan61: I did see that it's very old. I don't understand why it has remained in this state either. LoudLizard (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. This is an ambiguous and unlikely search phrase (0.2 daily views on average), and also unhelpful per WikiDan61's reasoning. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Criteria & Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management. Yes, it appears to be a vague or common concept, but according to my search, this specific phrase overwhelmingly refers to Sustainable Forest Management, of which the phrase appears to be a common shorthand. -- Tavix (talk) 05:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete WP:ASTONISH this is not solely or primarily or majorly a forest management topic. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:42, 17 March 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.

Zhang Yu'an (television personality)[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. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

As redundant. Only one person called Zhang Yu'an (张玉安) has him article on this Wikipedia. Dabao qian (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

  • You're right, there's only one, but he is a television personality, so put {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} and keep it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as an unhelpful/unnecessary redirect. Redirects created as a result of page moves do not need to be nominated for deletion. However, now that this one has been, there is no compelling reason to keep it since the move history is preserved in the edit history of the target page (diff). -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:CHEAP and the redirect is correct -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:42, 16 March 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.

File:Dickebusch Old Military Cemetery 1848255324.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedily deleted. (non-admin closure) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This file redirect is currently shadowing an almost identical file (commons:File:Dickebusch Old Military Cemetery 1848255324.jpg) which has higher resolution than the current redirect target. Recommend that the redirect be deleted so that the Commons file displays instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:22, 12 March 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.

Maintenance chemotherapy[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. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete, since they are no synonyms, and the article on chemotherapy has an internal link to maintenance chemotherapy, which should not redirect to it. RekishiEJ (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep link but remove link in chemotherapy to "maintencance chemotherapy" (which I have done). Maintencance chemo is simply a type of chemo. It is not anything special and is not significant enough for its own article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Doc James and tag with {{R from subtopic}}. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:10, 14 March 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.

Creator of Wikipedia[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 Wikipedia. Thanks everyone (non-admin closure) sst✈ 16:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete per WP:XY. Can refer to either Jimmy Wales or Larry Sanger. sst✈ 03:59, 12 March 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.

Muslim forces terror in Sarajevo[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) 16:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I had nominated the article for CSD. It has no substantial history. An administrator redirected the same to Bosnian war. Chiefly, I view the title of the redirect as going against Wikipedia's WP:NPOV guidelines on article naming. The term Muslim forces deliberately paints a negative shade on overall Muslims, and attempts to reinforce a POV term like terror. To super-emphasise "Muslim forces terror in Sarajevo", while also being grammatically incorrect, would justify the existence of religion based redirects (aka, Christian forces terror in Iraq). Moreover, the actual Bosnian War witnessed "the ethnic cleansing of the Bosniak Muslim and Croat population" (as per the Bosnian War article) rather than vice versa. Requesting deletion of this redirect. Xender Lourdes (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is not acceptable even as a redirect. WP:RNEUTRAL would normally apply, but it explicitly says that the exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, which is precisely the case here. GregorB (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Redirects are not expected to be always NPOV, but this is just plain unhelpful because the terminology isn't used like this. Who in the media refers to alleged Islamic militants as "Muslim forces terror"? That would be like referring to Wikipedia as "Pedia Wiki Internet" or the U.S. Republican Party as "Party American Republican". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:01, 18 March 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.

Turkishpedia[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) 16:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no such thing, and all the search results from Google are virtually wikipedia mirrors. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as a confusing and unlikely search for Turkish Airlines (0.2 daily views on average, mostly connected with this nomination), and consider recreating (without the current page history) as a redirect to Turkish Wikipedia. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:19, 19 March 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.

Airlineschina[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) 16:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Unlikely search term, I think it is more plausible for Air China than anything else, but delete nevertheless, as Airlines china doesn't exist. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:08, 11 March 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.

Mac Cory (Another World)[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. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. A new page was recently created but, rather than creating it with the Mac Cory re-direct already in existence, a new Mac Cory (Another World) page was created. With no other "Mac Cory" pages, however, there's no need to disambiguate (also making it a highly unlikely search term as the much simpler "Mac Cory" is already the page name). The page name has already been corrected and I have already corrected all the pages linking to the incorrect re-direct.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep WP:CHEAP this is redirect is correct, it is a character from "Another World" -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    • It would be nice if people would actually read before commenting... lolCebr1979 (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
      • I did read your nomination. There was nothing there to explain why it should be deleted. The redirect is correct, the target is a character from Another World. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Cebr1979 Normal practice is to keep it and put {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} on it. There's no reason to delete it that I can see. If there was a huge copyvio or attack page in the page history, I might say to delete it and recreate as a redirect, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Oiyarbepsy is right that there is no compelling need to delete, as it is generally not necessary to update incoming links to a redirect except when those links are from disambiguation pages or templates, or perhaps through the course of normal editing. However, there is also no compelling reason to keep this unhelpful/unnecessary redirect now that it has been nominated and the move history is preserved at the target article (diff). -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:54, 14 March 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.

March 8[edit]

User talk:Luke de paul[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 move User talk:Roger Delacroix over the redirect (without leaving a redirect). It appears User:Luke de paul attempted to rename himself, but [[User:Roger Delacroix is currently not registered. So the target page is a user talk page for a nonexistent user, and what should be an active user talk page is redirecting there. This decision will make the correct user talk page functional, and the user is free to pursue an official rename request. --BDD (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Came across this redirect while trying to post this on User talk:Luke de paul. Not sure what the purpose of this redirect, but it might have been just a good faith attempt at a username change by a fairly new editor unfamiliar with WP:RENAME. Anyway, there is no user account registered as "Roger Delacroix" which means that there is a potential for conflict if someday someone does try and register that account name. Not really sure what needs to done here since both the redirected user talk page and the target user talk page now both have been edited by others and have their own respective page histories. Finally, since this relates to userspace redirect, not sure if it's OK to ask about it here. If it isn't, please advise where such a discussion should take place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Both the user talk page and User:Roger Delacroix/sandbox should be moved back to their original locations and a global renamer or steward can then globally rename "Luke de paul" to "Roger Delacroix". 96.41.0.15 (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Move target to User talk:Luke de paul since that is the name of the editor. Steel1943 (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • comment the issue here is not the redirect, but the best means of changing the user name. I have asked for help here. --NSH002 (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the clarification NSH002. For reference, Luke de paul/Roger Delacroix posted on my user talk about something else and I advised them that you are trying to help them with their user name change, and said they should contact you. Even so, there is still this redirect that needs to be resolved. Maybe both the name change and redirect can be resolved at the same time by the same admin. Perhaps asking for assistance at WT:CHU will help speed things along. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
      Marchjuly, Avi is a highly competent admin/bureaucrat/steward who's been around on Wikipedia even longer than I have, and whom I trust and respect. It appears that Avi isn't so active nowadays on Wikipedia as he used to be, so I'll give him another day or two to respond and then if necessary, raise it at WP:CHU. Incidentally, by nominating this redirect, you made it impossible for our young friend to follow my instructions on his talk page without admin assistance. One other niggle: at the link you gave, you referred to me using the ugly and ungrammatical singular they, but on my main user page I state my real name, so you know what my gender is. I dislike the singular they in general, though I will tolerate it in some cases where its antecedent is indefinite. Even if you don't know the gender, it is always possible to recast a sentence to avoid the singular they. I find it jarring when someone refers to an editor as "they", when we know for certain that the user is only one person. I don't suppose that I can stop people doing this, but at least I can request that editors not do it about me. Regards, NSH002 (talk) 09:35, 10 March 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.

Women-born women[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) -- Tavix (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The sources refer to it as "Womyn-born womyn" but never as "Women-born women". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's a phonetic match and plausible misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Steel. --Lenticel (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Steel11943. Page is result from another user's pagemove which I undid. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - As stated above, it's a phonetic swapping mistake that I'm sure multiple people will be doing in the future and probably do right now. The redirect is helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:21, 9 March 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.

Freedom Girls[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) 20:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

How notable is this and how do we know it doesn't refer to anything else? Mr. Guye (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete seems to be a cheerleading group that was authorized by Trump to perform in one of his rallies. Anyways, I think this may cause confusion since it may be construed that Trump owns/manages them --Lenticel (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - The group's performance for Trump appears to be a flash-in-the-pan thing without encyclopedic significance in the first place, and I also agree that the redirect as it stands may be confusing. If this isn't particularly helpful, let's just get rid of it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:19, 9 March 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.

Santorum's Google problem[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 15#Santorum's Google problem

Jaynee[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✈ 09:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that this Neelix redirect should be converted into a disambiguation page because there are two people with this name. However, Jaynee Germond is a redirect while Jaynee LaVecchia has her own article. Does the redirect template R from given name include redirects? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - nobody is known by this mononym. As for the two possible targets, Ms. Germond is a non-notable candidate who lost a primary for a state-level election, which is well off from WP:POLITICIAN requirements, but I don't know if we would include this sort of person on a dab page anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as no one should be searching for people by first name only anyway. Would you search for John or Henry or Susan and expect to find your target? Just because this is a rare enough name that currently there is only one subject on Wikipedia with an article does not mean this should be a redirect.
  • Keep, {{R from given name}}. This is the exact same situation as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 9#Kayte: there is only one person with a Wikipedia article with the name, a non-notable person also has the name, but could be hatnoted, and there's a few similar spellings that should all be hatnoted. -- Tavix (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, this situation could be a little different. Unlike Kayte, this is unambiguously a homonym of Jaynie. I could support a redirect to Jaynie, it might be better than lengthy hatnotes. -- Tavix (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
That wouldn't work, it's way too big of a stretch to make. I don't have any sources, but Jaynee could reasonably be a diminutive for names such as "Janine," "Janice," "Janet," and "Jana," probably among others. This is why we shouldn't be throwing out suggestions unless they're obviously related (such as the unambiguous homonyms of Jaynie and Jaynee). -- Tavix (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose retargeting - as Tavix and 70.51 have demonstrated, it is ambiguous whether this is a homonym of Jaynie or a misspelling of Jane. Search results better. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as {{R from given name}} or disambiguate with other people called "Jaynee". Since Jaynee LaVecchia is the only person called "Jaynee" with an article on en.wp, she stands as the primary topic. I don't think we should target to name lists of similar names as Jaynee is a uniquely English invention. Deryck C. 17:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Deryck. I think Germond is too low-profile to merit a hatnote, though would be worth a mention if there were a disambiguation page anyway. --BDD (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:06, 8 March 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.

Shenae[edit]

Splitting discussion from batch-nomination Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 14#Neelix PTMs. In the previous discussions, the suggestions were:

As clerking admin I am neutral on this. Deryck C. 17:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - no evidence this person is known by a mononym. A Neelix-created redirect does not imply WP:RFD#K5 unless it can be shown separately; he mass-created thousands of these. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I also oppose creating any dablist or setindex, which would be almost entirely made up of partial title matches. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Keep as {{R from given name}} ("used because Wikipedia has only one biographical article of a person by this given name" in addition to mononyms). This was converted to a dab before Deryck relisted, but species are almost never referred to by the second part of their binomial names alone. I actually don't know of a single case. So they're a true partial-title match. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete I favor Ivanvector reasoning. Legacypac (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD and my comments regarding the close: "From my understanding, species names are considered WP:PTM's and aren't disambiguated. You'll either see it as "Autosticha shena" or "A. shenae" but never simply "shenae" unless that happens to be the common name. A good example for precedent would be: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinctoria." On the other hand, a given name is not a WP:PTM because people are commonly referred to by their given name only (ie: it would be correct to refer to her simply as "Shenae," the "Grimes" isn't necessary). For example this article refers to her as simply "Shenae" throughout the piece, title and first sentence aside. The person doesn't have to be mononymous for this to work; I think that's more of an article titling question. (And also, Ivan, people like myself view this as useful, so WP:RFD#K5 is implied here). -- Tavix (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
That's an editorial decision. She is identified by her full name in the title and early in the article. Had they not, it would not be readily apparent who they were referring to, but later in the article since she's already been identified and it's in an informal tone they just use her first name. Had this been an article about someone who is commonly known by the name "Shenae" (like, for example, P!nk [14] or Raffi [15]) then they would not have had to do that. As for K5, it's not implied that Neelix finds this redirect useful; you stated explicitly that you do though so it doesn't need to be implied. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
K5 is if someone finds it useful. I do, so it meets K5. -- Tavix (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not arguing that. I disagree that Neelix's creation of the redirect suggests that he finds it useful. We often use K5 as an argument that "someone created this, so it must be useful", and I'm saying that I don't think that should be an argument for redirects that Neelix created, because he created thousands of them probably with an automated tool and likely with no thought to what would be useful or not and clearly with no review at all. But I'm not saying that you don't find it useful, that would be silly. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I know what you're saying, even though I don't see the relevance since no one was arguing that in the first place. For the record, I don't like the "someone created this, so it must be useful" argument, no matter who the author is, as all redirects could be argued that they are useful since they were created. Then what are we doing here? Unless someone comes out and specifically says why they find it useful, I don't believe K5 to applicable, implied or otherwise. Even more off topic: Neelix didn't use an automated tool with his edits. He said it himself in his ANI and I believe him due to his editing patterns. -- Tavix (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak dabify per Deryck. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 21:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
    • @Champion: Not sure what you mean by "per Deryck" - I've only repeated two mutually exclusive suggestions from previous discussion and didn't provide justification for either. Deryck C. 12:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Indexify/Dabify per the last RfD discussion -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as {{R from given name}}. I've become convinced by BDD and Tavix's arguments. It is incorrect to refer to either A. shenae or D. shenae simply as "shenae" per binomial nomenclature, but always correct to refer to a person (at least in the English-speaking world) by given name only. As such, if we turned this into a dab, it'd be giving away the primary topic status of an {{R from short name}} to a disambiguation with several {{R from incorrect name}}s, which is not a good idea. Deryck C. 13:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Heart Forth Alicia[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) 20:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Per this edit, Chucklefish Games is no longer publishing Heart Forth, Alicia, and there's nothing else of note to redirect this to, so I don't see any reason to keep this redirect. IagoQnsi (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit: added related redirect Heart Forth, Alicia to this discussion. -IagoQnsi (talk) 20:19, 8 March 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.

Friends Day[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. --BDD (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Should perhaps redirect to Friendship Day? JZCL 20:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep - February 4th was declared "Friends Day" by Facebook, and utilized by multipled individuals. "Facebook's 'Friends Day' videos take you on trip down memory lane". USA TODAY. 4 February 2016. Retrieved 8 March 2016.  --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. The current target is unhelpful as the article on Facebook gives no information on a 'Friends Day.' Friendship Day, on the other hand, would be a closely related concept and an appropriate target. -- Tavix (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Tavix. --Lenticel (talk) 00:30, 10 March 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.

Mattijs[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. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Three redirects to Matthew (name). I'm unclear on how these redirects relate to the name. Nominated here:

Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Redirect - 'Mattijs' should go to Mattijs Visser. As well, 'Madz' should go to 'University of the Philippines Madrigal Singers' as the popular group has that as a nickname, which is a fact important enough to be in the lead section of the group's article. The last case is more ambiguous. 'Madts' seems to usually be used as a term referring to this, but we already have a page for 'MADT' to which the entries can have 'MADTs' / 'Madts' as a valid plural. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Hopefully we can keep this from being a WP:TRAINWRECK. Fingers crossed:
Retarget Mattijs to Mattijs Visser, {{R from given name}}. to Matthijs. I agree with Drmies that we should "have one single article for names like Mattijs/Mathijs/Matthijs." Expanding Matthijs to include all three spellings seems reasonable. -- Tavix (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Retarget Madz to University of the Philippines Madrigal Singers, seems to be the primary usage.
Delete Madts, there is nothing on Wikipedia by that name, and nothing at "MADT" seems to go by "MADTs". -- Tavix (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • ? "Mattijs", "Mathijs", "Matthijs" etc. are all Dutch variants of English "Matthew". A redirect to Mattijs Visser looks good but only at first glance; you could redirect it to Mathijs Bouman as well, since this spelling, with or without h, with single or double t, is arbitrary. Perhaps a better target is Matthew (name) (or Mathew!), but that article needs to link to the name disambiguation pages.

    Mads, as in Mads (given name), is the Scandinavian form (as is Mats (name)) of Matthew and should redirect in the same way that Mat(t)(h)ijs does. I cannot make a similar case for Madts--but that was made way back when by, you guessed it, Neelix. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Other options to consider: We could update Matthijs to include all Dutch variants of Matthew (Mattheas?), and redirect there. Mathijs is currently red, but that could redirect to Matthijs as well, since it looks like there are four people with the name who have Wikipedia bios. The other option would be to redirect to Mr. Visser and add a hatnote to Matthijs. There could be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT claim for Mr. Visser since his spelling is "unique" on Wikipedia. -- Tavix (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
See, I don't really know much about primary stuff. That spelling, sure, that's something, but I think we shouldn't overemphasize spelling. I went to school with Bouman, and I never really knew if it was one T or two. If I had my way, we would have one single article for names like Mattijs/Mathijs/Matthijs, also because they're first names, and if that were subsumed under the larger article Matthew (given name) I would not have a problem with that ("Shoemaker" is not a translation of "Schoenmaker", or vice versa, in the way that "Mathijs" and "Matthew" are both translations of Matityahu). I like most parts of your suggestion, but I'm not a big fan of a first name redirecting to a biography, not even for Donald. Ha! I see where The Donald goes... Drmies (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Drmies; -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:28, 8 March 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.

File:CT of brain of Mikael Häggström large.png[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) 20:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Due to bugzilla:28299, this redirect is ignored in favour of a redirect on Commons. The local redirect should be deleted as confusing. Stefan2 (talk) 10:34, 8 March 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.

File:Blackness Castle, Blackness, Scotland..jpg[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) 20:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Due to bugzilla:28299, this redirect is ignored in favour of a redirect on Commons. The local redirect should be deleted as confusing. Stefan2 (talk) 10:34, 8 March 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.

Foreign language redirects to Wikipedia[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 as outlined by Tavix, delete the remainder. --BDD (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
All the noms
Discussion[edit]

I think that these should have the same rationale as Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_6#Redirects to Main Page as this is the English Wikipedia and those searching these terms would not be helped by them. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I think that it is confusing that 維基大典 and 維基百科 have different targets. Retarget all of them to articles about a Wikipedia language edition which uses the redirect name in the local language. If there are multiple such language editions, then disambiguate instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget any redirects that have an article written about that language's Wikipedia. For example വിക്കിപീഡിയ should retarget Malayalam Wikipedia. Retarget ambiguous redirects that could be used for multiple languages to List of Wikipedias, as that should solve the WP:XY problem. Delete the rest. -- Tavix (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Since I've gotten some agreement, here's what my proposed solution would look like, redirect by redirect:
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.
Thanks for double checking, and I'm fine with your changes. Википедия also seems to be the name of the Uzbek Wikipedia in the Cyrillic script, but the Russian one would be the primary topic. Again, विकिपीडिया also seems to be the Marathi Wikipedia, but Hindi would be primary. Hatnote them perhaps? I hit on Hebrew instead of Yiddish for some reason, but I can't figure out why now... -- Tavix (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

VIM[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 Vim. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Should go to the dab at Vim, disregarding the hatnote at the target. The reason I brought it up here rather than correct it myself is because this R has a history and also the hatnote, thus I thought it may be controversial. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

  • REtarget to dab page per nom ; though the software is an acronym, there are other capitalized uses. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the dab page. As an acronym for the software ("vi improved", "vi" is never capitalized) it would be either "vim" or "vIm", depending on your level of unix zealotry. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the dab page per above --Lenticel (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to dab. Differences in capitalisation always make poor disambiguation, but even if we wanted to point this redirect somewhere other than the dab page, Vim (text editor) seems like a poor candidate. The software is inconsistent at best when it comes to capitalisation. Its splash screen starts off with "VIM - Vi IMproved", but three lines down has "Vim is open source and freely distributable". The man page it is distributed with and the program's website consistently use "Vim", not to mention it's own logo. Most people I know who use it refer to it as "vim" without any capitalisation at all because that's the way the executable is capitalised (like most Unix programs).—Ketil Trout (<><!) 02:12, 12 March 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.
source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160329221014/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion

Leave a Reply