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.

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

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

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

Before listing a redirect for discussion

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

The guiding principles of RfD

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

When should we delete a redirect?

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

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

Shortcut:

Reasons for deleting

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

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

Reasons for not deleting

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects

Shortcut:

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

Non-neutral redirects 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

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

Shortcut:
I.
Tag the redirect.

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

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

 Click 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

June 16

Melbourne City Wrestling

Re-submitting after no consensus was reached on the previous listing. Delete under R10. Redirects to lists with little if any useful information aren't encyclopaedic and WP:REDLINK applies as there is some notability through the presence of Emma and Buddy Murphy. Curse of Fenric (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  • n.b. Previous discussion here. --BDD (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I continue to doubt that this organization is notable on its own. The two wrestlers cited in the nomination would hardly be notable if they had never left this minor competition, and notability is not inherited, so their later success doesn't bestow notability. --BDD (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy procedural close - previous discussion closed with no consensus for any action, and I doubt that situation has changed in the two weeks since. No comment on the redirect; if you like you can read my comments at the previous thread. Ivanvector (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Previous discussion was distracted by another issue (partly my fault as well) so procedural close is not appropriate. Curse of Fenric (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentKeep - when I looked into this before, I came to the tentative conclusion there wasn't enough info to make an article, so redlinking was inappropriate. If I was wrong ... well, the smart thing to do would be to make the article and render the question moot. If I was right, then it should be kept. Cycling around RfD again and again ain't wise. WilyD 08:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete This is similar to an RfD I saw earlier this morning when commenting on the June 13 nomination of Bill Cunningham. Naturally this is not political, but the same situation applies when it comes to redirects that only work if the subject is contained in a substantive way in the target article - which this is not. Redirects to lists that carry a name and virtually nothing else should be discouraged as unencyclopedic IMO. WP:NOT discourages directories, which this redirect contributes to. As an aside, the target article's notability is questionable but I shall leave that be. Dragonfire X (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No consensus. How many times does this need to be listed? Ivanvector (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

XHFJ-FM

It appears this station changed its calls a long time ago to XHMIX-FM but the page move was never made.

The main reason to delete the redirect is because there is an XHFJ-FM 95.1 in Teziutlán, Puebla (see the IFT FM tables). Raymie (t • c) 21:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep is the Puebla station notable? If it isn't, it doesn't matter that it exists. This is valid because it is a former callsign (former name) ; If the Puebla station is notable, the you can stubbify the redirect into an article and add a hatnote. Otherwise, keep as is. Non-notable stations do not "confuse" since they do not belong on Wikipedia. Pointing former names of notable stations to their articles is the proper thing to do. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Until such time as the notability of that other station is established this needs to stay as is per the IP. Dragonfire X (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert Muise

Neither informative nor logical. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep or turn into article These two people seem to work together on a lot of projects. I looked up Robert Muise and he might be notable. If he is, an article should be created for him. If not, these two seem to to be discussed in a lot of sources, like this one [1] and therefore be kept because yes, Muise and Yerushalmi are very relevant to one another. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Kate's tool

Delete per WP:RFD#D6 and WP:CNR#Arguments for deleting CNRs. This was kept back in 2007, but since Kate's tool is no longer functional I think the harm outweighs the good in keeping this. Tavix| Talk  19:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete XNR to a tool that is no longer Kate's Tool and is pipework content anyways, unsuitable for reader content. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

MakeMKV

MakeMKV is software that can be used to transcode video to the Matroska file format. It is in no way the same thing as the format, so the redirect here makes no sense. Keeping the redirect may discourage others from creating the page. — SkyLined (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:—

An em dash which produces an em dash. This redirect is actually used 33 times. Alakzi (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep viable search term to figure out the name of the template that produces emdashes. Though it shouldn't be used as a transclusion. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Albert Pooholes

I'm nominating this as a test case of sorts for WP:RFD#D3. On one hand, "Pooholes" is a phonetically accurate way to pronounce his name in English and could be helpful for someone who has only heard his name but not seen it spelled. On the other hand, it could be seen as offensive (poohole = asshole). Tavix| Talk  16:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per the speedy criterion WP:G10, but I'd like to see the discussion play out. The IPA is Spanish pronunciation: [puˈxols] according to the article, meaning that the pronunciation is closer to "poo-holse", with the h being more like the ch in Scottish loch, a hard s, and emphasis on the final syllable. Thus I think "pooholes" is really a thinly-veiled insult hiding behind phonetics, and we should delete it. Ivanvector (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • While that is true (except the emphasis is on the first syllable), it gets approximated in English to "POO-holes" (reference). Tavix| Talk  19:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be right. The ˈ is supposed to indicate that emphasis is on the syllable which follows, so our IPA in the article may be incorrect (should be [pu.xols]), unless he pronounces his name differently in Spanish. It does seem that this is a well-known approximation (whether erroneous or not) so I guess we should keep it, possible offense notwithstanding. Ivanvector (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Not to bias this discussion; I have boldly corrected the IPA in the article. Ivanvector (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment while creator has made questionable edits in the past, this creation seems to be innocent. Check out its edit history. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

June 15

Snootchie

While this may be a term used by Jay (of Jay and Silent Bob) to refer to sexual organs, I don't think that's exactly accurate (it's more just a nonsense interjection). I see no reliable usage of this term to refer to the target outside of the View Askewniverse, and it is not mentioned at the target, so it should be deleted. For possible background, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 14#Snootch. Ivanvector (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator. See also my rationale in the related discussion. Ivanvector (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:SURPRISE. Not mentioned at target. WP:NOTDIC and WP:NEOLOGISM for that matter. But I think it is the -tch- as opposed to -ch- that is probably (genuinely, not pedantically) confusing me here with these. (We don't have Snoochie, for example). Si Trew (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as a neologism per WP:RDELETE#8. Esquivalience t 02:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • delete as an obscure synonym. --Lenticel (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Untitled 2007/2008 New Edition Reunion Album

Delete: New Edition never did make a reunion album in 2007/2008. This is why we have WP:HAMMER. Tavix| Talk  22:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

San diego incident

Delete as vague (WP:RFD#D2). There are a lot of incidents that have occurred in San Diego and most of them don't include dinosaurs. Tavix| Talk  22:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

J.D. Poo

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 per WP:G10 by various admins. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Insulting play on the baseball player's name mentioned only a couple of times on obscure websites. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Template NPF roster/doc

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 - G6 cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Redirect left over from a move that should have been deleted. Move in question was a cross-namespace move to put a template that was created in mainspace into template-space. No transclusions/links to the original mainspace name exist, so this redirect is no longer necessary. Eligible for deletion under criterion 6, as "a cross-namespace redirect out of article space". I would just nominate for speedy under CSD R2, but R2 doesn't apply to CNRs to template space. I thought about nominating for speedy deletion under CSD G8, uncontroversial maintenance, but wasn't sure if everybody would see this as uncontroversial as I do, so here we are. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @Cymru.lass: R2 may not apply, but I do think CSD G6 applies. It would fall under: "Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace." Tavix | Talk  16:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: Oh, wow. You're right! I must have skipped right over that line... Nominating for speedy deletion now. Thank you!! Should I close the RfD now, or wait til it's speedied? cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Cymru.lass: I'd wait for it to be speedied, just in case it gets declined (not saying that it would, but there's always that chance). Tavix | Talk  16:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: Figured as much. Thanks again :) Cheers, cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:A6 or for that matter WP:G7, author (authesse, authlass?) requests dellchytion. Si Trew (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @SimonTrew: A6 doesn't exist and G7 doesn't apply because the author never requested deletion. It's being handled under G6... Tavix| Talk  20:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
My mistake. I was just trying to support the author's request for deletion, as a disinterested third party (since you are "interested" in the sense of having commented, and for once in my life I hadn't). I slipped on the A6. Si Trew (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
A6 does actually exist, as prima facie evidenced by the fact it I just linked to it and it is not a redlink, but it does go a strange place, sort of wanders to WP:G10 under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Deprecated criteria. It was a a slip on my part, but I imagine that is how it came up to the criteria for me, because I couldn't work out how this managed to be the first port of call when I typed it, either. But you are dead right I meant G6 not A6. Si Trew (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:WANNABEKATE

The tool site has migrated so this needs updating but I can't find anything matching this name at [2]. It presumably no longer exists and this is therefore redundant. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

No objection from me. Looks like almost nothing even links to it. -- Ned Scott 23:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Found a reference to it here: User:Interiot/which but again a link to the old site which just directs you to the new one. The owner Interiot seems long retired which may be why this never migrated across.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Rifk

I don't know what this means. The hits I'm getting make it seem like it's either a misspelling of ROFL or it's an acronym for "rolling in floor kicking." Whatever it is, it's not mentioned at LOL so it's confusing. Tavix | Talk  01:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment it's a typo redirect for ROFL, due to bad hand placement on a QWERTY keyboard, when you improperly center your hands on the home row off by one key on your right hand to the left, you get this. Indeed, touch typists make such typos commonly, when one hand or the other, or both, are not centered properly, and off-by-one keyhits from one hand or the other or both errors occur. ROFL redirects to LOL, so a typo form of ROFL would also redirect to LOL -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - nonsense. Too many typos for the intended word to be recognizable, unless 70.51 is around to explain it whenever someone clicks on it. Ivanvector (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Why would I need to be around to explain? If you did the same typing error with the word "explain", the typo would be "ex[aom" a perfectly plausible typo made by touch typists (indeed, Usenet and the Web is replete with such errors) ; Tagging the redirect as a typo redirect should make it disappear, the {{R from typo}} already explains what it is a typo of, since there's a parameter for that. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Clearly an instance where we can add Draft:Template:Redirect documentation to the redirect page to go along with any {{rdir}} documentation messages ; if we get that live -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment. As for the template, I am quite happy to work with 70.51 to get that live: as it stands in Draft namespace the links don't work so well, so it is a bit hard to judge, but I would just be WP:BOLD and move it out of draft namespace into template namespace. It's easier for me to grumble about it then, once it's moved, and I would support that, with loads of reservations as it currently stands. Si Trew (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete Rifk as WP:RFD#D2 confusing and WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. For if not, we can redirect to Rifle or Rift (okay those are both right handed) or Riff. or Rik, all of which would be absurd. Si Trew (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. As for the touch typing argument by 70.51, that is nonsense. I do touch type but I have English baby typewriter, Hungarian keyboard I am using now, and English UK and English US keyboards, and a Belgian French/German one. Actually to get "[" or "]" on this Hungarian one I have to type AltGr+F and AltGr+G respectively, so that is hardly a likely typo on my keyboard. Even the US and UK keyboards vary substantially in that way, and do not support your argument. (English keyboard layout -> British and American keyboards). Si Trew (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
If I missed "explain" up the top on the right I would get "exőin". If I missed the L I would get expléin". Si Trew (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
One would expect a QWERTY keyboard on English Wikipedia, and not say, AZERTY or some Dvorak configuration, or other non-English keyboards -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - basically unnecessary. 'Rifk' could potentially be a typo for 'ROFL', but it could also be a typo for something else (Risk, for example), so this redirect is unhelpful. It seems a fairly unlikely search term in any case. Robofish (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Affectation

  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. This target has a very specific legal meaning in some civil law jurisdicta, most of which do not use English language as the first language.

Since the lede of the target says "s (e.g., France, Quebec, Mexico, etc.), " and doesn't even do WP:BOLDTITLE and "e.g."..... "etc." is WP:VAGUE to say the least, and the title of the article itself is rather Francophone, I think the redirect is harmful.

Do I have to sign or does Twinkle do it for me? I forget . Si Trew (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - 'affectation' is a common English word, and it's far from obvious that someone who searches for it is looking for this legal concept. Robofish (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Transracial Transformation

No-one ever uses the term "Transracial Transformation" for this topic. It appears to be made to save the Transracial disambiguation page. [3] -- haminoon (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment it's 9 years older than the dab page! (instead of more WP:AGF, using the ambiguous term in the dab is preferred per WP:MOSDAB / dab project common practice). Widefox; talk 01:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep long-standing redirect to valid (but poor) target. Plausible usage e.g. [4], some usage of "trans-racial" in others like [5] (only quick check) Widefox; talk 01:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom - nobody would use this as a term to get to the article it directs to. Just because it's been around awhile doesn't make it a logical redirect, especially when it's being used to prop up a claim to keep a DAB.—МандичкаYO 😜 05:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The trans- is essentially duplicated, but we are WP:NOTDIC. The target itself could be replaced by an R to something more sensible such as Human migration (can probably do better than that, just a first offering), since it offers little content, but one thing at a aime. Si Trew (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment Agree it appears to be somewhat of a tautology. Moving on from the factually incorrect, AGF lacking, flawed nom, this redirect should be deleted on grounds of wrong capitalisation. Whether it should be replaced with a lowercase version is another matter. It's not clear to me the creator's intent, and it does aid on this valid dab. The deletion of the dab has been procedurally closed (as requested) to reduce the drama of valid anti-WP:NEO deletion. As dabs (and long-standing entries on them) are about separate meanings, extending the drama to here is just disruption based on flawed logic and facts. Blanket deleting all plausibly valid ambiguous terms in an attempt to delete the dab that predates the NEO is just that, flawed and disruptive. Widefox; talk 10:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The lowercase also already exists, and is long-standing (well before the NEO drama). Widefox; talk 10:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

June 14

Umbrella Revolution

It must be retargeted to a separate topic, Umbrella Movement. The 2014 Hong Kong protests are just mere protests. George Ho (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

"Umbrella Corporation" merged into list of characters as the result of AFD. It's a bad example for comparison. --George Ho (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure, @George Ho:, I agree with you. I mentioned it solely to rule it out (it's a good bad example!). Si Trew (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but link in the lead and with hatnotes. When sources use the term "umbrella revolution" (with any capitalisation) they are almost always referring to the 2014 protests. The broader movement evolved out of those protests, and the name is derived from those protests, but at this point when people talk about the movement they use the term "movement" not "revolution". Accordingly, when someone searches for this term in mid-2015 they are most likely to be looking for information about the protests. If they are looking for information about the movement then a hatnote will point them in the right place if they know this, and the lead section should point them to the movement article if they didn't previously. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd perfectly go along with that, which was kinda what I was stabbing for in my usual round-the-houses way. Leaving my !vote for now, but pretty much aligned with what you (Thryduulf) say. I didn't want to be WP:BOLD and put in the hatnotes until we had consensus. Si Trew (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Aa.com.br

Delete per the spirit of WP:RFOREIGN. While this isn't a foreign language in its strictest sense, I believe foreign top level domains to fall in line with the same rationale. American Airlines is an American company and it's only affinity is to America. It's website is aa.com (and americanairlines.com redirects there too). Since we are the English Wikipedia, it doesn't make sense to create redirects to websites in a different language, the same way we don't create redirects in a foreign language. Tavix | Talk  01:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - plausible search terms, unworthy of their own articles (I believe, anyhow). Since the "spirit" of RFOREIGN is "Let's go out of our way to fuck the filthy mongrels who don't even have the decency to be good white anglophones", it's not a good reason to do anything. WilyD 08:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I rather think interlanguage links, Wikidata, and other language Wikipedias facilitate speakers of many languages, also abrogating the need to try to make any given Wikipedia navigable in any given language. And at best, you could call this bias towards anglophones. It's hardly about race. --BDD (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Anti-foreigner bias isn't strictly identical to racism, but they're Siamese twins; recall that it's Anglophones who speak white, eh? WilyD 09:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't make it about race. That isn't what this is about and you know it. It's that these are "novel or obscure" redirects that confuse people. Someone searching for this is looking for a foreign website, not a general article on American Airlines. Tavix | Talk  14:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • When you invoke racist essays to support racist positions, you make it about race. I can't help but follow suit when you've got down that rabbit hole. WilyD 09:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The main creator, User:WhisperToMe, hasn't been notified. I'm extending the discussion and notifying the creator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
For if not, let us list all of them in its website= field of its {{Infobox airline}}. which would be absurd. Si Trew (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
(And I am also not sure WP:RFOREIGN is much relevant, but I think can be safely cast aside). Si Trew (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and per WP:RFD#DELETE #2 (misleading) and #8 (unrelated foreign language redirect). These are websites for foreign affiliates of American Airlines (I think) and the article they're redirecting to is not about the foreign affiliates, nor is there anything about American Airlines which is especially relevant in any of these foreign languages. Ivanvector (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think they are affiliates as such but just registered domain names for American Airlines proper, in different parts of the world, rather than flags of convenience kinda thing used by affiliate/allied airlines (such as Copa Airlines did with Continental Airlines). Si Trew (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. You seem to be right, they are just redirectors for translated versions of their English page. I think, in that case, that if someone were to type one of these URLs into the search box on this here English Wikipedia, then the information that we have for them is the English American Airlines article, since we don't do cross-language soft redirects. I am striking my !vote but consider me neutral unless I comment again. Ivanvector (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see RFOREIGN applying to this. Top level domains aren't different in other languages, and many times the foreign branches of company websites (say the Japan site of Emirates Airline) are available in both English and the local language. They are subsidiaries of the original American company. There are US citizens applying overseas who need to use foreign websites. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • RFOREIGN aside, these are still implausible search terms that do nothing but confuse. Using your example, if a U.S. citizen abroad wants to book a ticket, they're not going to type in the name of a website into Wikipedia. Besides, they wouldn't get what they are looking for, just a general article on American Airlines. They will end up disappointed. These websites aren't mentioned at the targeted article. TL;DR: these are confusing, unhelpful, and implausible search terms. Tavix | Talk  22:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I checked three sites fairly randomly: www.americanairlines.fr is French-language, www.americanairlines.de is German-language, but www.americanairlines.ch, the Swiss site, defaults to me to Swiss German-language, but subpages such as the Reservations page come up for me in English: I don't know if that's because it detects the preferred language settings for my browser, or detects that I am in Hungary so probably don't speak Swiss German, or what: that's it's own affair and nothing to do with us. I can't see how our redirects at Wikipedia would help a U. S. citizen abroad. I would imagine they would go to aa.com instead. In any case, it is not our job to sort out American Airlines' website navigation, which appears mostly to work off the ?locale= part of the URL, such as http://www.aa.com/homePage.do?locale=es_NI will get you the Spanish-language Nicaragua website, but http://http://www.americanairlines.com.ru/intl/ru/index_en.jsp uses a different way to distinguish between Russian- and English-language versions. All are tied together eventually, but we shouldn't mimic AA's own internal website structure. Si Trew (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
By the way, stats for all these well within noise level (1 or 2 hits max/day with most days empty), except for Americanairlines.in, which had quite a peak of 15, descending to 12 and so on, in the middle of May this year: perhaps some ad campaign in India? Don't know. Si Trew (talk) 05:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Snootch

Jay has several nonsense catchphrases, but I don't know if these are the most notable (my vote would be for "snoogans"), and they're not mentioned at the target article. n.b. "Snootchie bootchies" was redirected at AfD back in February 2006. For those of you who weren't there at the time, the standards were rather different than today, to say the least. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the standards in those days were to say "different from" not "different than", (because one thing differs from another, it doesn't differ than another) but even H. W. Fowler realised that was only a sturdy indefensible. 23:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
And apparently I only started as an ed (having been an IP before) in August 2008. Seems such a long time ago, though... Do you remember the days when if you wanted to change the TV channel you had to get up and walk three feet to the telly? Si Trew (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Snootchie bootchies, but Snootch is rather close in pronunciation and typing to Smooch → Kiss, well closer than I am to getting a kiss, that I was going to suggest a hatnote or two but both are redirects. Smootch and Snooch are red. Si Trew (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)I got a present, an AZERTY keyboard. Woohoo, but I ain't plugged it in yet.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep both per WP:CHEAP. Whether they're the most notable catchphrases or not is not the relevant consideration - these are clearly Jay's catchphrases and there is no potential for confusion, neither with another character who uses these phrases, nor a misspelling of a much more common term. This would be deletion for deletion's sake. Ivanvector (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Delete the second stet my rationale before deltion, for the first.
Oh, I think there is potential for confusion. I have never heard of Jay. Wouldn't know if that was a man or woman. Might as well redirect it to jay or jaywalk as far as I am concerned, not everyone has heard of (a fictitious one hit wonder in a double act). And don't forget Whispering Bob Harris. Si Trew (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand that rationale at all. If you don't know who Jay (of Jay and Silent Bob, a well-known comedy duo) is, but you come here looking for information on his catchphrase, you'll find out who he is right quickly. If the article is ambiguous as to which Jay it's referring to (it isn't) that is not the fault of the redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • However, as it turns out neither of the phrases are actually mentioned at the target, which I didn't notice in the nomination statement, apologies to BDD. In that case they should clearly be deleted. I am also adding Snootchie to this nomination, which targets sex organ and was likely created as a joke. Ivanvector (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Cancel that, I'll add it as a new nomination. There's been too much discussion here already. Ivanvector (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Fine, but then I think there is confusion, if you yourself list Snootchie (but not Snoochie) after I said, not quite explicitly, that Snooch was red but a likely misspelling. I think there is. Whoever they are, I have never heard of them: which does not mean to say others haven't, but if I were accidentally to type "Snootch" I would not expect to end up here. Si Trew (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes I did see that, and I agree it's potentially confusing, but I disagree about the action. If you type the exact name of one article when you meant to type a different one, how is the search engine or our hatnotes supposed to deal with that? Snot and snout are very close in spelling, but we don't disambiguate between them because anticipating all such possible exact-target misspellings would be a ridiculous and neverending task, and the hatnotes would be endless. Ivanvector (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

List of Serbs of Užice

Deletion, proper redirect is List of people from Užice. Annoyingly coming up when searching for "List of Serbs" (which lists ethnic Serbs of the former Yugoslav republics). Zoupan 19:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

So? Are we talking about ethicity or just Serbia as it stands today? Si Trew (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused, @Zoupan:. Despite what you say, do you want it deleted or retargeted to List of people from Užice? A retarget would seem to me more sensible. Si Trew (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - one redirect does not preclude the existence of another. It's a plausible search term, that probably shouldn't have it's own article. WilyD 08:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep The target lists people from Užice, some of whom are Serbs and noted as such. The redirect would make more sense if the target separated the people by ethnicity; it might be a borderline delete if it didn't note ethnicity at all. The target isn't a literal list of Serbs, but it should satisfy readers. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - This is a very suspicious redirect. Užice is IN Serbia, and is 99 percent Serbian, so why would someone add this to the search term? Would you approve a redirect of "List of Russians from Moscow" or "List of Scots from Glasgow"? It doesn't make sense. No, the list of of notable does not break down who is Serbian and who is not. It's just grouped by occupation etc. "List of people form Užice" could be plausible. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Not really, @Wikimandia:, when List of people from Užice just redirects to Užice#Notable people (I've marked it as {{R to section}} without prejudice to this discussion). It would be hard for an English-language user to type the diacritic on the top of the Z — I can do it on my Hungarian keyboard ž (I just did it, AltGr+3 and Z, but then I also have áéíóőöűúü with one keypress each): but would be hard for people on a standard UK or US keyboard layout (and probably on an Australian or English Canadian one, but I don't know). So for the English Wikipedia this is a bit WP:RFOREIGN. Since there are no demographics at the target, I don't think we need to discuss whether it is 99% Serbian or not: it's WP:RFD#D2 confusing because there is no info at the target. (And perhaps WP:RFD#D5 "makes no sense".)
Also, we don't have List of people from Uzice as an {{R from title without diacritics}}. I'm not arguing the facts — I have no doubt you are better informed than I am if you say it is 99% Serb ethnicity — but the target doesn't say so, therefore it's misleading. Si Trew (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
With redirects, it's not a question of "approval" anyway. It's whether they are useful or harmful. We have Uzice -> Užice, for example, for those who cannot do the diacritic. That's pretty standard.
But in short, this is WP:RD#D5 nonsese, because the target is not a list of Serbs from Užice. Si Trew (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I really don't know what the above argument is about. This has NOTHING to do with the diacritics and has NOTHING to do with WP:RFOREIGN (a proper name is not a "foreign" word). The reason why I said strong delete is because the word "Serb" is in there and it's totally unnecessary. Again, this is a city IN Serbia. The demographics of the city are on the page. And click - how many of them are say, Croatian? Looking at the names, I'm guessing zero. How about List of Romanians from Bucharest! List of Canadians from Halifax! List of Californians from California!! That's why I think it's a very bizarre redirect in the first place, and nobody is ever going to use it, so delete. Zoupan knows what he's talking about. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • If you can't follow a reasonable argument, that is not my problem but yours. The demographics are not on the page. Do you think I should say so without looking at the page first? I am a fool but not a damnfool.
    I checked before and I checked again. If you don't like it, that is just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Incidentally, someone linked from Hungarian Central Statistical Office yesterday, so having translated that artricle many years ago I might have some idea about how to WP:RS something. I double-checked the author's edit's too, which were correct. Si Trew (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Um, that is why the French call the capital city of England Londres, and there are variations for Bruxelles and Brussel and Brussels depending on which language you speak. You are hoist with your own petard with Canucks from Halifax, because (I assume, having flown over it as a waypoint many a time but never landed there it would be derived from Halifax, West Yorkshire: As many New England and Nova Scotian names are. (After all, "Nova Scotia" means "New Scotland"). Variations are OK, but this is the English Wikipedia, and while if it has affinity it doesn't deserve WP:RFOREIGN, it has a balance of useful versus harmful, as I said above. I am not sure why you don't understand that. We have a redirect for Peking, for example. Si Trew (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I didn't think it was difficult. It's not mentioned at the target, so it is confusing on the English-language Wikipedia. Much more clarity is beyond me. Si Trew (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry to have to ram the point home. There is Užice#Demographics which is a possible retarget, but that is not WP:RS or indeed sourced at all. Si Trew (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, "Serb" is mostly redundant here, but people often make redundant sentences when they form sentences because people often don't know how to make sentences non redundant when making sentences on the fly. So "people" is better than "Serbs" for an article title, but of course a person might search for either, so they're both suitable for redirects. Sure, the article should be at List of Haligonians, but I'm probably going to forget how to spell Halucinogins and end up searching for List of Canadians from Halifax or List of people from Halifax or List of people from Sunny Vale Trailer Park & Environs instead. The purpose of RFOREIGN is to make the encyclopaedia as hard to use as possible for non-Anglophones, so of course it can be invoked to delete properly spelled names with accents only non-Anglos are likely to employ. Doesn't mean it's a good idea, but that's why it applies. WilyD 09:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Debut album

There are no entries called "debut album" on the dab page this redirect is pointing to. There are albums called "debut", but they are already served by the redirect "debut (album)". As a result, this redirect is creating the false expectation that such an article exists. Midas02 (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep there are albums called "Debut" listed, thus a viable search term because it is normal English (unlike parenthetically disambiguating a search term) -- 70.51.46.11 (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • But Debut (album) → Debut too. Refine both as {{R to section}} Debut#Music. User:SimonTrew 07:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Readers don't necessarily understand Wikipedia's parenthetical disambiguation scheme, and in any case they don't necessarily use parentheses in the search field. A redirectwithout parentheses is a good thing. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment My problem with this redirect is that people searching for this are probably not looking for an album by the name of "debut" but a general concept article on a "debut album". For example, look at the article for Debut novel, but read it in terms of music instead of literary terms. The problem I'm having is that I'm not seeing any material covering this subject. Tavix | Talk  14:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
My point exactly. I cleaned up the links to that dab page, and *all* of them were from editors who had wikilinked "debut album" in articles. Since there is no article on the concept of a "debut album", it should show up in red, so that editors would understand there is no such article. I find the argument of users searching for debut album to be false. If they are entering such a search term, they will not be looking for an album called "debut", but for the debut album of such and such artist. And in that case, they will likely add it to the search string (e.g. "debut album Madonna"). In the current situation, just typing "debut album", makes them end up on the dab page, from where they're not getting any further either. --Midas02 (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment There's also Début album, which targets to album. Strangely, the word "debut" isn't used in that article. Tavix | Talk  14:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Good find. I'm adding it to this nomination, as we surely don't want this pair out of sync. --BDD (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment Nice find. I am with BDD and Tavix, they patently should go to the same place ({{R from title without diacritics}} and {{R from title with diacritics}} are sadly inappropriate since the title substantially differs). First album is red. as are First recording and First record. (And, to complete the circle, Debut recording, Début recording, Debut record and Début record).
In the meantimtlx|e (without prejudice, as always) I've marked Debut album as {{R to disambiguation page}}: It was and still is also marked as {{R from move}} but the history belies that as far as I can tell: It was created on 12 January 2014 by User:Tbhotch and slept peacefully ever until this RfD. Si Trew (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Also added. --BDD (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that was appropriate. The reasoned opinions on "debut album" does not mean they apply to the other uses. These should be nominated separately, and not together, since they represent different values, different targets, and different possible disambiguations. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I suppose we could have a musical equivalent of List of directorial debuts, where Directorial debut and variants redirect. But can you imagine how unwieldy that would be? --BDD (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • If either the album or the artist isn't notable enough to garner an article, we can use that as a cut-off and not allow entries where the entry('s artist) would fail WP:NN. Though it'd haven't to be a split-up list by letter. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, unless we discuss the idea of debut albums somewhere. --BDD (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep/retarget debut album and debut studio album to debut (or to #Music section) which lists a few (studio) albums which are called "debut". Delete début album because the accent is not used in English and there are no albums which use it either. Neutral on the "self-titled" redirect; on one hand we don't have any discussion about the subject, but on the other hand they discourage people creating redirects to their favourite artists' debut or upcoming albums that we keep having to delete. Ivanvector (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least separatesplit Self-titled debut studio album and Self titled debut studio album from the ones starting "Debut". If anything, the nearer for those last two would be vanity publishing → vanity press. Neither was marked as {{R to section}}, doing so without prejudice to this discussion, as always. Si Trew (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Done, and the "Self styled" ones were not marked as being at this RfD, so I did that, too. Si Trew (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Huh? We're talking about self-titled, not self-published. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I see your point, I think, i.e. that they are eponymous. The Beatles (album) I suppose is a good example. But it was the music company that chose the title, not the group, so I would say it is not "self-" titled. That may be a distraction from the main thrust here which is for "Debut..." which is why I suggested to split those out.
Début -> Debut as {{R from title with diacritics}} so I see no great problem with redirects for the albums using the French E acute, although it is perhaps a little WP:RFOREIGN and a bit of an affectation (We have Débutante -> Debutante, if I want to come out) but since it is still pronounced with a vague nod to how the French pronounce it, and not to rhyme with "rebut": and although old, it has never become entirely naturalised into English pronunciation, I'd say, in the way that e.g. chaise longue has. Si Trew (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
{{R from misspelling}}, then. Ivanvector (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Mura, Saint

Saint Mura doesn't have an article yet, and who searches for "Mura, Saint" anyway? The only other possibilities are to redirect to Fahan or Mura#People. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The target in English, and in its French version, both state quite clearly in there ledes that "Mura" is the Hungarian and Croatian name for this river: So far so good. (Mura is a DAB for which Mura (Drava) → Mur (river) is the first entry). Hungarian for saint is Szent, so it would be "Szent Mura" if anything, but patently isn't, and it is not like Old Man River that it has any special significance in a religious or historical sense, just happens to be a natural border between countries. Checking, it is not named as a cognate or anything for Saint Muriel, and the article gives no etymology: but it is certainly not a common or abbreviated name in Hungarian according my primary source. Si Trew (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

June 12

Blackers

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2. "Blackpudlian" and "Sangronian" are better demonyms. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it a valid demonym for Blackpool at all? If so, it should be added to the disambiguation page at Blacker; retargeting this there probably makes sense. --BDD (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I've never heard of it, but I am southern English. Strangely, it would seem perfectly good Cockney slang, but not Northern slang. Google lists primarly (and secondarily and teriarwhateverily and quaternily) Blacker's Bakeshop, presumably paid for doing so.
Comment. The only thing I can think of as anywhere near a ref is that it is used in Billy Bragg's song (I forget the name of the song) "When the lackeys send the blackers out to cheat us". Fallen in love with a little time bomb I think. But Bragg is a southerner too. Si Trew (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
And it's misremembered: it's "When the bosses send their lackeys out".... no mention of blackers. Si Trew (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment Is it possible to take it to Blinkers (UK. Eng) or Blinders (Am. Eng). or is that just making more trouble? Si Trew (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Blacker as it contains a list of "Blacker"s (surnamed people) -- 70.51.46.11 (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think 70.51's retarget suggestion would set a dangerous precedent. Trews does not redirect to Trew, nor Smiths to Smith (surname). For specific idiomata such as Keeping up with the Joneses there may be a case for it, but even in that case Joneses → The Joneses, an American film. Si Trew (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Plurals frequently target disambiguation pages existing at the singular form, especially when they are at the primary location, and "Blacker" is a disambiguation page -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I live near Blackpool and have never heard this demonym mentioned by locals or even online. I researched demonyms for Blackpool and only found "Blackpudlian" and "Sangronian", which I also have never heard of. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment I think the problem here is that "Blackers" isn't a demonym, but a nickname. I'm relatively local and this is the first time I've heard it, a Google search also didn't result in many hits.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget - to Blackman I believe this may be a common nickname for anyone with this surname. I know (WP:OR admission) that John Blackman carries this nickname as an example. Dragonfire X (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
    • How about adding that to Blacker and pointing "Blackers" to "Blacker" ? -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
      • No. Blacker is an adverb. Blackers is an unrelated nickname. You're introducing confusion with that suggestion. Dragonfire X (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
      • No it isn't, it's an agent noun for people who do blacking (or have I spent too many years filling in cryptic crosswords?). Incidentally, my mother's side of the family has the surname Backman, we think originally from German Bachman or Bachmann, but amongst all of the nicknames, "Blackman" was not one of them. Si Trew (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
        • An agent noun? Black is also a verb, and Blacker (as in more black) is an adverb. "Back" anything has nothing to do with this situation. Dragonfire X (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
          • You're right about "Back", I was just kinda mentioning it to rule it out. But "Blacker" is not an adverb. It can be a comparative, as an adjective, never an adverb. Whether (in its noun form) you call it an agent noun, agentive noun, or gerund rather depends which grammar you read: but the adverb "Blackly" -> Black. As if English had grammar! Si Trew (talk). To "See through a glass, darkly", (1 Corinthians 13:12 in the KJV) is not "To see through a glass, dark". I seem to remember it was the reading by Tony Blair at Diana, Princess of Wales' funeral. 07:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
            • In the most common context, it IS an adverb as I described. All you are doing is introducing even more confusion which doesn't help resolving this issue. Dragonfire X (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
        • No, it's a disambiguation page it is neither noun, adverb, verb, or adjective. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
            • I was wondering if this is a case of WP:ENGVAR, for the adverb. It is not an adverb in British English. I used to get annoyed, when I lived in Texas, to see signs saying "Drive Friendly" when we all know it should be "Drive Friendlily", but US English does tend to fuse adjectives and adverbs in that way, so perhaps that's just a case of ENGVAR. I need not multiply examples, I am sure. Unfortunately it is infiltrating British English, with things like "Box Clever" instead of "Box Cleverly". "Think fast" instead of "Think quickly". Si Trew (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Blacker, a {{surname}} DAB, as {{R from plural}}}. Si Trew (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Create a disambiguation page per 70.51. Since, so it seems, none of us can kinda settle on this, all of us in good faith, it seems like the best thing. If we can't make up our minds, what can readers expect except a WP:SURPRISE? I'll make a draft at Draft:Blackers for your consideration. Si Trew (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Made the draft for your consideration. Very much a rough first draft. Si Trew (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete It looks to me, through the course of this discussion, that "Blackers" could sort of maybe kind of refer to several things. But I don't think a dab full of guesses is going to be especially helpful here. Just delete it and walk away. --BDD (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per BDD and WP:SNOWBALL. After a long discussion, just put it to bed. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

S.A.

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/withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Thanks to 70.51, I've commented on Talk:S.A. (corporation) and I dislike splitting discussions but we have to start somewhere. (It's a move request there, but not to a title I like: corporations under civil law) Leaving that aside, this R goes to S.A., a DAB page, where it is not mentioned: Of course the obvious quick fix is to add it at that DAB, but considering the malarkey we have with S.p.A. et al, I think it is better to list here. We could possibly merge into that discussion, I dunno. Si Trew (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

My proposed move would be to S.A. → S.A. (corporation). This is, if you'll excuse my French, all arse about face, put the article at S.A., the redirects will follow. I do appreciate there are variations in many other Latinate languages, but all are "S.A." in that way, I realise this is not specific to France or French, but I think searching for "S.A." if you see it on a packet (or SA) and wonder what it means, that would be the obvious place to go. There is no need to disambiguate it with "(corporation)" when S.A. is going spare. (as indeed am I). Si Trew (talk) 09:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment. The article itself is simply a list article of what it is called in various countries/languages. WP:NOTDIC, and not a translation dictionary. In the article, Egypt and Arabic are duplicated, and both have a miscellaneous parenthesis in them – presumably cut and paste. (I guess with Egypt, it is from the time when the spiteful, cowardly French colonized Upper Egypt and the brave, courageous British brought education, sanitation, roads, etc. etc. to Lower Egypt)Don't mention the war!. It's not a designation one commonly sees in alphabets other than latin, or at least was not common when I lived in Cairo; but my Arabic is a bit rusty. Si Trew (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I prefer keeping the target as the disambiguation page. Unlike S.p.A. this doesn't have some unique form of capitalization, and it is now listed on the dpage -- 70.51.46.11 (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment. S.A. is an R to the DAB at SA, and without prejudice I will mark as {{R to disambiguation page}}. 70.51 comes in good faith as always, and I think on this one, wins the day. But even if not, no harm in marking it such in the meantime. Si Trew (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep As an initialism, SA could be rendered S.A. in really any instance, even if it's not the most common way of doing so. --BDD (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Way too common an abbreviation for both South Africa and South Australia (particularly the latter) to delete and the corporation argument above is not common enough to suggest retargetting in any way. Dragonfire X (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and Procedural close as nominator, please. The target has gone under several revisions since I listed it, including one from our User:BDD, so I think in light of that, my initial comments no longer make sense. The tags at the redirect can be replaced, I think, just by {{R from other punctuation}}, if we have consent to keep. Si Trew (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

S.p.A.

Delete per WP:RFD#D2 "may cause confusion", WP:RFD#D5 "makes no sense". The Italian formation of a limited company is not the same as the French one. Si Trew (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep Are we looking at the same article? It's not limited to French usage, and right there in the "In different countries" section it says "Società Anonima in Italian (since 1942 Società per Azioni, S.p.A.)". --BDD (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Refine{{struck Si Trew (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)}, then, as {{R to section}} S.A. (corporation)#In different countries. I told you, have can, will worms: what are "different countries"? Perhaps Elsewhere or in the List of countries that are not France? It's not very WP:NEUTRAL, is it, but that's for another day. Si Trew (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. S.P.A. → SPA, the DAB. There is something afoot here, since any fule kno that Spa, Belgium is where we get the word "Spa" from (also I am now inundated with ads for hot baths in Budapest, thanks!) but the caps and punctuation etc on the redirects are a bit of a mess to where they go. NOW JUST WALK OUT OF THE ROOM AND LET IT GO TREW... Si Trew (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Ach, on that DAB (Spa being primary topic for a hot water treatment) we also have S.P.A. (automobile), which would not be relevant except they were Italian (in Turin), full name Società Piemontese Automobili which redirects there. Yes, I know WP:DIFFCAPS, but unfortunately most search engines, including Wikipedia's, don't. Si Trew (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's more of a problem. I think it's ok for S.p.A. and S.P.A. to be different, per WP:DIFFCAPS, but that might be worthy of discussion, if you'd like. As it stands, deliberate lowercasing of the P almost certainly refers to the Italian corporation suffix. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Nicely done, I struck mine and will try again. Si Trew (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
But S.A. (corporation) says S.p.A. is an Italian equivalent. Is that wrong? --BDD (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
To my mind, it is wrong, because the laws of incorporation differ. 'F'rexample, we don't say that GmbH → Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung is "equivalent", even though that is incorporated under civil law. (I am leaving common law corporate names such as Ltd and Inc. and plc – all of which are DAB pages – aside). Yes, they are kinda the same structure, but internally they differ a lot: f'rexample how the board of directors is elected (or not). It's the equivalence that I am unhappy about, they are not equivalent. But perhaps I am being too kinda legalistic or mathematical. Si Trew (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
n.b. Si, {{R to disambiguation page}} doesn't belong on every R to a disambiguation page, confusingly. Per the template's documentation, it only applies to redirects with (disambiguation) in the title. --BDD (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Palace of Varieties

Comment. To come with clean hands, I put this as a link on my talk page referring (kindly) to RfD itself as a "palace of varieties" which is why I like to come here, we get so varied stuff. I wasn't expecting it to go to the Opera House in Belfast, particularly, so that was a WP:SURPRISE. Si Trew (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above and I would add that there is just one mention of the name and nothing else (and it was only called that for five years, which in the life of the theatre represents a pittance of time really). Dragonfire X (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

STFU

Retarget dependent on our decision at #SHUT THE FUCK UP below. This abbreviation seems more likely than the Southern Tenants Farmers Union, and a quick search around the Web shows it to be true. Retarget and hatnote. Si Trew (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak keep I don't doubt that that's a more common usage than the Southern Tenants Farmers Union, but we're an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. I think the status quo, with a hatnote, is fine. --BDD (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, we don't have Southern Tenants Farmers Union, as you wrote. Nor do we have Southern Tenants' Farmers Union nor Southern Tenant's Farmer's Union. We do have Southern Tenant Farmers' Union → same target. (Also there are redirects for Sdfu, but that's probably ranging too far out of the ambit of these two.) I do still think it gives the tenant farmers perhaps a bit of WP:UNDUE recognition. Si Trew (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • NOTE see also redirects stfu and The STFU and STFU newbie! -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate shut up lists this version; S.T.F.U. also means "Special Task Force Unicorn" in the fictional universe of Monster Hunter International (a rather prominent organization in that fictional universe) ; and form the former content at "The STFU" it's a wrestling move variant on STF which at Judgment Day (2007) that links through STFU to STS, so an alternate name for STS. And we'd add a link to Wiktionary ; "stfu" and "The STFU" would then also point to the dpage -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD's rationale. Let's all check our WP:SYSTEMICBIAS on this one: surely each one of us is more familiar with "STFU" as an interjected epithet, but we're not Urban Dictionary. Ivanvector (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed WP:NOTDIC, but also I think WP:COMMONNAME has to be considered too. I think if we establish the target below to "Shut up", which seems to be a WP:AVALANCHE of opinion towards that (I could try to hit it with a WP:SNOWBALL), then these will naturally follow. Si Trew (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I must admit I do have a systemic bias against Southern tenant farmers: especiallly the notable two who became President of the Union. Si Trew (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD. It's a Wikipedia:Primary topic, so I'd want to broaden the discussion to evaluate all candidates before switching it. Status quo OK in the meantime. Widefox; talk 17:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD. I do agree with the above that the ahem... "command" is more familiar to us netizens. However, the farmer's union has existed far longer than the net and can be considered as a better primary topic. There's a hatnote that points to shut up anyways. --Lenticel (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
You're right, as always. Somehow I missed that the target had the hatnote already. Si Trew (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This is something of a grey area. On the one hand, STFU is much better known as the acronym for Shut The Fuck Up than the current target. On the other hand, it's quite right to note that STFU in that usage is more urban dictionary than encyclopedia, which would therefore be in violation of WP:NOT. However I lean towards an arrangement per my vote below (I admit to typing this first). Dragonfire X (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 January 25 apparently discusses Stufu), which also links to the tenant farmers: but I can't see anything on the discussion about it. It was,retargeted from Internet slang on 26 Jan 2009 by User:Richard0612 (with this edit). Again, that seems a bit WP:UNDUE. I am not sure if e.g. SNAFU maybe was called to mind, or "stuff you!"" or Get stuffed, common mild British English ways to swear at another, usually used sarcastically or ironically, but again, WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

SHUT THE FUCK UP

no mention or obvious connection Etiquette. The lowercase Shut The Fuck Up is adequate as full caps not used at Shut up. Widefox; talk 05:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. I removed another from immediately above here which was identical, I am sure the nom just listed twice in error – no attempt on my part at WP:CENSORSHIP, just gnoming (I did make trebly sure it was exactly the same and not just an alternative name – the Wikimedia software injected a different section link to distinguish, to make it #SHUT_THE_FUCK_UP_2, so even it thought they were the same section title and thus the same redirect, from which the section title is derived if you use Twinkle.) I've marked this as {{R from other capitalisation}}, as usual without prejudice to this discussion but until we have consensus that is what it is: but as you see from immediately below my opinion is... Si Trew (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as {{R from other capitalisation}}. Si Trew (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. STFU → Southern Tenant Farmers Union, and while that is correct, I think we should hatnote it? I don't swear much myself, well I do but I keep them for special occasions, but would I be right in thinking the more obvious use would be as an abbreviation of "Shut the Fuck Up"? Do we need a hatnote there? I can imagine that it may have been tried before and removed (haven't drawledcrawled through all the history yet). Si Trew (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, my scientifically conducted opinion poll (population 1: SD: 0: No: 1: Yes: 0: Accuracy: 0) of User:Monkap, the missus, shows that shethe surveyed population has never heard of it, and shethe surveyed population is in the bracket of those who regularly use that kind of new-fangled mobile interweb stuff. But a Google search shows me and herthe surveyed population otherwise. Si Trew (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Shut up, where it's mentioned. It's specifically mentioned at #Variations, but it's semantically similar enough I'd prefer not having a section redirect. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per BDD, and I think Si (your comment does not seem to be a keep !vote). Ivanvector (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget I'd missed any mention at Shut up. Per BDD (again). Widefox; talk 17:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Shut up per BDD. --Lenticel (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Shut up and do the same to STFU above, subject to opinions otherwise re the grey area mentioned. Dragonfire X (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget as all above. BDD, my keep !vote is immediately above the comment, but I am striking it with this edit: much better idea, to retarget. Si Trew (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

June 11

Template:Info box

Unneded redirect. No WP:CONSENSUS, not in user-facing space, WP:RFD#D2 confusion, WP:RFD#D8 recently created. Now we shall have two where we had one. Which helps nobody. William of Ockham was on the right tack. In user-facing space, sure, every opportunity to find what they are looking for. In template space, that is editor-space, if they cannot find what they are looking for, they should stop looking and start editng real articles. Si Trew (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm able to understand neither this deletion rationale, nor the two rambling messages left on my talk page. In any case, keep as a plausible misspelling, which I have seen people make in training sessions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • So I would guess that your training sessions would fail WP:RS (since you have given no reliable, secondary sources: Wikiepdia by definition though rambles around the houses to say so, is in itself not a reliable source, it quotes reliable sources) and I doubt those training sessions are WP:N. So patently they would fail as being articles. So, they are not relevant. Si Trew (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, very plausible misspelling and I don't think either of the deletion rationales given make sense. ansh666 00:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It's fairly simple. Sorry to ramble, bad habit of mine. In user-facing space, i.e. things that you're likely to get to when you type something in a search box, DAB pages, redirects and so on are GOOD THINGS. In editor-facing space, i.e. things that editors do to oil the works and make that happen, redirects are BAD THINGS, because then they have to maintain two things instead of one. Unnecessary, recently created, WP:RFD#D8. That is a bit out of order because it starts (without "rambling" in full "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name", and this is not an article. However, WP:RFD as I understand it is intended to cover most namespaces, but specifically excludes others. Thanks for what I regard as a personal attack, by the way covered by not mentioning names: I don't take offense, but that is a bit out of order: argue the case not the person. But my apologies, I do tend to pack the maximum amount of words into the minimum amount of thought. Si Trew (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't know whose the deletion rationales were but I didn't say so and I can't see another. I proposed it for discussion. But, I will stick me oar out and say delete. I don't know why those two words are so confusing to people. Si Trew (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
For your edification and delectation, these are my rambling comments, copy pasted from User:Pigsonthewing's talk page (whencefrom I got no reply):
I am listing at WP:RFD as I am unhappy this was done with no WP:CONSENSUS. Unfortunately my Internet just dropped in the middle of my edit to say why, so if I am more incoherent than normal, please excuse me. (Usually on a scale of one to ten I should say my incoherence was five, but at the mo it might be seven. I've got the Interweb back but if things seem even less sense than usual, let me apologise. The thrust of it is I don't see the need for multiplying redirects with spaces in editor space not user space, and the distinction I give there is not a question of technically what namespace it is but which hat you have on. These are in editor space and if they can't find an underscore they shouldn't edit.) Si Trew (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I might sign up as a technical coordinator, dunno, I am good at that. In real life I am a software engineer. I can manage people, and do it well, but it's not what I want to do in my spare time. It could suit me cos I am a great right hand man. Never wanted to be the boss, but always good right hand man. Not a lickspittle, the boss needs someone to trust and get things done, and to say no you are wrong and I can tell you why. Because I am very thorough and can tie lots of ends together, I would be good at that. Not quite ready to sign up but you may persuade me. Si Trew (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
That was all. Si Trew (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep viable search term/alternate naming method. Just because it isn't reader content doesn't mean that it shouldn't be reachable. CONSENSUS is not required to create a page on Wikipedia, indeed, most pages on Wikipedia were not drafts that were voted on in a discussion that reached consensus to be created. Very few pages have been created in such a manner. WP:BOLD is directly against such a method for page creation. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I can see that, but I still think we need to make a distinction between user-facing pages, where a redirect or five are useful, and the boys in the backroom, which should be unseen. This "leaks" in that we now have an entirely WP:RFD#D8 novel redirect that has a space in it. I hate to bring this in, but consensus seems to go the other way: {{Infobox settlement}} is the classic example where another editor often changed more-specific templates and ran a bot to change anything that varied from that template to fit its form. Which is a bit like trying to screw a twelve-and-a half millimetre bolt into a half inch nut. I claim it is not just useless, which would be OK, but harmful, from the point of view of software maintenance. You then have two things to track where you could have had just one. Nip it in the bud. What do you expect to find if you search for it with the space or without? I shall tell you cos I have done so: Same result. Redundant, unnecessary, and harmful.
Considering that we have e.g. {{Infobox settlement}}, your line of reasoning permits {{Info box settlement}} (and {{Infobox politician}} to {{Info box politician}}, and {{Infobox writer}} to {{Info box writer}} and so on ad nauseam in not so much a combinatorial explosion but at least a linear one. A line must be drawn somewhere. Si Trew (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Mind you {{Info box boxer}} to {{Infobox boxer}} might be a bit of an undercut. Si Trew (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whaddya mean "no consensus"? The Pigs and I are in agreement - that is consensus. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
A consensus of two. Si Trew (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Spaced variations of template names have consensus in general - they're useful and frankly often better. Besides, you can't have "no consensus" on something that hasn't really been discussed before. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. You don't need consensus to make redirects. We operate on a guideline called WP:BOLD. There is nothing confusing about this: "infobox" is a compound word and the redirect breaks it up into its two constituent words with a space. WP:RFD#D8 doesn't have anything to do with "recently created"—it deals with redirects that are "novel or very obscure synonyms," which this is not. Tavix | Talk  13:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
No I disagree. Otherwise we can have {{Info box office holder}} instead of {{Infobox officeholder}}, which has about fortyredirects to it all already listed at its documentation, and then that is a combinatorial explosion. What we end up with is useless, generic templates instead of useful, specific ones. I do realise I am in a minority, here. Si Trew (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
let alone that {{Info box office}} might be some info about box office takings... There is a reason that neither {{Info box car}} nor {{Infobox car}} redirect to {{Infobox automobile}}... they could be specific to a boxcar (to which box car redirects): but neither are. Do you not see how this could lead to confusion? Am I the only one? Si Trew (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
We aren't talking about those things. We're discussing {{infobox}}, and there is nothing wrong with having the space in this one. Tavix | Talk  14:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Well I am talking about the things. I can see quite clearly that I did, just there. I thought to take a specific example and amplify it to be more general was part of what we should ty to do. Si Trew (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) and I argue that there is, from a maintenance perspective. You now have a template, and a redirect to it, and anyone can turn a redirect to an article. I could, if I was particularly nasty, and make an infobox about boxes. I realise that is premature to do so, maybe, but past experience with trying to fit a quart into a pint pot with e.g. {{Infobox officeholder}} (and we have, you see, {{Infobox office holder}} as a redirect to it, but not {{Info box office holder}}, breaking the symmetry as it currently stands) is because noun fusion is not a Wikipedia thing, it is a language thing: Fusional language gives examples, as does Fusion (phonetics), but unfortunately for me concentrates more on the spoken rather than the written word. But either right or I'm a tea pot → teapot. Si Trew (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
And anyone could just as easily turn a redlink into an article. ansh666 20:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
And since {{info}} exists, this is, to my mind, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. For if not, if punctuation don't matter, then editing to type {{info|box cutter}} is as easy as writing {{info box|cutter}}, the very thing I am trying to prevent. Si Trew (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - this comes down to WP:RFD#KEEP #5 (someone finds it useful) versus WP:RFD#DELETE #2 (confusing redirect). The first one is easy, obviously someone finds it useful because someone created it. I am unconvinced about it being confusing, though. Template:Notice (to which {{info}} redirects) is a template to create a notice box on a talk page, which is not a usage which can be confused with an infobox except maybe by the extremely lazy or incompetent. Si, whose heart is in the right place and does indeed have a tendency to ramble, has given us a series of possibly confusing usages all of which would be solved by proper use of the preview button. Ivanvector (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Entirely plausible misspelling and therefore not confusing at all and as mentioned very useful. Dragonfire X (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Dialetic

Hatnote. I know this is not the realm of RfD and I should be WP:BOLD, but another has put me off my stride a bit for both being too blunt and being too jokey.

We have Dialetic, an intellectual argument, and Dielectric, the insulator between the chargy stuff of a capacitor (I got it right, for a change, but even I had to think). Neither does, but I think we should WP:HATNOTE the two, they are close enough. Easy fix, hatnote the two together, but not fair of me to do it boldly when I have mentioned the first one below in another discussion. Quite happy if we decide to hatnote. Si Trew (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm my listing is a bit iffy Twinkle gaven me the chance to XfD to R (I weren't expecting that: it is not an R). But I think within our wider remit of sorting these kinds of things out, I'd prefer your (plural, y'all, yous) opinions to have consensus hoi polloi. Si Trew (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm a liar, it is an R: Missing the first letter C in the redirect to both possible targets. It does sit in the middle between "Dialectric" and "Dialetic", and is an R. Hatnote is best I think. Si Trew (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment Dialectric → Dielectric. I was taught with the "Dia" not "Die" spelling, emphasising the "two" not the "electric". Both are valid, I'm sure, so I still maintain hatnote would be good. Si Trew (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm wary of the hatnote, I have yet to see one for an ambiguous misspelling, and it would open the door to weirdness and messiness. I think it may be better to delete this redirect, and let someone who types this see search results. Ivanvector (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Given that Dialetic has a separate meaning to it's target it makes no sense to maintain this redirect as a misspelling as it would create confusion. Dragonfire X (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

2017 AFC Champions League

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The targeted article doesn't mention anything about the 2017 AFC Champions League. Therefore, this should be redlinked to show that nothing specific about this exists. Tavix | Talk  15:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - '2017 AFC Champions League ' brings up no meaningful Ghits and does not merit being a redirect. GiantSnowman 18:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree. WP:CRYSTAL definitely applies this far ahead. The furthest ahead to be reasonable would be 2016. Dragonfire X (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Many national league tables have linked qualification to the 2017 AFC Champions League. That is why a redirect was created.--2nyte (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
    • And how pray tell can they link when they haven't even started their own season yet? Unless you can source this specifically for 2017. Dragonfire X (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:CRYSTAL: We do have AFC (disambiguation)#Sports , but none as far as I can tell run this far out in the future, for example Australian Fighting Championship enumerates until March 2015 (things that have actually taken place). Si Trew (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL and that there is no information about tournament. Qed237 (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming Inna Album

Delete as confusing. The target mentions nothing about an upcoming album... Tavix | Talk  14:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Wikt added here to the RfD. I think truly a case of WP:ENGVAR,slthough "upcoming" means more "soon" and "up-and-coming" "rising", neither are marked Br. Eng. or Am. Eng. in wikt, but surely we don't want thousands of "up-and-coming" redirects. Si Trew (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Way too general and a definite confusion threat. If an upcoming album is known it can just be added to the target article and there is no need for anything else. Once a name is given for it that can be redirected to the target instead. Far more plausible. Dragonfire X (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Random Number God

Doesn't seem to make sense. Possibly better off retargeted to Random number generator but is barely mentioned there (in #In popular culture). ansh666 11:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I on the other hand disagree, as the Random number generator is simply a software; whereas the Random number god[rng 1] is one who is, in sci-fi/ movie culture, a god like any other who has the power to bestow upon people the power of the number. To prove this theory [rng 2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirugaki (talk • contribs)
Retarget to the DAB page at RNG, where it lists RNG (algebra) as the second favourite, random number generator being the first. One cannot prove a theory, one can only negate it. If you want to think of it as a theorem, see theorem. Si Trew (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
It don't actually, it lists Rng (algebra). I think an [[tlx|R from alternative capitalization}} is in order here, when we close this (whichever we decide). I should be BOLD, but don't like to do so when things are under discussion. Si Trew (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Statistical analysis uses it regularly as in-house jargon, and nothing wrong with that. When used mathematically it means so as not to be a pseudo-random number generator but something that is "genuinely" random, i.e. beyond analyisis by cryptanalysis and the usual statistical methods, for which the gold standard is that anything that is in an a communication channel imperceptible from white noise can be considered truly random. (But I guess you all knew this.)

The universe as such is a bit random,as far as quantum mechanics leads us to believe,or on a slightly larger scale, my wife.Sorry no jokes allowed, was told off on my talk page for that, as being a WP:NEWBIE Declaration of interest: I just re-read Simon Singh's The Code Book over the last day or so on trains etc, but the future, posited in the final chapter, is that quantum mechanics may take over the "God" bit of it, since as far as is known (not as if I am an expert or anything, just what I have read) quanta are truly random at least to expert physicists: in short, the uncertainty principle. But then, it was Albert Einstein who said (I am not sure in what language, but what I learned, "I cannot be led to believe but that God does not play dice)"". Is that relevant? Is it mentioned in any? I have not checked yet, I am just going from memory. Just trying to tie them all together. Si Trew (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment edited mine above to tie it better together, nothing more to say. As if anyone but me checks the history, so saying it here to save you the bother. Si Trew (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I augmented the ref but did not change its target. It was a rawlink. Si Trew (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
It's also a bit of a dialetic that e.g. Richard Dawkins' theories on evolution such as The God Delusion is where he first "came out" saying that there is no God, before that he hedged his bets a bit saying we jus call "God" anything we don't understand (I of course put it far less intelligently than he does; Arthur C. Clarke said that "Anything that is beyond the reach of current technology is intistinguishable from magic", or something like that) and this one can run and run, I think, but what do we do with it now? What are people likely to be looking for? That is the only question we have to answer, not ponder on existential criteria.I even got the conjugation right, there
Simon, what purpose would be served by retargeting to the dab page? "Random number god" is not mentioned there, and if it was added it would likely be a link to the section in Random number generator anyways. It's completely unrelated to the algebra page. ansh666 21:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
From a computer science perspective, the most fitting redirect for "Random number god" would be Random oracle, not Random number generator. // Yonatan (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
However, this is more of a pop-culture thing (my preferred term is RNGesus, which is a redlink afaik). ansh666 22:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
RNGesus is red. Why, the quickest way to explain it is to do it, as Alice says. Phonetically, that is Orange Jesus. Si Trew (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I shall also refer you to
  • Delete to encourage article creation, or perhaps a section created at Luck. It seems the concept is notable enough for this treatment. But we don't mention it anywhere, so the redirect is nonsense. Ivanvector (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Random Number God". tvtropes.org. Retrieved 11 June 2015. [unreliable source?]
  2. ^ "Random Number God". tvtropes.org. Retrieved 11 June 2015. 
  • Delete Ivan is right about article creation as it seems on the face of it to be a notable cultural reference judging by the other comments here. Taking out the face value I agree that it makes no sense whatsoever. Dragonfire X (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looking around, it would be hard to create a WP:RS article for this one, and I bet all Lombard-street to a China orange that I know a bit more about Odds than you. But our gambling articles are a right mess, as I said here not too long ago.) Si Trew (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Lost Angeles, California

Delete, it's an unused and pretty illogical misspelling of the word

Stats show it is used, not much, but sometimes 5 or 6 hits a day, never below one a day, so well above bot noise threshhold. Í got my stats from stats.grok.se. Si Trew (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's a plausible enough search term, for someone who's heard the city's name pronounced but not seen it written. Near homophones + obvious English reason to guess it is going to result in searches. WilyD 05:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep viable typo / auto-correct error when using a mobile device to access Wikipedia -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. To be honest I missed that it is "Lost" not "Los", but yes, not everyone would necessarily know that it was the Spanish male definite article. It goes to the same target as Los Angeles, California which is the main thing (it would be a WP:SURPRISE if it didn't). I'm not sure if it should be marked {{R from city and state}} and put in Category:Redirects from more specific geographic names, as that one is, being incorrect? I was trying to find things like Lost Alamos (or Lost Alamo) or other famous "Los"ses, but we don't seem to have others that I can find... Si Trew (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I take into account what has been said above although as S and T are far enough apart on the QWERTY keyboard I question the typo claim as valid. However the auto correct point in English does make some sense. Dragonfire X (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

June 10

Made In Mexico

We have articles like Made in China, so this shoul be WP:REDLINK - TheChampionMan1234 23:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

WHY DOES IT KEEP LOSING MY EDITS. THIRD TIME NOW ON THIS SECTION LOSING THE WILL TO EDIT.
But we have Made in England (I hope rather self deprecation), Made in Hong Kong and Made in Japan, but not Made in R.O.C. nor Made in Vietnam nor Made in Bangladesh and I suppose, extending it to its logical conclusion, we would have List of places made somewhere. So I guess we go on what are notable economies in a capitalist system or something, picking themselves up by their bootstraps (and I deliberately include Hong Kong in that as a UK citizen cos the UK did bugger all to help them, they just carried on doing it themselves). The point I try to make, is this is not WP:WORLDWIDE. I shop at the kinai bolt ("Chinese shop", Dollar store roughly) and the angol bolt (Literally "English shop", mostly second hand clothes store, imported from Western European brands). Shoddy goods is also red, unfortunately, although Shoddy → Glossary_of_textile_manufacturing#S, I really should make an article on shoddy, marvellous stuff. Si Trew (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC) edited Si Trew (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)}}
Oh I forgot. Nothing is manufactured in England these days. [[Made in Korea], Made in South Korea was deleted on 27 January 2015 by User:Ymblanter as a redirect to a nonexistent page (WP:G8). Manufacturing in Korea, Manufacturing in South Korea are red. Made in Thailand is a song, Made in China is an article, but Manufacturing in China is {{R to section}} to Economy_of_China#Industry_and_manufacturing. Taking Occam's razor, I need not multiply examples needlessly. Si Trew (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Atsushi Seimiya

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) 13:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Another user blanked this redirect, I think in an attempt to delete it. The article subject appears to have been involved in a number of videogames, so I agree that it probably doesn't make sense to redirect to one of them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Sega - Calliopejen's assessment appears to be accurate; he seems to have worked on many games. However, as these are almost all Sega-related games (one possible exception, which was on a Sega console anyway), I believe that the redirect should simply be retargeted until such time as someone creates a proper article (if one is justifiable). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Lukeno94, Seimiya isn't mentioned at all on the Sega article, so such a redirect would likely be deleted if it came up here. I'll leave a note with WPVG for their input. --BDD (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a Japanese person's name transliterated into English, so RFOREIGN wouldn't apply. It would only apply if transliterated into another language, or if it were in an unrelated script, such as Cyrillic. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wort, wort, wort!

Oh boy, more Halo cruft! This one seems to be related to Sangheili (Halo), which has since been redirected to the target article. "Wort, wort, wort" wasn't mentioned in the older article and isn't mentioned now in the more general one, suggesting it never will be. See also WP:NOTWIKIA. BDD (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The1337gamer (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - For a non-Halo fan - what exactly is the significance of "Wort, wort wort"? I mean, it kind of sounds unimportant, but it's hard to say without any real context... Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
A random quote from Elites in Halo, it means "Go Go Go". The1337gamer (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha, thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - trivial part of subject, not likely to be covered at the redirect target. If someone manages to work it into the article in a meaningful way, I guess I'd reconsider, I'm just not sure how that'd happen... Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

(takes a sip) Malt beer, of course, is blue, as it should be.

Casting aside just in case for cognates, we have werd and Wört but nothing much closer.
So since we have no hops and mo malt and patently the WP:PRIMARY for wort is where it stands, then delete this as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Thus spake the wort of Si Trew (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Amongst my many talents I am a regular supplier of empties to the Trade.Oh no joking allowed! Says so on my talk page. Sorry

Comment. I know this is a long way away, but do you think people hit this via Hogwarts in any way? Never read them or seen any of the films meself, just got annoyed with the tourists at London King's Cross on Platform 9 3⁄4 when I was after the train home at a real platform 9b. Si Trew (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete seems to be an obscure in-game meme that is better covered in the game's Wikia. For some reason Si Trew's findings made me thirsty. --Lenticel (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Have a glass of water.It won't kill you, it's just beer in its unfermented state. If you get a nice naturally fermented (red, alas: another on the list to do, then) beer all the yeasts on the wind will come in and ferment it for you. Marvellous think, yeast. Just to think, every hole in your bread is made by billions of yeasts farting and expiring, essentially, their death throes. Fortuntately I have morals and refuse to touch anything that hasn't been butchered first. Si Trew (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Way too confusing as it reads like a sound effect in a comic strip that could take in several items (such as the TARDIS in Doctor Who). I also recall Peter Sellers as Bluebottle in The Goon Show using this as a sound effect while trying (and failing) to will a bunch of Scottish kilts to fall down! (Listen to the Mackreekie Rising of 74 if you can) Dragonfire X (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
And "What, what" or "what whatting", is how Alan Bennett characterised the Madness of George III. Si Trew (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Mississippi Mojo

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) 13:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Redirect is pointing to an article that the has no information on the team. On top of that the team actually played of out Minnesota and not Mississippi so its not really related to Mississippi despite the name. DJSasso (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusion. WP:REDLINK. Oh here is some infomrma.. t.. o there isn't. That's about as much use as a snake in a butt kicking competition. Isn't it a Cocktail recipe anyway? Which would of course fall under WP:NOTRECIPE. Si Trew (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete The Mojo is also the name of a photo booth entertainment "experience" (that came up first in a Google search over the Bandy reference) and a little known southern blues duo. So confusion does reign here. Dragonfire X (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Daniela Montoya

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 over redirect by Anthony Appleyard. --BDD (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is this redirected to a flight, when the flight article does not even mention the name. Now there is a footballer with same name so should the footballer be created here instead? Qed237 (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  • This must have been the name of a victim of the crash, but as you say, she isn't mentioned there. Move Daniela Montoya (footballer) over the redirect. I suggest this be done speedily. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I support User:BDD's assessment, redirect to the football subject. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • With respect, Qed, I think Joeykai clearly made the right decision here. Could you be persuaded to self revert? --BDD (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
@BDD: I did not think we were allowed to just create a new page on the existing redirect without any discussion, which was the reason for my revert. In my mind, the page should be deleted, to make room for a move of Daniela Montoya (footballer) to Daniela Montoya. Qed237 (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
It depends on page history. Mostly, if there had formerly been an article on the crash victim, it would be good to move it to preserve that history. If it's always been a redirect, overwriting it is fine, even if for a different subject. --BDD (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
But now the new article has history that might be preserved. Qed237 (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Original redirect has now been deleted and the footballer moved. Think we can close this now. Qed237 (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Memory space (computational resource)

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. I've tagged it with {{R with possibilities}}. --BDD (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This redirect should be deleted per WP:RED. It's a notable concept that should have a dedicated article. Currently the computational resource article only provides an unreferenced half-sentence. Redirecting to it gives the readers a mostly useless articles, and decreases the chance that the article will be properly created. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I made it a redirect because some links that were changed, which used to redirect to Computational resource via Memory space, now seemed to point into nowhere. It wasn't my intention to prevent the creation of an actual article, just to make sure visitors could find the original target information until that happens. My apologies if I interrupted a cleanup in process. --Ørjan (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as a redirect. What, pray tell, is the difference between this and space complexity, and why should they be treated as if they are separate topics? And if you think it should be expanded, appropriate responses are to tag it with {{R with possibilities}} or, you know, actually expand it. But for now DSPACE might be a better redirect target than computational resource since it's actually about (a specific type of) space complexity. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: I don't understand. Nobody's disputing it should go somewhere, well OK User:Piotrus, the nom, is but leave that aside. Your argument is really, I think, as a retarget (I think that is what you mean by Keep as a redirect) but where? Are you going for DSPACE or space complexity? (Actually, most computer memory is limited by time not space: that's why people invented things like zero wait state memory). Si Trew (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. At first glance, I would have gone delete, and certainly the DAB at Memory space encouraged me that way. (That is a WP:TWODABS, one for computing and one for the arty fartysocial sciences.) There is more to this than meets the eye: I presume that neither was considered primary so we made a WP:TWODABS, but I haven't checked the history of all those to untangle it. It could be {{R to section}} but there is no section about memory, and Resource (computing), a DAB, doesn't mention memory either. Perhaps it's so cheap these days that we forget it is a resource! 15:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep There's nothing stopping an article from being created even though that would encourage the use of WP:REDLINK to delete, but it is an entirely useful redirect as well until such time as this is done. So for the time being I lean towards keeping it. Dragonfire X (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment we don't have O complexity or Big O complexity either, although they are used in many articles. Power series is probably the nearest we'd get, that way, which is rather useless for our purposes. Si Trew (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gull Dong

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) 13:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I came across this as an A1 speedy, but this doesn't really pertain to redirects and the intention is to redirect, so I don't think it'd qualify under that criteria.

That said, I don't think that this is an accurate redirect. Bully Kuttas and Gull Dongs don't appear to be the same thing, as far as I can tell. I'd speedy this but I'm not quite sure what criteria it'd fall under, as it's not really a recreation of an AfD'd page and while the two breeds appear to be different I'm not entirely sure about this.

Because there is a bit of a margin of doubt here, I'm bringing this to RfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  • For example, this entry does not list "Gull Dong" as a breed name and this site says that the two breeds are completely different. I'm not really familiar with dog breeds, so I figured that it'd be best to get some others to look and verify that they are two separate breeds. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • hi anyone i create the gull dong redirect cause i see in Google that gull dong and bully kutta is same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angeles j (talk • contribs) 12:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The internet (Tokyogirl's link, plus at least this one and some others) suggest that the Gull Dong (or Bully Gull Terrier, or Pakistani Bull Dog) is a distinct breed resulting from a cross-breed with the Bully Kutta and an Indian Terrier. I can't figure out what breed Indian Terrier is, but there is an Indian Mastiff. Unfortunately for us, Indian Mastiff and Pakistani Bully Dog also redirect to Bully Kutta, so I have added them above. It's too bad there doesn't seem to be an authority on dog breeds in southeast Asia, though I did find this site which conveniently doesn't list any of these breeds. I think there's more to the story here, and I'm going to ping WikiProject Dogs for insight. Ivanvector (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The trouble is, most/all of those links are not reliable sources: dogbreedinfo.com is generally removed on sight from any dog breed articles; petsworld.in is a blog written by "Swati [who] takes pride of being a dog lover. Her current passions include blogging, writing and collecting dog pictures of various breeds. She is an active member of stray dog care society", so again, not a reliable source; petyourdogs.com simply looks to be an SEO site with no indication of reliability; and dogsindia.com is basically selling stuff (and puppies). If these "breeds" are not recognised by any major registries (FCI, The Kennel Club, AKC etc), which they are not, and have no coverage in reliable sources, how is there any way they meet any notability guidelines? SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • speedy - sock creation -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Darn, guess I can't recommend retargeting the first to Bird penis anymore. --BDD (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Darn, and I heard that Indian dogs have smaller stiffy,s too... Si Trew (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, regardless of all that dirty laundry, "Gull Dong" is apparently a known breed of dog, or a name for a breed that's known by this in some part of India, which we may have an article on. But which breed? The page has been salted, but that shouldn't stop us from figuring it out. Ivanvector (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete The first is already redlinked (and salted apparently as mentioned). The other two - on a look at the target - are ambiguous terms that really don't connect well enough to the target to be useful. In the end they would be confusing and not help. Dragonfire X (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Roads in Autostrada of Italy

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) 13:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a flailing tail on the discussion of Autostrade etc. I nominated it for CSD but User:Nyttend did not oppose but reverted that nomination, so as not to giver any other editor a chance (Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit!), which seems odd to me: so it should be taken to RfD for the obvious consequences which we have discussed ad nauseam. Si Trew (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. It has significant history from ten years ago. I reverted SimonTrew because there's no possible way that this could qualify as R3: the criterion excludes things created via pagemoves. Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Nyttend, you mean this? It's one thing to say keep as {{R from move}}, but there doesn't seem to be significant history living there. --BDD (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see anything wrong with this redirect. Tavix | Talk  00:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The reason it has a history is because it has been moved around in the last few days (as User:Tavix well knows): this title did not exist before this move by User:Steel1943 on 1 June, so the likelihood of incoming external links is very small. No history or attribution needs to be kept for this (as Tavix has argued for others and I support). The title is blatantly ridiculous, what roads would be in the Autostrada of Italy? They are roads they would not be in them. Unless you consider Autostrada of Italy as the entire network, but that ain't the case, and even so it would be plural (and we don't have Roads in Autostrade of Italy) because stupidly the target is at Autostrade of Italy, the plural, violating WP:SINGULAR, and especially so since it's the Italian plural not the English one (Autostradas). This is just a remnant, a false limb, left by the various moves etc over the last few days, and can be safely deleted. Si Trew (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm a liar, we do have Roads in Autostrade of Italy. I've added that to my nom; obviously Tavix' and Nyttend's comments above precede that addition and should be taken so. Si Trew (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Comment I have to divide this in two. Delete the first one as it is an unlikely spelling error that makes no sense and would be confusing. Keep the second one as it is clearly a logical and sensible redirect. Dragonfire X (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

June 8

Redamancy

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 Unrequited love. --BDD (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I had never heard of this word, but Wiktionary has redamancy has a definition. It's not mentioned at the target article, or anywhere, as far as I can tell. We have an article on Unrequited love, so {{R from antonym}} could be an option. But it's rare enough a word that it's very unlikely such a redirect would help anyone, and it could easily confuse someone. BDD (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget and tag as antonym per nom -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Unrequited love. I've added a cited mention of this word at the lede BDD. Can you take a look and see if it's okay? --Lenticel (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that looks good. I'm fine with that, so we can just retarget by unanimous consent. --BDD (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

愛

WP:FORRED; there's no inherent connection between the universal idea of love and either Chinese and Japanese. BDD (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete thre is no significant connection between the general concept of love and those two countries. Also anyone capable of racing the English Wikipedia would know what the term love is meaning that there will likely be no one that would need to type the redirect in to find the article they want. In, short there is no benefit.--67.68.29.99 (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)'
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC, Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. love is a general topic not restricted to East Asia. No particular affinity for any language. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Update Refine per the finding by Tavix -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs the reader to the content they're looking for, no reason has been suggested for deletion (nor can I imagine any). WilyD 08:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep commonly used symbols or words from other languages can be redirects. This is useful to English readers who would otherwise have no clue about it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. Redirects from foreign languages tend not to be useful unless the subject has a foreign-language-specific context, and love does not. Ivanvector (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep due to it being mentioned and discussed in the article. I wouldn't mind the target being refined to Love#Chinese and other Sinic cultures. Tavix | Talk  14:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and retarget to section per Tavix. Better solution. Ivanvector (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, good find. The actual character is discussed there? I say keep too. IP? Can we call this unanimous? --BDD (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
In any case, it's heading towards WP:SNOW. I guess we won't get another one of your "withdrawn and refined" puns then...? Tavix | Talk  14:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Good point; those are both connected to the language(s). Retarget there instead. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Chemical substance (data page)

Usually, a page named PAGENAME (data page) acts as a secondary page to the pagename. For example: Ammonia, Ammonia (data page). For this, when such a data page exists, it is automatically linked from infoboxes {{Chembox}} and {{Infobox drug}}. But when the page is actually a Redirect (such as these three nominations), the linking becomes circular (the subpage link redirects to the article link). To prevent this unneeded and unhelpful self-link, I propose to delete the redirect pages. -DePiep (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Beyond the technical issue with the circular link, these (data page) articles were merged into their targets and so with no incoming links, these are implausible alternate names for the target article. Rkitko (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep the last two per WP:MAD they were both merged into their target articles. Though the pagenames are useless, so they should probably be moved to become history attribution pages, so Morphine (data page) becomes talk:Morphine/data page and Yttrium(III) oxide (data page) becomes talk:Yttrium(III) oxide/data page (they would remain redirects); Delete the first one, since that's just maintenance cleanup, attribution history was histmerged already. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd say the Effect On Readers trumps the Keep History argument, so that's deletion. However, a Move into a slightly different name would would satisfy both arguments: e.g. Morphine (data page) → Morphine/data page. -DePiep (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleting the pages would actually be illegal, as attribution was part of the requirements for the original writers. There may be other ways to attribute the original writers, say via an edit summary on the parent article though. But unless this is done then I will have to vote keep. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleting pages is illegal? -DePiep (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@DePiep: Read the lead section of WP:MAD. I don't think illegal is the right term for it, but it would be a violation of Wikipedia's license agreement to delete the attribution of a page when it has been merged to another article. That being said, since these are problematic redirects, there are several ways we can remedy the situation, anything from renaming the redirect, to copying the attribution to the talk page of the merged article. Read the rest of WP:MAD to figure out which solution you think is best for these redirects. Tavix | Talk  15:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I did not read it before, because Graeme Bartlett replied to my suggestion to move (which would solve the issue already, as I argued), and because we actually do delete pages by the dozen so 'illegal' reads weird.
That said, I quote from WP:MAD: Redirects are cheap, however, and unless the article title is confusing or objectionable ... - I invoke. It is not up to me to describe how to handle (although I did make a suggestion), it is for the closing admin who must know about this, working on an RfD page. Deletion is not impossible beforehand. -DePiep (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Yup, I misunderstood you. I actually meant that reply for Graeme Bartlett. My apologies. Tavix | Talk  16:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I leave this side topic about attribution & history. -DePiep (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Let me clarify, they would remain redirects where the history attribution page is located (in talkspace), the mainspace pages ( "X (data page)" ) would no longer exist. However, moving them to mainspace subpages would be bad because of WP:SUBPAGE, thus my suggestion to move them into talkspace, per recommendations at WP:MAD -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
That's Move without leaving a redirect of course. I wonder though whether one could have talkpages & subpages kept while parent (subject) page is deleted. (eh, "first two"=typo?). -DePiep 16:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it should be moved without leaving a redirect. Otherwise the problem wouldn't be solved... Also, I fixed that typo. Tavix | Talk  16:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Please read the "Deletion" nomination to mean: Delete the current Redirect page, while somehow maintaining its history. A Any RfD-closing admin can solve that, or start a separate problem-to-solve talk after closing. -DePiep (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Any admin would be able to complete the necessary WP:HISTMERGE to maintain the contributions and I would certainly be happy to do so if the outcome is deletion. Rkitko (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • comment Have you seen the history of the articles. They contain "nothing". This was merged into morphine, and this was merged into Yttrium(III) oxide. Christian75 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Delete without WP:MAD Christian75 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • That is not quite the same as nothing, it tells me that we need to give credit to Devon Fyson for Morphine, and Weihao.chiu~enwiki for Yttrium(III) oxide. But it would be good to get rid of these pages if we can. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • But I do not agree. I think its either creative or original and are not protected by copyright (its a list of data). See e.g. [6] Christian75 (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Enough. I unwatch this page. What an irrelevant mud, as was explained before here, you could and should have read (for example, Rkitko at 16:36). Any closing admin can contact me, before or after closing. DePiep (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Didnt you read what I wrote. I do not agree that its necessary to merge the history because of copyright violation because of its lack of originality and creativity. Christian75 (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Chris75, I was actually responding to Graeme Bartlett who re-introduces that non-issue. -DePiep (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Confusing and useless as page names. If there's a history then merge them to the core target fully and then get rid of the pages. They have no use whatsoever. Dragonfire X (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

3D laptop

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) 13:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

3D laptop doesn't mean Acer Aspire (there's only one model which has 3D capability). Ho Tuan Kiet (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete many different devices have 3D technology -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
    Hmmm. Not specific to an Acer Apire. Thinking of alternative targets, 3D screen redirects to the DAB at Stereo display (but not 3D Screen nor 3d screen nor 3d Screen) It's a start, have to feed the cat. Si Trew (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm a liar, the target that I said is not a DAB. It appeared so to me because the contents box was so stacked with small apologies. It was rightly reverted, I can't trace by whom as it's not in my Contributions, but thanks all the same for doing so: my mistake. It's not i the history at Stereo display, unless I missed. Si Trew (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Ridiculous redirect and possibly promotion even. Dragonfire X (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

SuperStar (Czech TV series)

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 withdraw and apply WP:BOLD. Upon further reflection, I think this retarget proposal is less controversial than I originally thought, and thus not suitable for RfD. Since retargeting is more or less an editorial decision, further discussion regarding this can probably take place at Talk:SuperStar (Czech and Slovak TV series). Very respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

These two redirects were part of a set accepted at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects very recently. I noted before the request was accepted that according to the SuperStar (Czech and Slovak TV series) article, the show is a result of a merger between two prior shows called Česko hledá SuperStar ("The Czech Republic Seeks the Superstar") and Slovensko hľadá SuperStar ("Slovakia is searching for a SuperStar").

In other words, there used to be a Czech-specific show called SuperStar and a Slovak-specific show called SuperStar, and one can see how these two redirects might be confusing for readers searching for these former shows. I would be much more comfortable if SuperStar (Czech TV series) was retargeted to Česko hledá SuperStar, and SuperStar (Slovak TV series) to Slovensko hľadá SuperStar. Mz7 (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Retarget SuperStar (Czech TV series) to Česko hledá SuperStar and SuperStar (Slovak TV series) to Slovensko hľadá SuperStar, because, like Mz7 said, that would make it less confusing to readers. SONIC678 (Let’s hang out) 01:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

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

June 7

XHFJ-FM

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 17#XHFJ-FM

Untitled Adam Sandler/Drew Barrymore Project

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Outdated redirect, this "project" now has a title. Tavix | Talk  21:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Martin Smith (rapist)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted G10 by PhilKnight. (non-admin closure) Tavix | Talk  20:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Martin Smith (activist) was moved to this title twice. Both times it was reverted as vandalism/BLP Violation. Apparently on the most recent time, the redirect from the move was left in place, so this should be deleted as a BLP violation. CrowCaw 19:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:BLP as the article doesn't address him as a "rapist". Tavix | Talk  20:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

GWR(Great Western Railway)

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) 13:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

GWR should link to Great Western Railway (19th C. creation)- not to First Great Western (modern creation). Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Washington, D.C. mayoral election, 2018

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and because it's not discussed at the target article. BDD (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Someone searching for this is is going to be disappointed when they realize that there isn't any information at the target on this subject. Tavix | Talk  15:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Way too far in advance and therefore a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I mentioned this already for 2017 in another RfD today and 2018 is even worse. Dragonfire X (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list

The target article says there is no official list, though it's a bit murky on that point. This used to be an article which was taken to AfD in April 2008 and closed as merge, but a few months later, it was simply redirected. Since there's no such list, and such the actual list doesn't signify who is or is not on the "official list", these should be deleted. --BDD (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. As the nominator says, this misrepresents the status of detainees in a way that also misrepresents the facility in which they're being held. It violates the neutrality policy. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep --
  1. Since when did we start deleting redirects, that were formerly articles, when there was a significant revision history? Those revision histories are essential to comply with the wikipedia's obligation to honor contributor's right to attribution when material was merged from one article to another.
  2. Nominator @BDD: says "The target article says there is no official list.". Well, if the target article does say this, it would be incorrect. A first official list was published on April 20, 2006, and a more complete official list on May 15, 2006. That would make the proper response to fix the article, not to delete redirects.

    A look at the target article's talk page -- Talk:List of Guantanamo Bay detainees -- shows that I have made proposals on how to bring the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees article up to date, every few years, my first detailed suggestion dates back to April 18, 2007 -- 363 days after the first official list was published.

    The reason why I didn't just go ahead and rewrite the article is that I didn't want my many challengers to accuse me of lapsing from WP:OWN. It is a controversial topic, and I didn't want to make the vast changes required without getting feedback from the rest of the community. It has been almost a decade, and I have received almost zero comments on my suggested changes. Geo Swan (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"When material was merged". That's a pretty important phrase here. There's no indication that such a merge took place. The history of the first redirect, where the article formerly was. It was PRODded in July 2008, and you redirected it a few hours later. Looking at the history of the target article, there were no edits until a few days later. Again, there's no indication that an actual merge took place. When did we start deleting redirects with significant revision history? As long as we've had redirects with significant revision history.
According to the target article, there's a list the AP considers official that the Pentagon says is not. If you're correct, this is indeed a major error that needs to be fixed. It's clear you have strong feelings about this issue, but we need facts. Surely you can't contest my argument that this redirect would disappoint or mislead readers, since the target article doesn't distinguish between detainees who were or were not on a purportedly official list. --BDD (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Help me out. You wrote, above, that your nomination was partly based on a passage from "...the target article, [that says] there's a list the AP considers official that the Pentagon says is not." Which passage are you referring to -- because this is obviously incorrect. Geo Swan (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - given this was closed as merged, there'd need to be proof positive no content was ever merged anywhere before deletion could even be considered. On top of that, that an article existed there is a good indicator it's a likely search term, and so a redirect is probably a good idea. WilyD 08:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
WilyD, I know you don't often respond to comments, but I'd really like to have this conversation with you. You frequently seem to decide something is a likely search term and then go no further—i.e., if it's something someone would search for, it must exist as a redirect. But what about cases like these, where it's fairly clear we're not delivering what a reader is searching for? This can't be good for the project. --BDD (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not aware that I respond to comments less than anyone else. The article notes that the American DOD released what it claims is a complete list, which does (slightly) address the topic, and some earlier releases of partial lists also took place, which again goes to the topic at hand. I would agree that if there was nothing, then how likely a search term is is irrelevant. But that's not the case here. A reader searches for prisoners missing from the official list, and we say "By the reliable sources, there aren't any anymore. Previously, there were some". Not perfect, perhaps, but not nothing (and a basis for them to do further research, since they now know about the earlier, partial lists and so on). And sometimes, if the term is malformed based on erroneous impressions, it's better and less confusing to send them to an article that clears up their confusion, rather than leave them in the dark. Like, List of people who have walked on Mars should send them to Human mission to Mars, even though it doesn't actually have what they're looking for, because it has what they should've been looking for if they weren't confused to start with. WilyD 09:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I didn't realize there was a merge, and that was my mistake. My concern is that the existence of an "official list" seems to be disputed. And, with respect, you seem to have an axe to grind on this topic. Perhaps an RfC is called for. Even if there's consensus that we can call any given list official, it's not clear to me that we'd want to specify for every detainee whether or not they were on that list. And unless we get to that point, the redirect is misleading. --BDD (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • If it is in dispute, why can I point to the wikisource copy of it? Geo Swan (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
OARDEC. "List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2007-09-30. Retrieved 2006-05-15.  Works related to List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006 at Wikisource
I'm a bit confused. The sources sound clear enough. You clearly keep a close eye on these articles. Yet the main article says that this is still in dispute. Something's not adding up. There must be editors challenging you on this, right? Also, the list just goes through May 2006, so presumably anyone detained after that point would also be "missing from the official list". --BDD (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Valid search terms and a perfectly valid pair of redirects for them. Dragonfire X (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

June 6

Wikipedia:WANNABEKATE

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 15#Wikipedia:WANNABEKATE

Mazda Sierra

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. Just Chilling (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Nonsensical redirect - can't see any evidence of a Mazda version of the Sierra. Should be deleted IMO. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as purely speculative. Esquivalience t 14:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as speculative/nonsense, per above. My search turned up a dealership called "Sierra Mazda" in Monrovia, California, and a second dealership selling a "2012 Mazda Sierra 1500" which you can see by the pictures is clearly a GMC Sierra. It's true that many North American Ford models had Japanese Mazda equivalents or models which borrowed heavily, but they typically did not carry the same nameplate (Ford Ranger vs. Mazda B-Series for example) but I see no evidence that was the case here. GM was also famous for this in the 80s with many of their smaller cars being released nearly identically under all of their myriad brands (e.g. Chevrolet Cavalier, Pontiac Sunbird, Cadillac Cimarron, Buick Skyhawk and Oldsmobile Firenza were all basically the same car) but Mazda was not one of them. Ivanvector (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dan Bălan

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. This is a move request. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Re-Targeting or Deletion The artist Dan Balan is not recognized by the spelling of his last name Bălan which includes a Moldavian character, as noted on the artist official website[1]. At the request of the Artist and his management his page should be moved to the current re-direct page of Dan Balan while the current page Dan Bălan be used as a redirect Willflash15 (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

  • What you're looking for is a move (or retitle). Please use WP:RM for this. Let me know if you need any help. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://danbalan.com
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.

Preach (song)

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 M.O (group). Deryck C. 11:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Not mentioned at target article. (A group called M.O (group) had a hit with the record; perhaps retarget to their page or convert to disambig if we can find any other records with the title?) Launchballer 14:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Preach (disambiguation) would need to be created if we wanted to disambiguate, per WP:INCDAB. Retargeting to M.O (group) seems like the best solution if it's the only place we cover a song by this name. --BDD (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Apparently this was meant to be an article about (or redirect from) a song by the non-notable artist Young Dolph, whose article was redirected to 1017 Records since he seems to have been involved in a collaboration released under that label. This redirect results from the bot fixing the double redirect, however the link between this song and 1017 is extremely tenuous; there's no indication that the song was ever connected to the label. Retargeting to M.O (group) per BDD is better. Ivanvector (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lin Sue Cooney

Subject of redirect is not discussed in target article. Subject of redirect is potentially a biography of a living person. However, based on notability requirements the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. While there is a short blurb from local sources and copy of one of those sources re-posted at the Huffington Post none of those sources could be seen as giving the subject significant coverage. Therefore, given that no actual article can be created out of the redirect, I propose that this redirect be deleted. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I think she is notable enough to have her own stand-alone article and , quite obviously , I know many here will disagree. But she should at least be mentioned in the article. Honestly, I think Wikipedia is slowly becoming just another regular encyclopedia out there, when many, If not most, of us old-timers here were attracted to the fact that at Wikipedia we could go beyond that and not just educate about the super-notable (what was already out there) but on the "barely under super-notable" as well, thus making us more unique and "cool" than other encyclopedias. Antonio Master Bee Martin (haw haw) 05:19, 30 May, 2015 (UTC)
Delete. I original set up the redirect as the article was only sourced by the person's work website as a poor mans deletion. As the article doesn't met WP:GNG. Spshu (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I think we have it backwards here. If she's not notable, that only means she shouldn't have a standalone article. It's entirely normal and appropriate to redirect non-notable people to a notable organization that they're involved with (though this can get thorny if there's more than one particular target). If this person was notable as a KPNX anchor, this seems fine. Refine the target to KPNX#Notable former on-air staff. Retaining the article history could also be useful if she becomes notable. --BDD (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
@BDD: The individual in question was added by an IP editor several days after the RfD began on 2 June. Per WP:LISTPEOPLE, an individual must be notable per WP:GNG or meet criteria to be considered part of the list verified to a reliable source. Now a reliable source was included, however the list is of notable former anchors. As there are insufficient non-primary reliable sources as is the view of Spshu and myself, for the subject to be considered "notable" as defined by Wikipedia, than the individual should not be listed as they are not notable enough for a stand alone article, nor do they meet criteria of the list.
Furthermore, using the reasoning for keeping by BDD if someone created a List of Americans who died during Iraq War, than all 4,486 killed American servicemembers would warrant a redirect to the list.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Be that as it may, there is a reliable source at the article that discusses her affiliation with the station. The Iraq War argument smacks a bit of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but yes, if we had such a list, I don't see why not. Unique names could be redirects outright; others would need disambiguators and hatnotes, etc. I'm sure there are such redirects for, say, lists of Guantanamo Bay prisoners. I'm about to run, but I'm sure I've seen them before. --BDD (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Futsu

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 Futsu, Nagasaki. Deryck C. 11:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

According to an old version of the target article, this means "normal", and is slang for a heterosexual person. But there's no longer a section on gay slang at the target article, and per WP:NOTDIC, there probably won't be again. Retarget to Futtsu as misspelling or delete. --BDD (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

  • delete per nom. I'm no Japanese but I think it's not neutral to have a completely unrelated slang pointed to a city. --Lenticel (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • It's not really slang, it's just an ordinary Japanese dictionary word that also has an obscure secondary slang meaning. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Futsu, Nagasaki and add a {{redirect-distinguish2|Futsu|[[Futtsu]], Chiba}} dab header to that article. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
In that case, we could just move Futsu, Nagasaki over the redirect. I'd support that. --BDD (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Absent a much bigger centralised discussion than this one, it should probably stay where it is. All other similar articles are now at the "xyz, Nagasaki" form even if the bare form would be unambiguous, e.g. Category:Towns in Nagasaki Prefecture and Category:Dissolved municipalities of Nagasaki Prefecture. This arguably aids WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
That's not a good idea, per WP:CONCISE, WP:D, WP:PLACE, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, et al. There are specific guidelines, most notably WP:USPLACE, that override these general principles (unwisely, IMO), but not for Japan. In fact, I came across this while fulfilling some technical move requests for Japanese place names that had unnecessary disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Futsu, Nagasaki per anon. --Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per 58.176.246.42 -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mirpuri people

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 12:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, moving this title to British Mirpuri community was a really poor idea. If the article only talked about a specific Mirpuri diaspora community, the better approach would've been to expand its scope. No matter; the new article has taken on a life of its own. Delete this per WP:REDLINK so a proper article on Mirpuri people can take its place. There's probably some content at the target article that could be copied or merged. --BDD (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The article, prior to the redirect was entirely about the British Mirpuri diaspora. Simply put, it was wrongly named, and it couldn't have been modified to encompass all Mirpuris without a substantial investment of time. I agree that the redirect should removed to enable an editor to create article about Mirpuri people in Mirpur. --RaviC (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Rifk

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 15#Rifk

Aa.com.br

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 14#Aa.com.br

3rd Untitled Studio Album

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. Just Chilling (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This used to be redirected to "Ciara's Third Studio album" (which is Fantasy Ride, btw). Three bot "fixes" later, we now find it at "Album". This one should go the same way as Ciara's Third Studio album: deleted (the redirect, not the actual album). Tavix | Talk  01:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - excessively ambiguous. Ivanvector (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague. I don't think we can point this to any specific albums in the future. --Lenticel (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.