Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrator instructions

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

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

Before listing a redirect for discussion

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

The guiding principles of RfD

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

When should we delete a redirect?

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

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

Reasons for deleting

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

Reasons for not deleting

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

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

Closing notes

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

I.
Tag the redirect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contents

Current list

November 24

Mindfulness Acceptance and Commitment Therapy

The title of this redirect is not a legitimate synonym for the target article (acceptance and commitment therapy or ACT) and is an implausible misnomer for ACT. Yes, mindfulness is part of ACT, but nobody calls it MACT; similarly, mindfulness is part of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), but nobody calls DBT "MDBT", and there is no redirect from Mindfulness Dialectical Behavior Therapy to dialectical behavior therapy for the same reason. Worst of all, this redirect gives the erroneous impression that MACT is a legitimate synonym for ACT. I nominated this redirect for speedy deletion per WP:R3: implausible misnomer, and User:Patar knight declined speedy deletion and suggested RFD. Delete for the reasons just mentioned. Biogeographist (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. This seems like it does get some use either in its entirety, [1][2], or as part of a phrase constructed in a way where it would be very easy to misremember "mindfulness" as being part of the whole name. [3][4] If the usage is incorrect, then tag it as {{R from error}} ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@Patar knight: A couple of the links that you provided do suggest that the term is a plausible misnomer, which could justify keeping the redirect, so I will tag the redirect as {{R from error}}. The first of the links that you cited, http://www.dummies.com/religion/spirituality/mindfulness-acceptance-and-commitment-therapy-act/, only uses the phrase in the title—notice that in the content of that web page, "acceptance and commitment therapy" is used; it's likely that the word "mindfulness" was only included in the title of the web page for search engine optimization, if it was not simply a mistake. The second link that you cited, http://stuttertalk.com/2015-world-congress-on-stuttering-cluttering-and-other-fluency-disorders-ep-515/, refers to "Mindfulness Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Somatic Stuttering Treatment", which is not the same as the title of this redirect. If this redirect is supposed to refer to that treatment, it should be renamed to "Mindfulness Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Somatic Stuttering Treatment". The third link that you cited, https://books.google.com/books?id=Y6-I96IcitkC&pg=PT66, says "mindfulness, acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT)"; note the comma—I suspect this is a mistake, since it is the only mention of ACT in this source. The fact that this is a published mistake does seem to demolish my argument that the title of the redirect is an implausible misnomer, since here we have a published occurrence of the misnomer. In the fourth link that you cited, https://books.google.com/books?id=Aa5GBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT178, which says "mindfulness, acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT)", the word "mindfulness" is clearly part of the preceding clause and is not intended to be part of the name of acceptance and commitment therapy. Biogeographist (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. as it is a popular term and add link to the related topics. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@Goodtiming8871: I do not see any evidence that the title of this redirect "is popular term" as you claim, although the term does now seem to me to be a plausible misnomer. As I noted in my response to User:Patar knight above, the title of this redirect is more relevant to "Mindfulness Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Somatic Stuttering Treatment". What do you mean by "and add link to related topics"? Biogeographist (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@Biogeographist: Concerning the popular term: I noticed the Mindfulness Acceptance and Commitment Therapy on web page of some counselling Centres and the published book or article links (Yep - it might be the published mistake) [5][6]. Regarding "add link to related topics":add the clarification of information with the topic: Mindfulness Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Somatic Stuttering Treatment Goodtiming8871 (talk)

November 23

Martin Lowrie Hofford

He is no longer listed on the College's page nor on the replacement page that broke off that section. If he was added on that page, a redirect there would work though. Jumper4677 (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Lift kit

Target article makes no mention of 'lift kit'. See WP:R#DELETE reason #10. Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to suspension lift, which mentions "lift kit" in its lead paragraph as an alternative name. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, that fixes it. Deletion request withdrawn. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

On My Highway

Obscure album cut, unlikely that anyone will search for this song specifically as it was not individually notable Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Doing My Country Thing

Non-notable early independent album. Removed from target article as the album's existence was largely unverifiable. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Is there some concern that the below easily-located sources are in fact WP:CIRCULAR citations? I can't find any prior discussion about failed attempts to verify this album's existence. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Harrison, Thomas (2011). Music of the 1990s. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9780313379420. Neotraditionalist Mark Chesnutt recorded an independently released album, Doing My Country Thing (1989), before receiving national attention on Too Cold at Home (1990). 
    • Sault, Spring (2016-06-01). "Texas Troubadour Mark Chesnutt Continues With Traditional Country". Texas Hill Country. Retrieved 2017-11-23. Chesnutt’s country music career formally began with the release of his first album in 1988, Doing My Country Thing (the vinyl version of which is now a collector’s item.) 
    • "Country star Mark Chesnutt headlining Saline County Fair". KOLN/KIGN. 2016-07-04. Retrieved 2017-11-23. Chesnutt’s national country debut came with the single, Too Cold at Home, the debut single from his second album, came several years after his first album titled Doing My Country Thing entered the Billboard Country charts. 
    • The fact that the sources can't agree on its release date, as well as the fact that the last source falsely claims that Doing My Country Thing charted, casts doubt on the album's existence. Only one print release has bothered to mention it, and the other sources you linked don't seem reputable. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The Warrior in the Heart Foundation

Not an appropriate redirect to shamanism. Either delete or create an article for this organization. Plantdrew (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete nowhere useful we can send the reader. There is no content about this organisation in Wikipedia, nor would such content be appropriate for addition to any existing article, given the available sources. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Ding Fries Are Done

Neither term is mentioned anywhere in the redirect target. "Ding Fries Are Done" is a non-notable parody of the song used in a single episode of Family Guy, so it is unlikely to be heavily searched on here 74.89.41.22 (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I've boldly retargeted these to Deep Throats the episode in question that discusses this quote and has some sentences about it being an Internet meme, however the sources supporting that could be improved. One of the videos was removed. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 06:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

November 22

Flag of the District of Columbia.

The title ends with a period, but there is already a redirect at Flag of the District of Columbia. The period would suggest that this is an abbreviation, but it is not. And if this were linked at the end of a sentence, the period should not be in the link itself. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 20:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as an implausible redirect. It was apparently created by an inexperienced user who either didn't realize they had added a period, or because they weren't able to move it the page to the correct title without the period. - BilCat (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Back and to the left

This was flagged for a merge, but it appears the title was only redirected. It's very unlikely that a reader could use this search term and learn more than he or she already knew about the phrase. It's not used in either article, and since the film article is a GA and the assassination article is quite extensive, I doubt there's much to be said in either place about this movie line. Note that the "Back and to the left" article was never much more than a list of references to the phrase in pop culture. --BDD (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep - it's an iconic phrase, that clearly refers only to the assassination of JFK. It is mentioned in Oliver Stone's film JFK, as well as a Seinfeld episode, and so on. - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to JFK (film) as the specific phrase is used in the film IndieWire article JFKonline.com, showing transcript of film where Costner's character repeats it like a mantra. I don't see the phrase used among general transcripts for the assassination, so it wouldn't be appropriate to put it there until sources are provided to indicate otherwise. The use in Seinfeld is based on that film [11] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Apologies for my sloppy copy-paste job; the variant with a comma already targets the film article. I want to stress, however, that if we don't mention the quote there, it's little more than an easter egg. --BDD (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's unusual to relist for a third time, but participation has been low, and I've just left a note at Talk:JFK (film) with the hope that this could get the attention of editors in the subject area.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 11:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Question: Can this be redirected to a specific section on the Assassination article, that then would also have a link to the specific section on the film article? Thanks, warshy (¥¥) 15:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

5 Star Wrestling

5 Star Wrestling currently redirects to PlayStation 3; and whilst there is a game for the console by this name; it's not discussed in the article, nor is it a notable product in of itself. The pro wrestling company that created it; could well be considered notable; due to it's current TV deal with FreeSports.[1] However, the redirect seems to be erronous to point to PS3, as the game was also released for PS4. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Support This redirect is way to unlikley to be helpful.★Trekker (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete to make way for an article if notable. It has coverage and criticism by some of the video game websites, just not a lot. And while it was originally a PS3 exclusive it wasn't made by PS3. There was also a ReGenesis version for PS4 released in 2016. [12] [13] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "freeSports pulls out of PCW and signs deal with 5 star wrestling". 

Dell/EMC

Possible targets: Dell, Dell EMC or Dell Technologies. feminist 06:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The Hitachi

Does not specifically refer to the product. feminist 06:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep Plausible redirect. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hitachi--magic--wand.com

? feminist 06:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete double dashes are highly unlikely, not discussed in article the name, and the official website is not at this site. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

November 21

Tobias M. Lipsky

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

Crazy like a fox

Phrase does not appear within target article. Delete, or else retarget to Disambiguation page Crazy like a Fox to avoid capitalization/search clash, as per WP:R#ASTONISH. Muzilon (talk) 11:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm boldly retargeting this to the dab page. If divine madness mentions the phrase, it can be added there, but it isn't primary topic. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I concur. I've also added a Wiktionary link to the DAB page. --Muzilon (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

MLG parodies

For the same reason as Montage Parody. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 11:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment some editors added a paragraph on MLG parodies in August, but it was deleted for lack of sources then added a back again in November with a single source to a random blog (Cherwell), other than that, it still lacks secondary sources, so the notability is highly questionable. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Montage parody

This title is the literal tip of an iceberg of an internet meme. A full rundown on the topic can be found here. The redirect directs to a almost completely unrelated article, and a heading of which that doesn't exist anymore. I will assume that the said heading wasn't deemed WP-relevant (can surely be verified by digging in its history). And as I said, the target is only marginally related. Thus, the redirect itself currently serves no other purpose than confuse. So my opinion is either to make this into a full article about the internet meme, or simply delete it. And since WP doesn't usually cover that kind of topics (feel free to prove me wrong, could only find this and this on topic, pinging the Project), we are left with deletion. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 10:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as WP:NEOLOGISM and vague: could refer to any sort of montage or collection of parodies. I haven't seen it used in news articles, but there is something about parody videos on Reddit [14] and a South Park song called "Montage" [15] and montages of video game parodies in general [16]. Without the news search filter, yes, it's a term used as described above. Some editor added a paragraph on MLG parodies in August, but it was deleted for lack of sources then added a back again in November with a single source to a random blog (Cherwell), other than that, it still lacks secondary sources independent of the subject, so the notability is highly questionable. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Kristine Butler

Not mentioned at the target. She is mentioned at List_of_San_Francisco_Ballet_2016_repertory#Corps_de_Ballet and List_of_San_Francisco_Ballet_2017_repertory#Changes_from_2016_season mentions her move. I would either retarget to the 2017 page which gives more information though deletion per WP:XY might be preferable since the search result would return both pages. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable. News searches point to people in other states with the same name [17] [18] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Archconservative

Weak retarget to respective Wiktionary entries, but I'm not really sure about these, are they mentioned in a broad sense because the terms seem dubious to me. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

  • delete - the terms are not covered in Conservatism, and the implied relationships may be considered offensive. Batternut (talk) 09:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think these terms are dubious, I've heard "ultra-conservative" used quite a few times. There are a few articles that source the term "ultra-conservative" in reference to a group or movement, including: Wahhabism, Salafism, and Iranian Principlists. Arch-conservative didn't sound familiar to me, but a quick search shows it to be well-used. I found Arch-conservative targeting Reactionary, and I've added it to the discussion. Dumping these to Wiktionary is okay I guess, but I do not think someone searching this would be satisfied with what Wiktionary has to offer (ultraconservative means "extremely conservative"—if you are familiar the prefix ultra- you already knew that...). WP:REDLINK deletion is probably the better option as I can easily see scope for an article on ultraconservatism, describing the history, politics and groups associated with it. In the meantime, search results catch the few articles where the term is mentioned. -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Radical conservative also exists and that points to Far-right politics, not sure if it should be nominated separately because radical right seems a good target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

November 20

Conservative Government 2015–2020

Per the result of this discussion from July. --Nevéselbert 13:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  • @Neve-selbert: The second May ministry is still ongoing, no? It wouldn't be fair to lump those redirects in this discussion when the referenced previous discussion was specifically for outdated redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
    It is for now, but it probably won't for much longer.--Nevéselbert 14:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
    For now is the key phrase there. You're a bit too soon on nominating those then. -- Tavix (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete the first four per the previous discussion, keep for now the last two as not actually outdated. -- Tavix (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete the 2020 versions as that assumes WP:CRYSTAL that the Conservative Government will no longer be in power after 2020. Neutral on the others. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Those redirects also assume that the prime minster won't change in 2016 and that there won't be a snap election in 2017. Delete as inaccurate. Also delete the "2015-present" as the word "present" is inaccurate. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete the first four. 2015-2020 overlaps two prime ministers, two governments (although both Conservative) and three articles and 2020 isn't significant any more as the next election is now scheduled for 2022. 2015-present isn't really one government either. Peter James (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Richest boy

The rest of the list
Discussion (Richest boy)

The World's Billionaires has an overabundance of redirects, most of which I don't think should redirect there as it's a single-source list published by Forbes. I'm going through and retargeting some of them to e.g. Lists of people by net worth and List of wealthiest historical figures, but I figure it easier to delete the junk redirects. I think a lot of them are simply implausible, but others may be misleading for other reasons. The boy/girl redirects imply children, but there aren't any children on the Forbes list, and I've been unable to find a list of the wealthiest children. -- Tavix (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete all per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    • In fact, since this discussion has gone on for over a month now, Delete all per WP:TNT. Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget richest boy in the world and richest kid in the world to Richie Rich AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I meant the comics page. He was referred to as the "richest kid in the world" [19] and "world's richest boy" [20] Here's "richest kid in the world" as a subtitle on the comic itself. [21] [22] [23] World's richest kid [24] [25] "richest kid in the world" [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm okay with Thryduulf's proposal. I would remove the lady, ladies, gentleman, gentlemen ones as that implies some honorifics that are not listed as such in reliable sources. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Richest/Wealthiest boy/guys/girl/human/lady/gentleman [and plurals], keep' man/individual/woman/person [and plurals]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Multiple, all without prejudice to renomination individually or in much smaller groups of similar redirects.
  • Retarget/delete per Thryduulf's proposal. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: this is a WP:INVOLVED relisting to allow the 1 October page to be closed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist so that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 19 can be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, generally, as to anything for which there is not a specific consensus to keep. bd2412 T 18:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse Thryduulf's recommendations - the correct way to deal with these. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

POP Station devices

Not mentioned in target, was deleted at AfD. I have boldly retargeted Pop Station to Contemporary hit radio (where Pop radio points to). Searches for "pop station" mainly return up results about a courier that we don't have an article about, if you think that is problematic, feel free to nominate it. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  • According to this search, a rip-off of the Playstation named "POP station" does exist, and there's even an Engadget article about it, so it should be kept. editorEهեইдအ😎 01:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment "POP Station" is currently mentioned at the target (in the collapsed table at Video game clone#Rip-offs. Not sure what "devices" means here; "peripherals", maybe? 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment the courier would be PopStation, a service from Singapore Post [31] but would need a mention if it was a notable product. Comparable to Amazon Locker and Packstation AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - ambiguous. A POP station is also a terminal where you can reload your smart fare card in transit systems which use proof of payment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

November 19

Paeng

I am not seeing the connection between this term and the disambiguation page to which it points. I would delete it, unless a better target can be found. bd2412 T 21:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Noted. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Dabify per Tavix --Lenticel (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Barophobia

Not listed or mentioned in target article. ... discospinster talk 20:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. This term was on the list of phobias and was cited from here (deemed an unreliable source by an involved editor) and here, p. 157 (although reliable, this turned out to be a vague reference, so barophobia was ultimately removed from the list). I was unsure whether this was a "related term" (related to basophobia), an "alternative spelling" (of basophobia) or a "misspelling", and finally categorized it as a related term, perhaps incorrectly. After looking at it again, I suggest we keep this redirect, focus the target to the "B" section of the list of phobias, where basophobia is entered, and recategorize it as an "alternative spelling". Good search term.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  17:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 17:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and treat as proposed by User:Paine Ellsworth. Good analysis. bd2412 T 18:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep It is perfectly fine the way it is. Yes one can take any word and attach phobia to it. So? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete unless a mention of it is reinstated in the list. If there's no mention there, then the redirect is just confusing: I can't see how it can be an alternative spelling for Basophobia: s and r don't really alternate in such contexts, and the concepts are quite different: the imagined fear that gravity might go wonky is different from the inborn fear of falling. – Uanfala 11:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Antlophobia

Article deleted via AfD, redirect is useless because it's not even mentioned there. ... discospinster talk 20:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I lean towards deleting the redirect as not many people would search for 'antlophobia' in Wikipedia search bar as it is not a commonly known term. Though there is the article on antlophobia I wrote in Phobia Wiki. PlanetStar 06:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment There's this article [34] which lists antlophobia. also some random newspaper articles. [35] [36] And someone wrote something called Antlophobic Hymn: [37] [38] How would WP:NOTDICTIONARY apply? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 17:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • To AngusWOOF: kudes to you for the excellent research! The first link you give spells it differently... ANTIOPHOBIA (typo?), and while the other links may or may not be reliable, the editors involved with the phobia list seem to prefer at least some mention in expert literature about any given phobia name and definition. It does appear that such a reference should exist, because the people in your news links and such are getting the phobia name from somewhere. The question is 'Where?'  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  20:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, just fyi, WP:NOTDICTIONARY was cited at the AfD, which just means that the deleted article was believed to have failed that test. ref.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  20:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, lots of phobia lists in the books such as [39] [40] but there are hundreds of entries and no detailed research on it, well, it might need further digging. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep It is perfectly fine the way it is. Yes one can take any word and attach phobia to it. So? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

To be precise

not mentioned at target, no other suitable target found Paradoctor (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Retracted as moot. Paradoctor (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: As per this book, it is a recurring phrase used by Thomson and it seems to have gained fame. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Then delete unless it's worked into the article with sources indicating it's a famous phrase and is associated with that person.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  15:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 Done check the lead section. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • delete It may be a catchphrase of theirs in the English translations, but it's not like it isn't an extremely common phrase. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The term is clearly encyclopedic, redirects are WP:CHEAP, and popularity isn't mentioned at WP:RFD. Paradoctor (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 17:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment it seems to be an obscure catchphrase that isn't even covered in books like Oxford Dictionary of Catchphrases. [41] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - This "catchphrase" is way too generic to assume users are looking for these characters. Based on a quick Google search, the number of times the phrase is accompanied by Thomson is ~116,000 out of 7,000,000 total uses, or 1.6%. Compare that to "Why so serious", which actually returns more hits when you include the word "Joker" after it, not in quotes. The phrase was also used in a similar manner long before the Thomson character was created - here's one example from 1838. It seems the part that makes this a catchphrase is the way it's used - that is, used when the character isn't actually being more precise. That context is missing from the search term. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hhtp

Implausible misspelling. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep not really an unreasonable misspelling for people who aren't already well-versed in computing. Has usage. feminist 12:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Google Books search for HHTP finds real meanings (e.g. hexahydroxytriphenylene) which right now have mentions in Wikipedia but probably aren't great redirect targets. The best outcome for the user is probably showing the search results with those mentions. Correct spelling should take precedence over misspellings. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment this gets about 10-70 hits per month and was created in 2015. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep since it seems to be an actual, if uncommon, misspelling. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 17:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

November 18

Stanley Wotherington

This name was added to the article by IP 85.211.238.164 in 2010. A reference was added later but was removed recently (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accrington_Stanley_F.C.&diff=794374914&oldid=793932310) as the website may have used Wikipedia as a source. Peter James (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Through the Wind and Rain

This fanzine is not mentioned in the article. Peter James (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, no news articles discussing this fanzine. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The Road End

Non-notable website. Peter James (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Sacre Bleu Wine

Delete. This brand is unlikely to be mentioned in the wine article. Peter James (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

SARAP

ŞARAP was deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 22 as a foreign language redirect; this is the same title without diacritics and should be deleted for the same reason. Peter James (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Gamecast

It looks like these originally redirected to the Glog article deleted in 2006; Glog was recreated as a redirect to the article about mulled wine but these redirects are not useful. For "Gamecast" there's ESPN GameCast but it redirects to a page that doesn't mention it, and there's Gamecaster but that's the name of a company. There's also Broadcasting of sports events but that also doesn't mention these. Peter James (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  • This appears to be originally about game logging or glogging, so I would recommend:
Retarget gamecast and gamecasting to Video game live streaming [42] There's also a non-notable GAMECAST concept but that didn't really take off. [43] Add hatnote to the ESPN GameCast which redirects to ESPN.com Gamecaster company can be a hatnote as well.
Retarget matchcasting to Jean M. Muller who invented the technique and tag as typo? alternative name? (term is technically "match-casting") . Add "redirects here" and hatnote for MatchCast to FIFA.com
I think this would work for now. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

🙃

This emoji depicts an upside-down smiling face. It is often used to represent silliness, but it has no clear meaning so it is used in other ways too. The current target does not discuss upside-down faces. I do not think any article discusses this character or its meanings, so delete or redirect to Emoji. Gorobay (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Something like wikt:Appendix:Unicode/Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs? -- Tavix (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@Tavix: That's probably a good start. Maybe bring it over here, redirect all emoji titles to the sections/anchors that represent them, and call it a day. Then, we can stop having these discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as the best available target since it discusses smiles, and this emoji is smiling. Do not retarget to emoji because that does not describe this particular emoji. -- Tavix (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • This is in Emoticon and Emoticons (Unicode block) but not in Smile. There are no descriptions in the articles but the tables link to the Unicode website which shows the emoji and describes it as "upside-down face". Peter James (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. The emoji depicts an upside-down face and we don't seem to have articles discussing either upside-down faces or their use in emoji. The fact that the face also happens to be smiling is incidental. – Uanfala 10:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • If you're going to keep this, you'll have to add a Unicode section as with Japanese postal mark. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to emoji, per Uanfala's comment; emojis with varying appearances shouldn't go to a particular subject. All emojis should exist, if nothing else because a redirect helps those of us using computers incapable of resolving the image. All I see on this computer is a little box, so if there's not a single relevant topic, redirecting to emoji demonstrates to me that the little box is an emoji. I'm not opposed to an alternate useful target, e.g. what Steel1943 is talking about, although it needs to be some sort of topical thing; if you send it to a comprehensive list of miscellaneous symbols, this won't help people figure out what it is, since anyone can guess that an unresolved little box is some sort of miscellaneous character. Nyttend backup (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Amazonaws

deletion, per#If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Not mentioned at all in article, one-off by SPA 7 years ago Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. In addition to this phrase is part of the URL of either most or every page in Amazon Web Services, I've heard of the target article's subject being called "Amazon AWS", so this redirect isn't too far off from that. Steel1943 (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I see a lot of Internet stuff about amazonaws being connected to Amazon S3, mostly about a virus / hacking. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep; since it's a variant of the site's URL, it's quite plausible, and there's no risk of this getting confused for anything else. Nyttend backup (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

List of newly-formed bus routes in Brooklyn

Not a useful search term as we do not have a time frame for "newly formed." Also, we do not have a similar redirect name to other bus route list articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.33.239 (talkcontribs) 01:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

November 17

Auto lpG Dispensing Station

The target does not cover this as "auto lpG" is not mentioned there. -- Tavix (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete autogas mentions LPG filling/dispensing facilities, but the capitalisation of this redirect is rather odd. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete weird stylization of capitalizing the G only, not used in news articles, and the stations that dispense "Auto LPG" are called refueling stations. Create Auto LPG, Auto-LPG to point to Autogas AngusWOOF (barksniff) 06:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Plumbus

Not mentioned in target article. Without mention in its target page, this redirect has no notability outside of the Rick and Morty universe, and is the equivalent of a WP:NOTWIKIA issue. Also, the history of this page was a recreation of an article deleted and redirected at AfD; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plumbus. Steel1943 (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I had a very similar thought process. In fact, the redirect is only one letter off from plumbous, an adjectival form. -- Tavix (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Retarget to Lead This would work since Plumbous and Plumbus sound the same and have been used in some books. [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] Striking previous vote. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully this relist will lead to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Nominator comment: After giving this some consideration, I oppose retargeting to Lead. Though connecting the nominated redirect to Rick and Morty without mention is a WP:NOTWIKIA issue, the connection between the redirect and Rick and Morty is still notable. Instead, Wikipedia's search function should be utilized to help readers find what they are looking for when searching this term. However, in the spirit of the AfD discussion that resulted in the redirect having indefinite full protection, I now suggest this redirect be deleted and Plumbus be salted. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Can you throw in a redirects here and then hatnote to Rick and Morty? It'd help if Plumbus was mentioned at least somewhere on the Rick and Morty article. If the verbiage is there it can take the redirect. There are news articles that refer to it: [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC) update 23:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Affluenza in Australia

The word "Affluenza" is not mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm not opposed to that option, but I find it a bit odd that this redirect is the only page that starts with "Affluenza in". I do not understand why Australia would have a redirect for this and not other countries. But, then again, it could just be a case of nothing else being written yet. Steel1943 (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete This isn't the title of the book so it doesn't help to redirect to the book itself. But the section doesn't really focus on the effects of alluenza on Australia or cite statistics, and only vaguely states a line about Australians trying measures to counter affluenza, so I would change the section header itself to Analysis or Criticism of affluenza. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Y U NO

Target article does not mention term "Y U NO". — JFG talk 13:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep - I have restored the REDIRECT to Rage comic. You should have have checked the edit history first. On 20 December 2013 user Thumperward deleted the Rage comic article by redirecting it to List of Internet phenomena#Animation and comics. The deletion was reverted three days later by user Steven Walling. In the meantime AvicBot had "Fixed" the double redirect, leaving behind permanent damage. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Petri Krohn, can you add "Y U NO" to the Rage comic article with some sourcing? The article as it stands doesn't mention this phrase, but mentions "FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU" and "rage guy". AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the Rage comic article does not mention the phrase either.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - Rage comics is a better target - The "Y U NO" should probably be added in the history section or somehting. –Davey2010Talk 15:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Osten Deutsche Mark

Incorrect backtranslation of "East German Mark" into German, treating "East" as a separate noun. ("Ostdeutsche Mark" would be better). Confusing, and I can't believe it is helpful to anyone. —Kusma (t·c) 09:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. Extremely unlikely search term which causes confusion as to the correct German name. Appears literally once on the internet outside of Wikipedia mirrors. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Brain Science

Re-target to neuroscience. It does not seem natural to translate brain science, as cognitive science. Rather it should be translated neuroscience. In addition, this rings strongly of academic rebranding. Neuroscience means literally science of the nervous system. This is as close as it gets to the science of the brain. Compare with cognitive science. In addition, the redirect creator appeears 2604:2000:D090:1C00:9D18:A0FE:5843:F9A1 (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Re-target to neuroscience per 2604:2000:D090:1C00:9D18:A0FE:5843:F9A1 —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom as used in web sites like How Stuff Works [54] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

November 16

List of songs performed on American Idol

The target does not contain a list of this nature. -- Tavix (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete this was created as a result of this AfD which was closed as redirect, and since the target is unhelpful, I don't see a reason to keep the redirect. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Alex Burns (journalist)

Delete this redirect because (1) Wrong name; Journalist's actual name in the paper is Alexander Burns; (2) the target article doesn't mention him; (3) hardly anything links here (4) We don't typically redirect otherwise redlinked journalists to their employer; there are numerous more notable journalists that have no Wikipedia article at all, and aren't likely to get one (5) He might not stay at The New York Times or he might become better known for something else (6) Helpful editors trying to provide blue authorlinks are burdened by checking this fake article, or worse yet, carelessly providing a worthless authorlink. Anomalocaris (talk) 05:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete not discussed at target or anywhere else in Wikipedia, so we have nowhere useful to send readers who follow this link. But FWIW this is not a wrong name, merely an alternative name (e.g. he goes by "Alex" on Twitter [55]). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as not every employee of a company needs a redirect especially if not even mentioned in the article. Should be removed from Alex Burns dab due to WP:DABMENTION. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 07:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox settlement

Unused redirects. Delete like all these:Template:Infobox Abkhaz district, Template:Infobox Algerian municipality, Template:Infobox Algerian District, Template:Infobox Algerian Province, Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina municipalities Zenica, Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina municipalities02, Template:CoDepartment infobox, Template:Community area, Template:Croatian County, Template:District data of Japan, Template:India UT capital infobox, Template:India UT infobox2, Template:Infobox Autonomous community, Template:Infobox Belgische deelgemeente, Template:Infobox City in Afghanistan, Template:Infobox city in the Republic of Macedonia, Template:Infobox city in the Republic of Macedonia (dual language), Template:Infobox City of Moldova, Template:Infobox city of Panama, Template:Infobox City Ukraine, Template:Infobox Crimean town, Template:Infobox deelgemeente Belgium, Template:Infobox divisions of Sarawak, Template:Infobox District Cambodia, Template:Infobox District CZ, Template:Infobox District of Moldova, Template:Infobox districts of Selangor, Template:Infobox England district, Template:Infobox Estonian County, Template:Infobox Federal Territory of Malaysia, Template:Infobox French hamlet, Template:Infobox Luxembourg, Template:Infobox Luxembourg canton, Template:Infobox Micropolitan Area, Template:Infobox Moldovan Location, Template:Infobox Montenegro, Template:Infobox Municipalities of Portugal, Template:Infobox Municipality in the Republic of Macedonia, Template:Infobox Municipality portugal, Template:Infobox Municipality pt, Template:Infobox Pakistan district, Template:Infobox Pakistani location, Template:Infobox Political Division, Template:Infobox Province of Kazakhstan, Template:Infobox Region of Georgia, Template:Infobox Romania Villages, Template:Infobox Settlement 1, Template:Infobox Settlement (Serbia), Template:Infobox Statistical Regions of the Republic of Macedonia, Template:Infobox Subdivisions of Malaysia, Template:Infobox Tehsil Pakistan, Template:Metropolitan cities of India, Template:Place in Mexico, Template:Romanian regions infobox, Template:Statistical region of Slovenia, Template:Tokyo-Infobox, Template:Tokyo-Infobox/Idea 1, Template:Union councils of Pakistan, Template:Village in Ukraine, Template:USA City infobox, Template:USA City infobox, Template:Greenlandic divisions, Template:Infobox Municipality Slovenia, Template:Infobox Vietnam district, Template:Infobox Indonesian regency, Template:Infobox Indonesian province, Template:Infobox Solomon Islands Province, Template:Infobox Burmesestatedivision, Template:Infobox East Timor District, Template:Infobox Nigerian States, Template:Infobox Sri Lankan Administrative District 85.181.156.35 (talk) 05:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak keep: This nomination is somewhat of an apples and oranges argument. From what I can tell this far, the deleted pages the nominator has linked refer to pages deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion nominations, not Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion nominations. (The linked deleted pages were standalone templates, whereas this nomination pertains to redirects.) At the present time, I'm leaning "keep" since these redirects' purpose is to help editors/readers find the target template. I mean, one cannot expect everyone to know the exact names of every template prior to transcluding or substituting them, and these redirects could serve as navigational assists to reach the target template. Steel1943 (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Eh, might as well delete Template:Infobox voivod since the term "voivod" seems to traditionally refer to a political leader/person, not a political region. This redirect could potentially be targeted elsewhere, but at the present time, I have no suggestions to where that may be; worse case scenario, the redirect gets deleted then recreated to point towards a more applicable target. Steel1943 (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    • User:Steel1943 - Can you explain why you would prefer to keep three country specific redirects out of 50000 possibilities for such redirects? How are editors supposed to know if a transclusion code includes 1) a wrapper for Infobox settlement, 2) an independent template, 3) a redirect to Infobox settlement? 77.179.168.55 (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • My original response already answered your question. I have no more to add. Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    • User:Steel1943, no you didn't refer to 50000 possibilities for redirects, you only referred to some deleted templates. That's apples and oranges. And you may consider using correct prefixing "::*" is not. 77.179.168.55 (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
      Sure. Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep all, can't find any reason to delete any of those. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    User:Headbomb they invite editors to use them. Then other editors edit a page and see a transclusion of a template that they don't know. Editors in administrative geography know that there is {{Infobox settlement}} and that there are wrappers (list of templates transcluding Infobox settlement). If they see any unknown call they don't know if it is a wrapper where variables are used differently or if it is a redirect. If all redirects are deleted this problem disappears. The deletion comment can contain a link to {{Infobox settlement}}. There are more than 5000 classes of administrative entities and seeing that there are more than 9 naming variants (Algerian municipality, Algerian District, City in Afghanistan, District CZ, District of Moldova, deelgemeente Belgium, District Cambodia, PLURAL: Nigerian States, Greenlandic divisions, Subdivisions of Malaysia) and more combinations are equally plausible "city BE", "city in Belgium", there are more than 50000 redirect names possible - without considering misspellings and different translations or no translation of foreign language terms. What is the specific reason for having {{Infobox Azerbaijan region}} but not the others? 85.178.245.150 (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: The first three second and third (Updated. Steel1943 (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)) nominated redirects have transclusions. Steel1943 (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    User:Steel1943, Not true. 85.178.245.150 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    Fixed my comment. Template:Infobox Cambodian district has a transclusion on User:Calliopejen1/templates/Cambodia/district, and Template:Infobox Indian Jurisdiction has a transclusion on User:Mvenkatesh999. Steel1943 (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: all, and make all of the red links listed above into redirects to {{Infobox settlement}}, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Note to closing admin: Pigsonthewig (talkcontribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this RfD.
  • Comment: User:Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) started to implement his solution, creating {{Infobox Montenegro}} [56] and {{Infobox Sri Lankan Administrative District}} [57] in violation of
    1. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_January_4#Template:Infobox_Montenegro - "The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)"
    2. Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_12#Infobox_Sri_Lankan_Administrative_District - "The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)"
    85.178.245.150 (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    User:Steel1943 The outcome was delete, not redirect. 77.179.168.55 (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    Right, so G4 doesn't apply. The pages are currently redirects, not functioning templates. Steel1943 (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    User:Steel1943 The second and the third have a template history, and should have gone through the same process as the other deletions of country specific templates. 77.179.168.55 (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    They are redirects, so your reasoning doesn't apply. As redirects, they would be nominated here. Steel1943 (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • keep, redirects are useful for (1) directing the user to the correct template, and (2) viewing old revisions in the cases that templates have been merged. Frietjes (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Note to closing admin: Frietjes (talkcontribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this RfD.
    Disclosure: Frietjes doesn't care about template history here: Template:Tirana District, Template:Taiwan Administrative Divisions both nominated for deletion on 17 November 2017 by that user. 85.181.159.171 (talk) 07:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • DISCLOSURE Frietjes and Pigsonthewing are editors that created some of these redirects. 77.179.168.55 (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, redirects are generally useful, unless they point to a misleading target. In this case, they point to the correct template for articles about geopolitical regions. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
    User:Plastikspork - "unless they point to a misleading target" - for a starter: Template:Infobox voivod. voivod. Also, could you address the fact that there are thousands of redirects possible, if one allows type specific redirects? Infobox settlement has as equivalent in the article name space something like Administrative division, the type specific titles (e.g. Districts of Belarus) are never redirecting there. Steadily growing list of classes in WD http:// tinyurl.com/y7lggnyj. And for ~20 you want to keep the redirects? 85.181.159.171 (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. These all seems like useful redirects to me. See WP:CHEAP. FYI, the one of these that I created, {{Infobox populated place}}, was due to a requested move discussion at Template talk:Infobox settlement/Archive 24#Requested move. Jenks24 (talk) 06:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
    Jenks24 - how is Template:Infobox voivod useful? Do you know what voivod means? Also, could you address the fact that there are thousands of redirects possible, if one allows type specific redirects?Infobox settlement has as equivalent in the article name space something like Administrative division, the type specific titles (e.g. Districts of Belarus) are never redirecting there. Steadily growing list of classes in WD http:// tinyurl.com/y7lggnyj. And for ~20 you want to keep the redirects? 85.181.159.171 (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
    Presumably because someone else found it useful enough to create and it does no harm. See again WP:CHEAP. Also just because it exists it doesn't mean all those other potential redirects have to be created. But if you want to do a separate RFD for that one after this RFD is inevitably closed as keep, go for it. I'm only here because you nominated a perfectly useful redirect I'd created. Jenks24 (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. as useful. No reason why they are actually misleading or useless has been given. And as for unfamiliarity, yes, I would expect people interested in location in Russia to either know or soon learn what voivod means — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talkcontribs) 00:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Duo or 多 is different than 夕. Duo has a different meaning than 夕 does. No sense in this redirecting to a page with a different meaning. Goveganplease (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FORRED, no appropriate target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete It's mentioned in the table but with no information. Its meaning can be found on its Wiktionary page, but search provides a more direct link to it than the article currently does. Peter James (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Peter James. We have no encyclopedic content about anything by this name. Readers are best served by the search results page, which has a Wiktionary excerpt & link. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Racist Bassist

Not mentioned in the target. Most likely another bit of in-universe lore from the YouTube channel. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 02:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Phil. Transac.: Biol. Soc.

Unlikely redirect/typo, all abbreviated forms would have "Trans." or (rarely) "Transact.", never "Transac". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete I can't see this being useful as a shortcut in a citation here, even if it might have been used in old books. It differs from the ISO 4 abbreviation Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. B AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, it's an incorrect abbreviation. But we keep redirects from incorrect abbreviation that might be reasonable errors, and this is one of them. I see no reason why this is confusing. "If we expect somebody to look it up they should type..." is a reason for keeping, not deleting. If library experience is any guide, people may wel luse every possible mis-abbreviation for journal names, and dealing with them is the purpose of redirects or cross references. . DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B.

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

Phil.Trans. A

Unlikely search term / with typo, already covered by Phil. Trans. A Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. Yes, it's an incorrect abbreviation. But we keep redirects from incorrect abbreviation that might be reasonable errors, and this is one of them. I see no reason why this is confusing. "If we expect somebody to look it up they should type..." is a reason for keeping, not deleting. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Phil. Trans. Proc. Royal Soc. A

Unlikely and extremely confusing redirect. This would stand for Philosophical Transactions of the Proceedings of the Royal Society A. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete The ISO 4 abbreviation is Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. A which already has a redirect and if someone was going to try to type it up or link to it they should use that. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, it's an incorrect abbreviation. But we keep redirects from incorrect abbreviation that might be reasonable errors, and this is one of them. I see no reason why this is confusing. "If we expect somebody to look it up they should type..." is a reason for keeping, not deleting. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Regressive eating

I can't find any usages of "regressive eating" in reliable sources to mean "Paleolithic diet". In reality "regressive eating" appears to be a term for some kind of eating disorder, but I don't know enough about this topic area to tell whether it's covered in Wikipedia under another name or something. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - I'm seeing this term being used by several reliable-looking publications in terms of eating disorders, such as this among other examples. There's probably a good place to redirect it over to, some exact section or the like, but I'm not quite sure. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • After a bit more reading, it seems like usages of "regressive eating" in published sources are in the Freudian sense, though I'm not 100% confident in this because I'm way out of my depth in this topic area. Anyway, unless someone has any better ideas (or a case for deletion), I guess this could be closed as retarget to regression (psychology), since this redirect is seven years old and that article does mention "eating" briefly even if it doesn't have the exact phrase "regressive eating". 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Not menu

The user that created this page added a WP:NOTMENU link to the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy page (diff, which I reverted) and created this redirect, but no rationale was provided in the edit summary for why this was performed, other than "valid". As such, this is entirely ambiguous, and could refer to the contents of any article that contains any mention of foods that companies or organizations purvey. Furthermore, such changes to policy pages should be performed after a consensus is formed to do so, rather than unilaterally. I have also posted a note regarding this matter at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § Revert. North America1000 06:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep as there is no provided policy basis on deleting a redirect, a redirect that anyone can start, see for example, WP:Not guide. The current WP:Not guidebook actually mentions a menu and food as part of its criteria: not the telephone number or street address of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait....not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc.". That a restaurant, hotel or venue is an excellently valid redirect. This satisfies our principles of Help:Redirect#Purposes of a redirect. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • CommentWikipedia:Consensus is a policy. Consensus should be obtained before adding ambiguous entries to the WP:NOT policy page and creating redirects to the content that was added without consensus. North America1000 07:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete No mention of "not menu" at WP:NOT. Seems to be part of a mass editing by creator to remove mention of products from restaurant articles (such as this edit), which seems to conflict with WP:PRODUCT: "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself". More guidance is needed than to merely point to a policy page with no mention of menus.—Bagumba (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: Notice of this discussion has been placed at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink.—Bagumba (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't make sense redirecting when there hasn't been discussion in the policy page. Stickee (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete since it doesn't clearly pertain to the material there, and we do not have any extant, regular problem of people a) trying to add menus to articles on restaurants and other food services (already covered under various rules about trivia and promotion, at WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#ADVERT, WP:SPAM, WP:COI, etc.), or b) anything else that "menu" could refer to, e.g. badly rewriting articles on software to be stepwise catalogues of their menu items (which would already be covered by WP:NOT#MANUAL).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  14:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete This was very clearly created in an attempt to create their own policy. A quick look at their edit history shows they are just going through and deleted tons of content from restaurant articles, and wanted something to support their claim. - GalatzTalk 15:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep On its merits, an appropriate redirect. It's exactly the sort of contents we do not usually include. I think it was always assumed before, but it seems to be clearly needed now.It exactly matches the other similar statements, all of which are basically extensions of NOT INDISCRIMINATE to the usual special cases. DGG ( talk ) 16:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete – Since this is "Redirects for discussion" (italic emphasis mine), and since I did not explicitly state "delete" in the original post, I would like to clarify that I am for deletion. Key points about the foods and fare that companies and food manufacturers create and purvey should not be wiped entirely from articles. Conversely, I also understand that articles do not need to go into great intricate detail covering every foodstuff a company/organization is involved in. These types of matters in articles should be judged on a case-by-case basis, rather than by the ambiguous ten-character phrase, wp:notmenu. North America1000 11:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I can't see any great harm in this, any experienced edit will recognise the different between a typical menu item and a full listing, just as we can tell the difference under the product heading between "Bloggs Ltd makes widgets" and "Bloggs Ltd makes widgets, including blue widgets, green widgets, UV widgets etc." Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • inclined to keep This guy's edits are a bit of a problem but it's reasonable (and I feel a consensus for this) to assert that if we are talking listing particular dishes they should be part of their fame and not listings from the menu. Mangoe (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep From what I see, we can all agree that NOMENU should be a thing. What I think the issue here is, was the way it was overly boldly implemented, without discussion. We put the cart before the horse on this one, but unless I'm missing something, we do have consensus at this point, albeit not formally. The reason I'm weak about this is probably why people voted delete, and if I'm honest, it's probably to discourage this as a precedent. As a small aside, and I don't think this is case here, but I also don't want to encourage people slashing entire sections when they could be rewritten more concisely to conform. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Drewmutt, with a note that the word menu should be included in the target page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment @Jimfbleak, Mangoe, Drewmutt, and Piotrus: DGG mentioned above that this would be more relevant when considering "NOT INDISCRIMINATE", in which case the redirect should be to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (not it's current target of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal) As a few of you mentioned, there should be mention of menu somewhere in the target, and guidance as to the extent of what NOTMENU means (e.g. WP:NOTSTATS is not carte blanche to remove any and all stats). Otherwise, we get this removal of independently-sourced prose on a restaurant's core offerings.—Bagumba (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Bagumba: I agree that the diff you provided directly above is of concern. The content removed (which you restored) is not a long bulleted directory list of menu items, it is sourced content that is relevant to the topic, as per WP:PRODUCT. This example is in part a reason to be wary of vague additions to Wikipedia policy pages that have a potential to be significantly misinterpreted, leading to the blanking of entire sections of sourced content (and the work of our valued editors) at the push of a button, without appropriate due consideration of the content's relevance relative to a particular topic. Such content can also be copy edited to address concerns with intricate detail, rather than blanked in a rapid, drive-by manner. These types of matters in articles are better considered on a case-by-case basis. North America1000 11:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, the troubling part is the edit summary read, "... Pricing and menu is an immediate violation".—Bagumba (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
it might make more sense to say, details of pricing and menu. The general level of pricing is appropriate, the type of food served is appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 14:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I would tend to point at WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which has relevant wording already. Mangoe (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no reason why we shouldn't include this into our policy, and it's definitely something that isn't controversial because of personal opinion or bias. It's something that adds value to Wikipedia policy and it should be encouraged for Wikipedia's welfare. Today, we now see paid editing of all kinds and we should prepare for it, and this includes spamming us with menus. One comment here says this should be deleted because there hasn't been any discussion on the policy page, but there indeed is, so this doesn't add anything into why the redirect should still be deleted alone. Several years ago, the community was free to implement anything it wanted to, since the community has a choice of making it. I recently participated in a discussion about an article where menu product spam like this was added in, and this redirect fits in perfectly with solving that issue. Trampton (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bagumba. There's no mention of menus at the target, so someone is free to interpret the redirect however they want. This isn't helpful as the above diffs have shown. -- Tavix (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and retarget to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a place to house an eating establishment's menu, ennumerating the offerings being provided. The content must be encyclopedic, i.e. the special dish should be noted in 3rd-party, independent sources, rather than routine reviews, such as what's common in local press. That's the very definition of indiscriminate. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - This seems a reasonable use of a redirect. Not sure why it has been nominated for deletion. At worst it is harmless and it may well be useful.  Velella  Velella Talk   10:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
None of those would ever be suggests as they're not relevant. Not menu is a reality though in regards to article, but "Not teacher" or "Not your mother" is certainly not. The comments above clearly gave examples of why it's in fact valid, so simply stating "implausible" isn't showing how they're irrelevant. Also, as for the formatting an article, adding content without a table of contents, is against WP:MOS. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete If the menu issue isn't mentioned in WP:NOT, it's not appropriate to have a redirect there under this title. First get the menu-related text added to WP:NOT, then create a redirect. (And then I'd probably vote keep.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. NOT BURo. We all do agree it's a good statement of policy, so why delete it only to remake. it? Just edit the policy page to include the statement. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Duplicate vote: DGG (talkcontribs) has already cast a vote above.

List of Pop culture news media events

The current target does not provide a list of this nature. -- Tavix (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: This redirect is a {{R with history}}. Looks as though it was an article during 2005–2006. Steel1943 (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Based on revision history searches on popular culture around 2006 for phrases from the list, I don't see that anything from the list ever actually got merged, so there's nothing to preserve. Even if we did need to preserve the page history somewhere for attribution purposes, it wouldn't need to be preserved at this particular title; it could go at some talk:popular culture subpage. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

🏣

Unprotect and undelete. At the time of the previous RfD, we didn't have the current convention of redirecting from emoji, and some votes were based on how the symbol appeared on certain platforms before it was properly standardized. This is one of the few emoji that can have a useful redirect and currently doesn't. NeonMerlin 07:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Support but target to Japanese postal mark instead, which specifically discusses this character. --NYKevin 01:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia is not Emojipedia. Has anything suggested since the previous RFDs in 2015 that this icon has become more trendy and needing to be searched more? Has the icon appeared in news articles? There's a unicode on Japanese postal mark that was added in January 2016 [58]? Should similar tables be created for all the other Emojis? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It may be based on the postal mark, but it's a post office emoji. It's mentioned in both articles, (see Japan Post#Postal symbol) and in Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs, and should redirect somewhere. Japan Post is probably the most relevant, although there is currently more information at Japanese postal mark. WP:XY isn't a reason to delete here as this is one thing, although mentioned in more than one article, and there are no search results. Peter James (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I support the recreation somewhere, but I'm not sure where that would be. The emoji is Japanese Post Office, but I do not think there is an obvious article that fits the description. Japan Post was in service from 2003–2007. Japan Post Holdings is the current Japanese postal company, but the article doesn't provide much. It does mention that Japan Post Network runs the post offices, which is technically the closest to the emoji definition. However, that article is a one sentence stub. I'm thinking what needs to happen is to create an overview article (eg: Postal services in the United Kingdom as the closest current article that I can find). Anything from Japan Post not directly related to the 2003–2007 company would go there (including the section on the Japanese postal mark), along with the history (I can't find anything pre-2003 so that would need to be researched). Thoughts? -- Tavix (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Chem. Biol.

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

November 15

Talk:NFL London and Mexico Games

Redirect to a talk page from a quickly-reverted page move; nothing other than itself links to this page  ONR  (talk)  23:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Lopez Brothers

Irrelevant redirect that I have no idea how it got here since there are absolutely no relations between the artist and any brothers with the surname "Lopez". 69.118.33.239 (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Colored lights that provide a weather forecast

nonsensical title, but this is too old for R3 umbolo 22:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment looking at the description for weather beacon, it might be okay. Are you questioning its use as a search phrase? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. useless--it's just a reverse definition. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hoops on the Rez

Target page doesn't mention this. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Apache_Youth_Ministry#Hoops on the Rez where it is discussed. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Taking a look at that article, the section, as with most of the rest of the article is a compilation of content from primary sources (the only source is one of the people mentioned in the article). Prodded it, but an editor would also be justified to simply prune it down to the basics, which would almost certainly remove this. Maybe this will wind up coming back to RfD? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
      • striking this vote for the one below then. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that AngusWOOF's suggested target has been deleted as an expired PROD. I'm relisting to give an opportunity to discuss the redirect without that target and to list the variant redirects Hoops on the rez and User:Popcap1523/Hoops on the rez which should have the same fate as the originally nominated redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think the event was more notable than the organization. It isn't even discussed as a notable event in the rezball general article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Stones

A dispute has arisen as to whether this should continue to redirect to its current longstanding target (also the redirect target of Stone, for which "stones" is the plural), or should be a separate disambiguation page. I have no immediate opinion on the matter, but would like to see evidence of a lack of primacy before changing a longstanding status quo ante. bd2412 T 14:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

UIPF

No real connection to target PRehse (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete The trivial mention of the Union des intérêts de la place financière lémanique at the target's bibliography section is unhelpful to anyone looking for actual encyclopedic information about it. Wikipedia doesn't discuss anything else called UIPF either, e.g. the other entries on the dab page that used to be at this lemma. (I am slightly mystified why International Francophone Press Union's acronym is UPF instead of UIPF.) 59.149.124.29 (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I see some news articles that refer, perhaps incorrectly, to International Francophone Press Union as some news articles refer to the organization as UIPF [59] [60], union interprofessionnelle du Finistère [61] [62] or obscure ones like ubiquitous ingress packet filtering (UIPF) [63] . AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Also note that UIPF doesn't exist on the French Wikipedia. fr:UIPF AngusWOOF (barksniff) 06:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

November 14

Bombing Busters

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

Legendary Dark Knight

My rationale for deleting the first two is that they are too vague. There are many "dark knights" in fiction that are considered "legendary". The rationale for the last two is that they are unlikely search targets that have gotten few if any hits. Sparda is really the only plausible redirect for this character. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Legendary Pictures also produced The Dark Knight (film) so that would be a plausible redirect. Also Batman has been referred to as the "legendary Dark Knight" [64] Is Sparda referred to as the legendary dark knight throughout the video game, like it's his title? Or is it just a single quote from the game? Also note there is a "Legendary Dark Knight Mode" that could redirect to Devil May Cry 4. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
That's just the thing - it's still overly vague, and yet not clear enough to make a disambiguation. Best let the search function do its job. As far as whether it's a title, I'm pretty sure he isn't referred to all the time as "The Legendary Dark Knight Sparda", other than in isolated instances.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom, let the search engine work its magic. —Kusma (t·c) 12:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Boeing 767-233

A redirect does not need to exist for the highly specific instance of a derivative aircraft model that is unlikely to be searched. Delete, or be consistent and similarly create thousands of redirects for other customer codes that are unlikely to be searched. -- Acefitt 22:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment This model number is mentioned in articles about a notable incident, from which the redirect was recently removed ([65] [66]) - one of which links to several redirects for other specific models such as Boeing 737-222 and Boeing 737-282. I'm not aware of any proposal to create "a redirect for every explicit Boeing customer code". However, I checked a pattern search on article titles and found we do have hundreds more. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, harmless and on topic, but don't create similar redirects en masse. Wikipedia is not consistent, and any attempts to make it consistent are doomed to fail. —Kusma (t·c) 09:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: This redirect, and many like it, was created so that a reference within an article to a particular model could be linked as a whole and send the reader to the appropriate article. Alternative - but undesirable - methods are to link only part of the model number or to pipe the link. Both would be very poor choices. The point of this sort of redirect is twofold: it crystallises the specialist knowledge of the editor who created it - the title of the article which describes a specific model is not necessarily just the high-order part of the model number; and it externalises the linkage between the mention in an article and the actual location that describes that topic. Not only is it not a problem if WP has hundreds of redirects from specific model numbers to the appropriate article, it is a positive benefit, the very reason for which redirects exist. I would strongly encourage the creation of as many such redirects as may be needed; every time a specific model number is mentioned in an article, it should be linked as a whole, with a redirect to send the reader to the appropriate destination. And this is not just my opinion - it is policy - see WP:NOPIPE. And for the reasons stated, I would strongly discourage misguided attempts to replace redirects with piping. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    • @Colonies Chris:WP:NOPIPE is not policy, unless I'm reading the header of that page wrong. In any event, given that they have the same target, creating multiple redirects in the same article seems in contradiction to WP:DUPLINK, as no additional benefit is provided. You've clearly stated your personal preference, but I still see no benefit of entire redirect page when a couple piped links create only additional syntax, and in latter instances of the link, less syntax. I see no advantage to creating an entire page to serve the purpose of one single piped link. I haven't a clue what you mean by "crystallising the specialist knowledge of an editor" but piping a link when only a few instances will link to a given redirect still seems easier for all parties. For these reasons, I strongly maintain that redirects should not be needlessly created, and given that it does not contravene policy, I will refrain from fixing redirects but continue to pipe links instead of needlessly creating redirects. -- Acefitt 15:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Not official policy, but nonetheless widely agreed - that's why it's been there and stable for many years. Perhaps it would be useful for me to clarify the contrasting purposes of redirects and piping. The function of piping is to make a more precise link than the visible one; an example is [[Boeing 747|747]], where the context only requires '747', but the wikilink requires more detail. By contrast, the role of a redirect is to take a reader from a precise visible link to a more general article - in the case of Boeing 767-233, it goes to an article which covers the visible topic in a larger context. WP:DUPLINK has nothing to do with it - that's talking about multiple links to the same item; the fact that several links to different items may be covered by the same target article has no relevance at all. Redirects should not be seen as an overhead or as a problem - on the contrary, redirects allow flexibility and reduce maintenance overhead. A redirect page costs virtually nothing, and the action of redirecting a clicked link also costs virtually nothing. Set that against the cost of adding some piping, which might seem small but in fact you incur a significant cost because it's part of the history of a larger article. What do I mean by 'crystallising your specialist knowledge? I'll give you an example. You may know, as a plane expert working within Wikipedia, that the plane model Douglas C-54D-15-DC is covered by the article Douglas C-54 Skymaster, and you may add some piping into an article that mentions it, but that doesn't help anyone outside the context of that specific article. If you instead make a redirect, then anyone else can go straight from that specific model to the appropriate article without having to have your specialist knowledge; by adding the redirect you've 'crystallised' your knowledge, made it available to everyone, not just in one article, but across the whole encyclopaedia. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
        • It's specifically of Boeing customer codes that I'm speaking of, though. If one were to search for Douglas C-54D-15-DC, an actual variant of the airplane, it's entirely reasonable for them to be redirected to the appropriate article. Boeing customer codes, on the other hand, do not denote a specific variant and are insignificant to the extent that they have been ditched entirely in newer models. Boeing customer codes crystallize nothing but confusion... heck I'd prefer for the type parameter on Gimli Glider to simply say "Boeing 767-200" and not even have to distinguish. -- Acefitt 18:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
          • That's exactly the kind of specialist knowledge I was meaning. You're aware that 767-233 is a customer code, but the average reader or editor won't know that, and thanks to the redirect, they don't need to - they'll be taken to the right place, where all that is explained if they want to know. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: It is extremely unlikely the average Wikipedia user will come in and search for a Boeing aircraft by both model and customer code. The customer code isn't even necessary on articles about aircraft incidents, though there's no harm in listing it there. But that doesn't justify having these redirects, and no new redirects like this should be created. Aviation article maintainers know how to link to the appropriate aircraft page, and we don't need to create endless redirects for something editors handle every day. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    • In a case such as this, it's possible someone mght search by that code, because that's a plane that was involved in a widely reported incident. But more importantly, why the opposition to the redirect? It's useful for the reasons I've explained above and its cost is insignificant. Why deny readers and editors the benefit of the knowledge 'stored' in that redirect? An aviation editor has a choice; they can pipe a model number to the appropriate article, or they can create a redirect. The cost of either option is trivial, but the redirect has a wider benefit, so why not use it? Colonies Chris (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Redirects are intended for more than the "average" user, they are for any reasonably likely user, and if I ever saw this term, yes I would look for it, as I did not know the meaning of customer codes in this context until I saw this discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

URI scheme

I think we should bring the article back in some form. It is definitely a notable subject, and it would also help readers narrow in on their search. I am ok with having us start by using the version in the revision history, but it likely needs a lot of edits.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Prostitution in Morocco

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: moved. I went ahead and fulfilled this as a technical move request seeing that the draft has already been accepted. In the future, note that requests like these don't require a full discussion. You can use WP:RM/TR or {{db-move}} if a redirect with history is preventing a page from being moved.

Clinton Family Foundation

Separate organization, as indicated by various reliable sources. Examples: [67], [68]. Even Clinton Foundation indicates these two entities are not the same. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, my formal basis for supporting a delete is WP:RFD#DELETE condition #2: The redirect might cause confusion by causing some readers to think the Clinton Family Foundation was the same as the Clinton Foundation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
That is why the private "Family" foundation is mentioned in the lead and further described in its own section. Readers who want the public org. will type its name in the search box. Readers who want the private org. will either type the public orgs name or the private orgs name. Either way, when they read the lead and the article, any confusion will be explained to them. This redirect is needed for those readers who type the full name of the private org. in their search boxes. Since there is no article yet, those readers should have some explanation on which to land. This redirect serves that purpose, doesn't it?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've tightened the focus to the section #Private philanthropy, where the family foundation is distinctively mentioned. This is a good search term and a redirect with possibilities of becoming an article.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. anthis is much better handled by a disambiguation note of some sort--the possible confusion needs to be dealt with, not hidden. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    • To DGG: how is the confusion being hidden by keeping this redirect? Isn't the ambiguity handled well in the Clinton Foundation article?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  12:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's noted at the target that they're separate foundations, so I don't understand where the confusion might arise. I could understand WP:REDLINK deletion here, but I believe the status quo to be more helpful. -- Tavix (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Juli Briskman

Delete recently-created redirect on the woman who flipped off Trump's motorcade. It redirects to the article on her former employer, the company where she had worked as a contractor, NANA Development Corporation, which quite properly does not discuss her, and is not likely to do so, since this incident is so tangential to the company. The redirect is unhelpful to Wikipedia readers, because they are redirected to an article with no information on Briskman. TJRC (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment by nom; the redirect creator has good-faith re-added material about Briskman into the company's article after I notified him of this RFD; I have deleted it. It is tangential to the company, and is an example of WP:RECENTISM. None of this is edit-warring; the editors who initially added the clause, deleted it, re-added it, and re-deleted it, are four different editors. TJRC (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep It was deleted as "tabloid" sourcing, but it has been reported by Fortune magazine, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and is still in the news today even though she was fired on November 6, 2017. The Gofundme campaign is ongoing as well as a wrongful termination lawsuit. People should be able to see the entry during a deletion discussion, so they can decide for themselves. Whenever we have a controversy/criticism at a company that gets this much media attention we add it, see General Electric, New York Times, and Fox News for example. --RAN (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It should not be in the article on the company. In the context of the company, where she was not even an employee, it is pure trivia and a fleeting news item. I don't dispute that it's been in the news, but Wikipedia is not a news repository; WP:NOTNEWS. If the individual and incident is not sufficiently notable for an article, it should not be shoe-horned into a barely related article. WP:COATRACK. Also, per WP:BRD, it should remain out unless/until there is a consensus reached to include it, but I don't wish to edit-war and will not re-delete it. TJRC (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Calling something trivia or trivial, just means, you personally have no interest in it. All sports information is trivia to me. All television show information for shows that I have no interest in, is trivia to me. --RAN (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • To clarify, it is trivia to the audience of people interested in learning about the company, and who therefore go to an article about the company to learn about it. While sports information is indeed trivial to me as well, it is not trivial to a person reading a sports-related article; that's a different audience. TJRC (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of WP:WEIGHT. If she sues the company for millions of dollars like the McDonalds coffee lady at Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants and it becomes Wikipedia notable that way, then there might be some chance of it staying around. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 04:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
You are incorrectly holding it to the standard of having its own article, not a mention in the article of the company that she worked for. --RAN (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm holding it to a standard of whether it should have a section in the article. There are many wrongful termination lawsuits on corporations as well as class-action lawsuits, and I don't see a List of such kept around on Wikipedia until there's sizable sections like McDonald's#Treatment_of_employees and McDonald's#Legal_cases. WP:PROPORTION applies within WP:WEIGHT: "This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Bhesan

Delete as erroneous and per WP:REDLINK. Bhesan, not Bhestan (which actually does seem to be in Surat), seems to be a city not part of Surat, but rather on the other side of the Gulf of Khambhat. Steel1943 (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Junagadh district which mentions a Bhesan taluka. There is a Bhesan Village in Chorasi Tensil, Surat, but it is not mentioned in the article. If it is notable to add, then this can be a two dab. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Lady Bee

Not in target PRehse (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  • You removed it yourself, so could you elaborate a little more why you think this should not be mentioned and not redirected? —Kusma (t·c) 15:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah so I did as part of a clean up as per WP:LISTS. It wasn't linked at the time. Less convinced of the need now that my actions were reminded. Still the act is not notable and has no importance to the target company.PRehse (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete there are schools whose mascot is the bee, so they use Lady Bee or Lady Bees a lot. [69] [70] Then there's an artist called Ladybee for Burning Man [71] They seem to have as much notability as the DJ that isn't listed on the Mad Decent article. There's also a Kenyan gospel singer called Lady Bee and she has notability in news articles [72] [73] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 04:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete to encourage article creation. It seems that there might be notable artists that use the name per User:AngusWOOF's findings --Lenticel (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

CTV (Singapore)

Delete, nothing in article, and potential confusion with other uses of CTV. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete news articles show discussion on CTV receivers or Connected TV in Singapore. Website mentions CTV NP. A redirect for CTV (Ngee Ann Polytechnic) could be created, but it would need notability and weight in the school article itself. CTV stands for Campus TV in this case, and might be too localized for Wikipedia notability. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 04:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Engineering system

There were originally two articles: MIT Engineering Systems Division and Engineering system. The former was renamed to Engineering systems, and at some point the latter was merged into that. Then it was renamed back to MIT Engineering Systems Division, and a further redirect to it was added from Engineered systems. Much more recently, the entire article was redirected to Massachusetts Institute of Technology, effectively orphaning all three redirect pages which previously went to it. Since the original target article no longer exists, deleting those three pages seems to me the most sensible option.

Also, adding RFD tags to the redirect pages seems to have broken the redirects. I'm guessing this isn't meant to happen, but am not sure how to fix it. Robin S (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to fix the break either. In any case, this is only a temporary situation. Anyone really interested can manually click the MIT link. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, there was an engineering system lemma in 2007, see here but I am not sure what happened to it after it was moved to engineering systems. I would prefer both lemmas redirected to systems engineering. Mdd (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Systems engineering The topic originally tried to distinguish itself from systems engineering, but it was never sourced properly, so it isn't clear how it could be different. Systems engineering seems to cover engineering and systems and has links to that and other systems related topics. If it is supposed to cover interdisciplinary approaches to systems, then retarget to Systems theory. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Systems engineering. I don't recall what my original motivation was for creating one or two of these redirects to an MIT page. I don't see how this makes sense now. These redirects are general (terms) on their own and they are much closer to Systems engineering than MIT. It would have made more sense to have redirects specific to MIT or MIT engineering. Thanks for contacting me. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

November 13

It Takeis 2

No mention in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment short web series with Takei and Brad [74] Leaning towards keep and add R without mention. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I've added a small paragraph for the series. It lasted nine episodes, but was discussed on multiple media sources. It doesn't have the "2" though in any of its marketing so I would delete that variant unless that's attracted a bunch of views. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Codigo Postal

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

Dr. Laura Skandera Trombley

The scholar is not actually a doctor. The redirect was retargeted following a revert of page move vandalism. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  • @GeoffreyT2000: Why do you say she's not a doctor? The article states that she received a Ph.D. in English from the University of Southern California. -- Tavix (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
    And it's sourced to http://www.huntington.org/WebAssets/Templates/content.aspx?id=17786/ Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Alright, since GeoffreyT2000 hasn't bothered responding to my query, put me down as a keep since I believe that she is a doctor. -- Tavix (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Discounting the primary source of the library, these secondary news sources use Dr. Pasadena Independent, San Marino Tribune Question then becomes whether MOS:DOCTOR applies to redirects. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
She can't take over the moniker for Dr. Laura. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no more reason to use this than for all the other Ph.D.'s in Wikipedia.Or, for that matter, having a redirect for every Mr. people might refer to Mr. whomever, butthey know to look for the name without the title and they know here also. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

World Café (conversational process)

Delete as unnecessary disambiguation, and not a very plausible search string.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  01:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment This was created out of distinguishing it from the radio show. Does it still have value now that it's primary topic and that World Cafe (all caps) is for the radio show? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
    • No, because the huge parenthetical string isn't anything anyone would really use, and it doesn't really properly describe it anyway (it's not a "process"). Given that we only have two articles, and they're WP:SMALLDETAILS disambiguated as world café and World Cafe, and we don't even have more obvious redirects like World Cafe (radio show), there's no point to retaining this pair of impractical redirs.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  11:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as an implausible search term - and when you start typing it in the search box, the target World café is the top hit anyway. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} and is useful when an unambiguous link is desired. Furthermore, one of them is an {{R from move}} of the title for about two years, and the other is {{R without diacritics}} of the former title. There's no harm in keeping them, but there is is potential harm in deletion from link rot. -- Tavix (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    Given that there's only one article link to one of them (and none to the other), from Unconference, and that is actually piped to the current article title as [[World Café (conversational process)|World Café]] - so it says "World Café" in the text, that is piped to World Café (conversational process) and that in turn is redirected to World Café - I really don't see what actual practical use these are. I don't see why an unambiguous link is needed when the target is already at the primary title - I can only see the need if the primary title was itself a disambiguation page. Can you help me understand how these might actually be used? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. altogether unnecessary. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per Tavix, and a sort of inverse WP:SURPRISE. It may be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but "world café" sounds like a restaurant, not a conversation practice. It's entirely plausible that a reader would think disambiguation is necessary. And the usual reasons for {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} also apply. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix and BDD. {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} and {{R without diacritics}} would apply. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep as a bog-standard {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, bordering on an {{R from other disambiguation}}: the difference between the titles of World café and World Cafe is small, it was even smaller before the former article's move to a lower-case title, and the vast majority of readers can't be expected to know which is which off the top of their head. I'm not even sure that the neat distinction between the two titles is to any large extent upheld in reality, so deletion wouldn't make sense even in the alternative universe where all wikipedia readers search using perfectly capitalised and diacriticced search strings. Also, the first redirect is a recent {{R from move}}, so deleting it risks breaking incoming external links. – Uanfala 12:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Diocese of Jerusalem

I propose deletion of the redirect and move of the page Anglican Diocese of Jerusalem Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem to Diocese of Jerusalem. None of the bodies listed at Patriarchate of Jerusalem are commonly called the Diocese of Jerusalem, so I contend that (and a quick Google looks like I'm probably right) the Episcopal/Anglican diocese is clearly the primary usage for "Diocese of Jerusalem". DBD 08:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Yes, it is right now, but as you may notice, I have recently renovated the article to refer to the Diocese primarily in preparation for this move. But I see what you mean now — I mistyped the proposal! Thank you. DBD 17:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem on its own website, calls itself a diocese. [75] Multiple sources also refer to Orthodox Diocese of Jerusalem as being part of the patriarchate itself. [76], [77] [78] I don't see a reason to favour the Anglican religious unit, when this name is used by multiple other faiths. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The problem with "keep" as an option is that Patriarchate of Jerusalem is a disambig page on which the Anglican diocese is not listed! Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
It is listed. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per arguments of Patar knight. Listing only the Anglican entity under the heading "Diocese of Jerusalem" in the article Patriarchate of Jerusalem is problematic for the same reason. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT: change to disambig listing the Anglican and Latin dioceses specifically and then the other patriarchates below. I can see some small argument for disambiguation between the Anglicans (always referred to as a diocese) and the Latins (apparently so referred to with some frequency); GHits show that for the others the usage is rare. In any case the solution needs to make the Anglicans as one of the primary targets, since they are the only ones who aren't referred to in some other way! Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I would oppose this as duplicative of Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Creating a new DAB would just be the existing DAB but with a new name. Changing the current DAB according to your suggestion would unreasonably promote the Anglican diocese to a position of prominence, especially since patriarchates are technically higher in the non-Anglican religious hierarchy . Google Hits here is a poor metric because while the Anglican diocese is the name of the diocese, the others all have dioceses, but are usually referred to as patriarchates. Given that "diocese" as a hierarchical term and Jerusalem are both strongly associated with Christianity, I think that someone searching for "Diocese of Jerusalem" is more likely to be thinking about Christian parish organizations in Jerusalem in general, rather the Anglican diocese of Jerusalem in particular, especially since the Anglican Diocese does not have the same historical connection to the area as the other denominations do. Pointing them to the existing DAB would seem to work best. I would keep the current format, but maybe change "Diocese of Jerusalem may refer to" to "Diocese of Jerusalem may refer to any diocese-level unit of the above patriarchates or:" ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
      • The existing DAB represents an unsatisfactory first attempt at dealing with this issue. And I think you're wrong about the searching: someone searching for "diocese" is more likely to be searching for something named "diocese" than something named "patriarchate", because if they are aware of the overlap they're more likely than not to be aware enough not to be searching for a vague diocese as opposed to a specific church. And as below, this comes across as an attempt to deny the Anglicans recognition. Mangoe (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I would ask for better arguments than that for the priority for the Anglican entity. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
At this point it's on you to provide an argument at all that addresses your reason for making sure that the one thing that is always called "Diocese of Jerusalem" isn't reached by Diocese of Jerusalem: it is you, after all, who pointed the redirect away from the Anglicans. And referring to the Anglican "entity" is a sign of parochialism. Use its real name. Mangoe (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Molly Ann

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

Lua:Error

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

Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

Also listed:

These redirects target Washtenaw County, Michigan#Metropolitan Statistical Area. The section "Metropolitan Statistical Area" does not exist and I don't think it ever did. The target article's lead suggests that the Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area = Washtenaw County. I have not yet found that claim to be supported in WP:RS. What should be done?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  • keep The second sentence of the county article begins, "Washtenaw County comprises the Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area[.]" A look at the 2013 Michigan MSA map from the census bureau shows this to be the case. Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

War in Iraq, 2003-present

The target only covers events through 2011. While these redirects made sense when they were created, they are now several years outdated and may be seen as misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy retarget to Iraq conflict (2003–present). I think we must have just overlooked this! (Not too surprising, given how many varied articles we have on the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.) --BDD (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    Oops, I think I was a bit too speedy myself. Vote above stands for the first item ("War in"), but the general "History of" should go to History of Iraq#Recent history (2003–present). Still a very clear call IMO. --BDD (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Corporate terrorism

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

Back and to the left

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 22#Back and to the left

Orlando In Heaven

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

Kay turner

No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

2018 in country music

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy moot

Provo Central (UTA station)

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy keep

November 12

Harvey Winesteen

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

Harvey Weenstein

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

Harvey Winestein

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

Harvey Whinesteen

implausible spelling - or an attempt at being pointed. Either way it should go. PRehse (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It is plausible for me. I didn't know how the name is written in English and was looking for the guy in few ways. It should stay, redirects consume no resources and can only guide people to the target. --Petar Petrov (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Petar Petrov is the one who created the misspellings in October. This one hasn't had any notable number of hits since then until this RFD. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 04:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Phonetically correct misspelling of a famous person's name. Unless there's an actual notable "Harvey Whinesteen", this seems fine. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Adding Whine is more of a BLP pejorative for the "whine" that would have to be shown in reliable sources that show the name is pronounced like that. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete not phonetically correct (his name has no /hw/), potentially insulting, and the correct spelling is already the first suggestion by the search engine if you type "Harvey W". Any one of those three factors alone might not make a strong case for deletion, but when all three of them come together ... 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Due to the wine-whine merger, this is phonetically correct for the majority of English speakers... -- Tavix (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I was about 83% wrong. Still, even speakers with the merger appear unlikely to use "whine" as a phonetic spelling for an unknown name. Judging from Google Hits, "Whinestein/Whinesteen" is rare compared to "Winestein/Winesteen", and most of the time intentionally derogatory as well. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Mychal Mulder

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

Elizabeth Dye

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

Kitrd

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

Katana lion

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

Purina student chow

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

Martin Lowrie Hofford

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 23#Martin Lowrie Hofford

November 11

Barophobia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 19#Barophobia

Antlophobia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 19#Antlophobia

West Shore Railroad (current)

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete (procedural close).

To be precise

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 19#To be precise

Talk:MOS:TENSE

Delete as a pointless cross-namespace redir, in a form no one would use. The proper talk shortcut for this would be WT:MOSTENSE, but we generally don't even create those, for a MOS:FOO that's just a section in the MoS page in question, or we'd have over 100 new such redirects. We really should have Talk:Whatever to Wikipedia_talk:Whatever redirects be speediable. There is probably never a case in which we want that kind of redirect. Talk namespace talk pages are attached to articles (or are subpages of talk pages that do so, e.g. talk archives, assessment pages, and article drafting sandboxes). They are never Wikipedia talk namespaces talk pages.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  09:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep (or replace page with {{Talk page of redirect}}) since page titles that start with "MOS:" are in the "(Article)" namespace, meaning any page's respective talk page's title would behind with "Talk:MOS:". "WT:MOSTENSE", also known as Wikipedia talk:MOSTENSE, would be the talk page associated with "WP:MOSTENSE", also known as Wikipedia:MOSTENSE. (However, I do agree with the nominator that we should not be WP:BOLDly creating such redirects in the future.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't see the point of this rationale. We all (I hope) know that the "MOS:" pseudo-namespace is technically part of mainspace, but it's only because no one's bothered to set it up as not being one any longer, as has already been done with "WP:" (which was once its own namespace and now is an alias of "Wikipedia:") and, much later, "WT:" which was once just in mainspace and is now an alias of "Wikipedia talk". There is no purpose at all for a talk page for the MOS:TENSE redirect. "Talk:MOS:TENSE" does not perform any actual function, but was simply a mistake.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  11:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: There isn't even an accurate way to categorize and tag this; we have no rcat template for such a thing ({{R to talk}} not used in the talk namespace itself), and even Category:Redirects_to_talk_pages is only for redirs to [any] talk namespace from [any] subject namespace. We just don't do redirs from one talk space to another, especially for weird, empty cases like "Talk:MOS:TENSE". The only reason we'd ever need this is if a discussion ensued about the MOS:TENSE shortcut, on its own talk page, and even in that case it would make sense to move that discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, since no one watchlists shortcuts and we wouldn't get any input in the discussion.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  09:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment there are a bunch of pages listed at Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:MOS:; some are redirects, others got created to hold WikiProject tags and "this page was previously nominated for deletion" tags. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    The ones that have tags on them are (at least in theory) legit to exist. This one has no reason to exist, nor do any others that are just redirs from Talk:MOS:Foo to WT:Manual of Style[/Foo] since it is not plausible that people will use them to try to find an MoS talk page. They're just weird accidental artifiacts of MOS: not being a real namespace.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  15:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 14:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a "gray area" in the WP:CNR realm, because both redirect and target are in the talk namespace. Having said that, a quick look at the page history of the redirect shows that SMcCandlish is correct, and that this redirect evidently was not created for any good reason. Thumbs down. (Tagging with the Talk page of redirect template is an option; however, that would just turn the page into a not-so-cheap soft-redirect.)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  18:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Agreed, but wanted to deal with one issue at a time.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  18:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

History of the Democratic Party

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

U. S. security

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

Alexis Reich

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

Talk:Factions in the Republican Party (United States)

November 10

List of Soviet Cold War power plays

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

Cold War:Part 3

Similar to Cold War III (below), this isn't a term that's used to describe anything noteworthy. -- Tavix (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency. However, MOS:DATERANGE prefers the full four digit years, so I've moved them accordingly. -- Tavix (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay, that works. Thanks. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all as vague as there are media such as Cold War Part 1: From World War to Cold War [79] and CNN Cold War episode 1 [80] Cold War Part 1: 1945-1961 documentary from Phil Sheppard [81] All these use ranges different from the first "period" as separated by the Wikipedia articles. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Cold War III

I found search results showing the book called Cold War III. However, the book is not notable. Neither is some boxing fight. Also, I could not find any other potentially notable topic using "Cold War III". Unsure about the upcoming sequel to Cold War 2 (film), but I've not seen yet filming reports. As is, the page redirects to "Cold war (general term)", but it may potentially violate WP:NOTCRYSTAL as almost no source speculates or fears "Cold War III" or uses it as a term. George Ho (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hhtp

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 19#Hhtp

Zarna Joshi

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

Tschad

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep Tschad, delete Tsjad. -- Tavix (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Beat Up

I don't think this band should get a monopoly on this term, especially since Beat up is red and the default Wikipedia searcher will automatically redirect to Beat Up.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll note that the song by The Toasters might be a non-notable single. There is cover art for the single, but it hasn't charted or been added to any albums or even mentioned in collections like Spotify. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
There was an AfD in 2013 that might be of interest to you: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beat Up. -- Tavix (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

November 6

Unshō

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: move Unshō (monk) over redirect

Redirects to List of dog crossbreeds

None are mentioned in the target list article. Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep: The reason that so many of these exist is that, if they don't, they tend to pop up again...and again... and again... I'd prefer that we better clarify that there are a zillion possible invented names and they're not all going to be here in WP. Over time, clearly these articles have changed focus. In list of dog crossbreeds, we might want to better emphasize the link to Dog crossbreed, which discusses the whole portmanteau "designer dog" breed naming thing. We can't possibly list all of the possible crossbreeds, as there are hundreds of dog breeds and people aren't even consistent in how they refer to the breeds (once upon a time we tried, but soon became clear that there was no way...). However, by keeping redirects, we can (hopefully) prevent people from recreating the articles--if you check their history, they pretty much all started with some random person creating a new article for said "name" and we'd catch it and change to a redirect. Elf | Talk 20:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@Elf: If an unwanted article is repeatedly recreated, the proper solution would be to apply WP:SALT. Someone can overwrite a redirect with an article, so keeping redirects simply to prevent article creation seems counter-intuitive. -- Tavix (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Along those lines--while trying to clean up some now-incorrect links that I found by pulling this thread and watching things unravel ;-), Chiweenie wa to be a redirect to dog hybrid (which would now be dog crossbreed) in 2008. That was quickly overwritten by someone replacing the redirect with "these dogs are cool" or like that, which since then has turned into a really bad stub article, most of which is opinion, no references--on the other hand, a web search 9 years after that redirect decision, chiweenie appears zillions of times on the web. How to proceed from here? Elf | Talk 20:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I've been out of the loop for a while--how does SALT protection work? Prevents recreation and also redirects to an appropriate page? What's the template -- pp-protected? If so, I couldn't figure it out and I have to get back to actual work. Sorry. Elf | Talk 20:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Salt prevents anyone except administrators from creating the title. See Special:ProtectedTitles for examples. If there are reliable sources for the crossbreed, the best thing to do would be to create the article, or at the very least add it to List of dog crossbreeds. At least if it's added to that list, there will be encyclopedic content for the redirect to link to. -- Tavix (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
If chiweenie isn't worth an article, you can bring that up separately for AFD. Right now neither the chihuahua nor weiner dog articles mention this crossbreeding, so it wouldn't survive this RFD. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: Some comments that begin with the wording "Note: much more common name is" were added to the list of redirects above the nomination statement. These comments were added by Facts707. (I'm in the opinion that they should be moved down here for clarity, but am not going to do that myself as that may be considered refactoring.) Steel1943 (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Change two entries and keep Dorgi: Added comments to the redirect list to two entries that have another much more common name, which I will repeat here for clarity and at suggestion of OP (thanks). Facts707 (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: For "Chihueagle", a much more common name is "Cheagle" (Chihuahua/Beagle cross) Google
Note: For "Pompchy", a much more common name is "Pomchi" (Pomeranian/Chihuahua cross) Google
I also think Dorgis should be Dorgi (singular) and I think we should keep it too given its mention in a few hundred books on Queen Elizabeth's dogs.
Maybe the litmus test could be 100 references in Google Books and then the cross gets a mention under a new section "Other crossbreeds" such as "Cheagle | Chihuahua | Beagle". Just a thought. Facts707 (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget some at least boldly retarget ones that are spelling variants to breeds listed in articles. I've boldly retargeted Malt-A-Poo to Maltipoo. I've also retargeted Lhatese to Kyi-Leo. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
    • @AngusWOOF: I just withdrew the two redirects you mentioned. Thanks for resolving them. If you find any more, I'll withdraw those too. (Unfortunately, when I made this nomination, my ability to perform WP:BEFORE was limited; worse case scenario, these redirects can be recreated if the end up pointing to an appropriate target or if content identifying the redirect is added to the target article.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I did a scrub of the rest of the list and highlighted some more to keep or consider. The rest can be deleted and if need be can be added back with references and mention. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete those not mentioned anywhere as someone searching these would not be able to find any information on what they are searching for. That being said, I think a lot of these could or should be mentioned at the target, it'll just take some effort to figure out which ones are attested. -- Tavix (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hous

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Paramirim Field

not mentioned in target Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment @Hydronium Hydroxide and Jd22292: Would Uanfala's findings impact your !vote at all? Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Absolutely. Delete based on Uanfala's findings. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Ah thanks for the pickup and the ping. As well as the book above, it's also in the records of the 460th Space Wing ([85][86][87]), this journal article, a few times in the wild ([88][89][90]) and probably this book and this thesis. Weak Support for {{R from typo}} (it's better, but there's not a major loss if deleted). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 04:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More sources have been posted recently, relisting to give others an opportunity to review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I've had a look at two of Hydronium's sources and they do indeed seem to refer to the air field in Parnamirim. Still, I'm a bit uneasy to let there be an {{R from typo}} when this is the legitimate proper name of a different entity that might be mentionworthy, if not notable. I won't try to insist on deletion however, as the search engine (which is what readers will face if this gets deleted, and which is what misspellings are generally dealt by) doesn't seem to be helpful in this case. – Uanfala 22:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Augusto Severo International Airport per Hydronium Hydroxide's links. It seems to be a common enough misspelling or alternative spelling to let it take precedence over redlinking for an oil field. -- Tavix (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Regressive eating

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 16#Regressive eating

Wikipedia:Not menu

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 16#Wikipedia:Not menu

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=811793381"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA