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. That is not a sufficient condition. Please do not use it 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 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. stats.grok.se or the pageviews tool can also provide evidence of outside utility.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.
  7. The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and deleting the redirect would prevent unregistered users from so 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

March 28

Michael Sharp

Too generic of a name to make a useful redirect. Not mentioned at target, so causes confusion when linked to or searched. ansh666 18:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hyperexcitability

Deletion – "Hyperexcitability" is a very poor synonym for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Moreover, all the incoming links to the hyperexcitability page are about either neuronal excitability or muscle excitability, and neither of these are relevant to ADHD. The only options that I can think of which address one or more of these problems are to delete all of the incoming links to the page, create a DAB page (this also necessitates deleting all the incoming links), or deleting the bad redirect. Deleting the redirect is the only option that addresses both problems. Seppi333 (Insert ) 16:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Recycle a laptop

the rest of the list
Discussion

This is a list of 219 redirects created by John J. Bulten to Computer recycling, in what appears to be every permutation he could think of. Similar to the Neelix situation, I consider these to be obscure forms of the article title. -- Tavix (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep Laptop recycling as a plausible search term, the rest, especially those with hyphens, are either all implausible or users looking for a service, and should all be deleted. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Iiga

Implausible typo with no incoming links and the term is not found on target article. Senator2029 “Talk” 13:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

National Airport

Is this suitable as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT? There are many airports named National Airport. Should this be converted into a disambiguation page? feminist 07:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I think Set index is better than a disambiguation page, but I agree with you that the airport in Washington DC is not the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have previously worked on Draft:National Airport, which may be a good place to start from. I stopped pursuing that because of the large number of airports named "National Airport". feminist 14:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep There may be dozens or hundreds of airports with "National Airport" as part of their name, but as far as I know, only one airport is referred to simply as "National Airport", and that is Washington National. Add a hatnote to the top of that article that "National Airport" redirects there and to see a disambiguation page for a list of national airports. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Hemanshu/sandbox239

Redirect to a non-existent target, seemingly invalid target. Nothing besides this in the page history. User has not edited since 2015. G8 doesn't apply to pages in the userspace. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Fix or let it be. Redirects to special pages are always soft redirects (see e.g. User:Thryduulf/R to special) but they can be useful. In this case the page the user desires is the list of changes related to Category:India. The correct target for that is Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:India ("Special:RecentChangesLinked?target=Category:India" works in URLs but apparently not in links), so we should either fix it for the user (who may still be around as a reader and/or come back in future) or leave it be as completely harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unless redirects like this add clutter to some maintenance list, I don't really see any benefit in trying to do anything with it. – Uanfala (talk) 08:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
It shows up on User:R'n'B/Redirects and User:Godsy/R to special. -- Tavix (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Red plains texas

Delete, connection is unclear, along with incorrect capitalization. -- Tavix (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I oppose a retarget to Osage Plains. -- Tavix (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Osage Plains or delete. Some Web searches have convinced me that "Red Plains" is sometimes used as an alternate name of the "Rolling Plains", which in turn are that portion of the Osage that extends into Texas. That makes this a barely plausible search term. However, the region is barely discussed at the target, and the more plausible Red Plains and Rolling Plains are both redlinked, so it may be better not to get readers' hopes up. In any case, the current target makes no sense. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Osage Plains as used in books discussing the rolling red plains [1] and this one which says Rolling Plains is the same as Red Plains and lists the counties affected. [2] and this article [3] which quotes "The Rolling Plains include 21.7 million acres east of the High Plains in northwestern Texas. The area lies west of the North Central Prairies and extends from the edge of the Edwards Plateau in Tom Green County northward into Oklahoma. The landscape is nearly level to strongly rolling, and surface drainage is moderate to rapid. Outcrops of red beds, geologic materials, and associated reddish soils have led some scientists to use the name “Red Plains.” Limestone underlies the soils in the southeastern part. The eastern part contains large areas of badlands." It doesn't make sense to point to a highway system unless the highway is named as such. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Black English

Take a look at the page history for a sense of what's going on here. I propose restoring the article (something like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_English&oldid=763629814 this version) or making a tighter disambiguation page. Redirecting to AAVE seems like a massive WP:WORLDWIDE fail. If nothing else, Black British are overwhelmingly English. BDD (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. An appealing idea, but I'm now too sleepy to think straight. (For one thing, I don't understand "Black British are overwhelmingly English" in this context.) I'd be interested in Aeusoes1's opinion. -- Hoary (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand "Black British are overwhelmingly English" See the infobox at Black British. By my calculation, 97% of Black British are from England, making them "Black English". -- Tavix (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect As shown by the diff linked to in the nomination, the article was nothing but a completely unreferenced, highly indiscriminate list of dialects - not all of which are spoken (primarily, or at all) by any ethnic grouping traced from an African diaspora. To restore the article to the state that the nominator suggests would require proof that the term meets the General Notability Guideline and the sources just aren't out there. While I agree that the title of the target is not ideal, that doesn't make the redirect any less valid. If anything, a RfC could be opened to discuss the target's title but the redirect itself should remain a redirect. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect. I've never seen "Black English" refer to anything other than the speech of African Americans in the United States. If the nominator feels that they can produce a quality article that is referentially distinct from the AAVE article we have, I suggest creating a draft in their user space. What exists in the history is not worthwhile for the project, IMHO. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate to include the linguistic usages and Black British, at the very least. -- Tavix (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
That's a highly implausible usage of the term - can you provide a single instance in a reliable source of this usage? I only ask because I'm in the United Kingdom and I've never encountered the term used as a demographic descriptor. That'd be a prime target for a Deletion Discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
That'd be a prime target for a Deletion Discussion. What, Black British? You think that should be deleted? -- Tavix (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Obviously not, I'm referring to the use of "Black English" as some kind of demographic identifying term. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
What does that have to do with "being a prime target for a deletion discussion"? -- Tavix (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, is "Black English" used as a descriptive demographic term in any reliable source? It's a straightforward question. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
That's an unrelated question than the one I asked. However, to address this question, see below where I address another part of your argument and my reply to Hoary for more info. -- Tavix (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
For your "I've never heard of it" argument, see English people#Current national and political identity for an answer why you specifically might not have heard it. The relevant sentence is Today, black and minority ethnic people of England still generally identify as British rather than English to a greater extent than their white counterparts; however, groups such as The Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP) suggest the emergence of a broader civic and multi-ethnic English nationhood. It's all sourced. Enjoy. -- Tavix (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
No mention of "Black English" there. Never mind. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a discussion of Black people of England, which would be Black English. The logic is no different than the (slightly wider) Black British, or (significantly smaller) Black Scottish. -- Tavix (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Questions. I'm open to the idea of resurrecting this as a disambiguation page. Let's look at this earlier version, as has been suggested. Of all that are listed here, I think that AAVE and Black British English are at times called "Black English". What about the others? I'm very willing to be persuaded that the term is used more widely than I realize, but is it? (To pick an example at random, is Saint Kitts Creole called "Black English"?) Meanwhile, Tavix seems to be saying that "Black English" would be a reasonable sort of term for Black English people. It would indeed, but are they so called, to a significant extent? -- Hoary (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, I've found no sources that use "Black English" as a term to describe black people born/living in/from England. Redirects are cheap, but disambiguation pages aren't redirects - if the term doesn't meet the GNG then there's no justification for the creation of the disambiguation - basically, there's a risk of creating a disambiguation based purely on the opinions of editors - original research. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep In the abstract, "Black English" may have more than one meaning, but in the real world it appears to have only one. Without some sources, reliable or not, that indicate real-world usage of the phrase with any other meaning, I don't see any reason to change the redirect. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Datum. Tom McArthur ("T.MCA.") provides an entry for "black English" in The Oxford Companion to the English Language (ed Tom McArthur, OUP, 1992): "BLACK ENGLISH [Late 20C]. A controversial term for the English of people of African origin or for English in Black Africa. In the US, the term generally refers to the vernaculars of descendants of slaves, some called dialects, some creoles. In the UK, the term generally refers to the usage of West Indian immigrant communities. . . ." (No, he doesn't say who uses the term, or where it's used, or what the controversy is.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
That's a bit unclear at the end there. Does it say it's used to describe a demographic of people? Exemplo347 (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
It is unclear. I can guess, but that's all I can do, so I won't. Certainly McArthur doesn't explain. (Incidentally, he also has an entry for "White English". He doesn't call this controversial; but I'd guess that the only reason he has an entry for it is that he was surprised or amused when he noticed a single [jokey?] use of it by a movie critic, which he reproduces.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Blade weapon

These should point to the same place. Is there a more appropriate target that describes bladed weapons in general? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: Added Edged weapon, which should be discussed together with the others here. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to Blade, which discusses weapons with blades. Alternately, retarget Blade weapon to List of premodern combat weapons, which has a bad title (many examples are not "premodern") but is otherwise a useful article. Definitely don't delete any of these, as they are all useful search terms. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps Blade#Uses.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of premodern combat weapons. Blade is about the sharp bit of things that are not all weapons. The list looks more useful to a searcher than Blade#Uses. I've added a link to the List to See also of Blade. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still need a consensus on where to redirect these.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Rough sex

Ungentle intercourse isn't synonymous with BDSM. The redirect has some history that is quite old.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Where do you suggest the term redirect to? There is barely any decent scholarly content on the topic...under that specific name. And when quality sources do discuss rough sex (meaning by using the term rough sex), they usually do discuss it in the context of BDSM. It can refer to different types of sexual activity (not just intercourse). The term could redirect to a section in the Human sexual activity article, if reliable sources are gathered for it, but mention of BDSM would still be in that section. I'll post a note about this discussion at Talk:BDSM. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment. This probably shouldn't be deleted, but I don't know exactly where it should point at the moment. I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality inviting comment, so hopefully that and Flyer22's note will bring some ideas. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Shon pan

I think this spelling is too implausible to be considered helpful. Stats are negligible. -- Tavix (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Grease witherspoon

I'm afraid this could be seen as a WP:BLP violation. -- Tavix (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Little Boy (2013 film)

Unnecessary and misleading redirect since the film was not released in 2013, nor does the article make any mention of the year. -- Tavix (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Our Kind of Traitor (2014 film)

According to IMDb, there are no 2014 films by this name. -- Tavix (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

USSR Virus

Questionable, not a single reference to russia or USSR within the article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@CoffeeWithMarkets: I could see it being retargeted, although it does seem like a bit of an unlikely search, its borderline. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ford Library

Not mentioned in target, should this be retargeted to Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library instead? I'm wondering if it is ambiguous. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

March 27

Wikipedia:Wikishuffle

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6
  • @Thryduulf: Yes, I have tagged several such redirects for speedy deletion in the previous few months, starting in July 2016. However, I nominated this one instead of tagging it for speedy deletion since the target article has some sort of connection to Wikipedia itself, so thus I would believe that someone could consider its speedy deletion controversial. (I ran across a similar situation with Wikipedia:Godwin's law and Wikipedia:GODWIN and their RfD, though the creation of those redirects were obviously different.) Either way, though I am saying this, I'm not contesting your close; I fully support it. Steel1943 (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Lady in the Box

Delete. No reference to "Lady in the Box" in the target article. The one link to the redirect is in Darren E. Burrows' filmography, referring to a 2001 movie that, from what I can tell from iMDB, does not relate to John Smith (murderer). Morfusmax (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete not mentioned at target. Can't find any other mention to "lady in the box" on wikipedia. Siuenti (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

News coverage

I'm not sure that "News coverage" is a synonym for "media bias". I would have thought it meant more how many inches of print or minutes of a newscast was taken up by a story. Newsworthiness is red; Newsworthy redirects to News values. There must be something better. Airtime is a software program; All the news that's fit to print is red, Column-inch would seem stretching it. Si Trew (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to News#Newsworthiness. Normally I'd say delete to encourage article creation, but "news coverage" is such a common term... — Train2104 (t • c) 22:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Please remember that every arbitrary selection concerning trustworthiness among a list of choices necessarily introduces bias. Bias need not even have a bad connotation but merely hint at the fact that news agencies, news papers, etc. do not - in fact: can not - present a complete and neutral coverage of the worlds affairs and state. When you are not presented with the complete picture, what do you get? Newsworthyness is always dependent on someone's opinion (/prejudices) about the worth of a news fact. While neutrality may be attempted in the editorial offices - it will rarely be achieved. And you have a growing host of media and press products where neutrality isn't even attempted because that would be in contradiction with the business model as is traditionally the case with e.g. yellow press. Selection is bias. -- Kku (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless some sort of WP:DABCONCEPT can be created at this title, the title itself is vague and could refer to multiple different subjects, as already shown in this discussion thus far. Steel1943 (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Confederate States Air Force

No evidence that "states" was ever in the name. Unlikely search term, apparently stems from a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I have a feeling that Bill Bryson states somewhere, in Made in America (book) I would guess, that Colonel Sanders started to become the archetypal Southern Colonel after being granted honorary membership of the Confederate States Air Force at the rank of Colonel. (That rank does not exist in the regular USAF or RAF, I am aware; the article states he was awarded the title of Kentucky colonel, which I believe is indeed the case.) Will check; if he does in fact say Confederate then User:TenPoundHammer's statement of "no evidence" is weakened, but not beyond repair; could have just been a mistake on Bryson's part. Si Trew (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Not in Made in America (book). Perhaps I am thinking of Notes from a Big Country, but so far I am on User:TenPoundHammer's side. Can't find that one on my bookshelf right now. Si Trew (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
..because I have the American (original) version called I'm a Stranger Here Myself. D'Oh. But I appear to have mislaid that or lent it to someone. Si Trew (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. The redirect exists because "delete then redirect" was the consensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confederate States Air Force in 2014. Thryduulf (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This title gets a lot of google hits, but almost all of them are for various different alternate histories. We have an article American Civil War alternate histories but that doesn't mention an air force, and retargetting to any single one would not be appropriate unless it is a central plot point in one more than others (doesn't appear to be the case based on a quick google). Military of the Confederate States of America doesn't mention this for obvious reasons. It's a not implausible misremembering of the (now former) name of the present target, and so in the absence of anything better it will do, but ideally it should should be a hatnote atop a better target. I'll leave a note a the Alternate History wikiproject to see if they have any thoughts. Thryduulf (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

First aerial victory by the U.S. military

Not really enough for a redirect, and kind of an implausible search. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

  • The title would lead me to expect an article about an event (i.e., an air battle won by the US) rather than an individual. Indeed, that seems to have been the author's intent when the first of these was established as a stub. I looked at United States Army Air Corps for any battle that was identified thus, but the article focuses more on organization rather than combat history. Aviation in World War I is more comprehensive, but suggests the US was a relatively minor player. I'll post a notification at WT:MILHIST about this. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think the title is actually a rather plausible search term in general, and the current target is relevant if probably not quite what the searcher is looking for. The History of the United States Air Force and articles about the USAF's predecessors don't help at all and a Google search isn't turning up anything really relevant either. If we don't have a better target I'm not going to object to keep this as is, as it's OK but hopefully we can do better. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete, WP:SURPRISE. Stephen W. Thompson is not a synonym for the US military. I suppose WP:MILHIST might be worth pinging, but aerial combat might not even be considered "military" depending on how literally one interprets that word. Si Trew (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Agie

"Agie" and "Agha" are not the same word. Agha is a disambiguation page, so the current setup could be considered misleading/confusing. Steel1943 (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. The redirect originally targeted Agha (Ottoman Empire), whose version at the time did mention agie. – Uanfala (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 'Aggie', itself a disambiguation page, since a great number of individuals are known as "Aggie _____" and this is easily misheard to be "Agie _____". The connection to 'Agha' seems tenuous at best to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Aggie per Coffee and as a plausible typo. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Probably unrelated, but I just created Popo Agie.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • 'Comment. I!m wondering, without any evidence at all, whether this is a likely typo or OCR error for "agile" (a DAB). Si Trew (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Mankri

It's a spelling mistake, and even the correct spelling doesn't seem to be in the target article. SorryToDeleteYou (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Actually I don't know if it should be here or at articles for deletion because it used to be an article but not a very good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorryToDeleteYou (talkcontribs) 21:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, not mentioned at target. Sending the district article to AFD would be a different process. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 05:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to 'List of Burmese monarchs' since books discussing the history of Burma state that Mankri or 'Man-kri' has been a title referring to the ruling king. See here and here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • What is the correct spelling, SorryToDeleteYou? – Uanfala (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Amtrak acs64 622

Implausible redirect, we don't have redirects for every individual run of the mill locomotive. Was created as a vandalistic "stub" and then redirected. — Train2104 (t • c) 17:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Siemens ACS-64, the article about the class of locomotive, would be the most specific target we have but that doesn't mention anything about this specific loco. Thryduulf (talk) 07:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's nothing special about No. 622, not yet anyway. Mackensen (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Twenty One Pilots (album)(redirects)

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Deleted by User:Caknuck

X(wrestler)

WP:RDAB. Content resided at all of these, which are r from moves, for less than a week. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep temporarily. While the content was only at these titles for a short time, we need to allow much longer than a day for users, mirrors, etc, to catch up to the new title. With working redirects in place this can happen quicker than when they are being discussed, so I think they will be best speedy kept and then renominated after about a couple of months (so we can see if the original titles are still getting traffic without influence from RfD). I expect they will be deleted at that point, but it's too soon now. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all while we have the chance. In three months, it will be argued not TOOSOON but TOOLATE. If nobody remembers, it will then be "oh, it has been around for a while, no harm in keeping". Have bud will nip. Si Trew (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all Original articles were created by an inexperienced user in the wrong namespace, all but one have now been doubly moved and/or nominated for deletion. No point in these redirects existing. Dannys-777 (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all improper dab. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 06:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hussein Obama

Should this be retargetd to Family_of_Barack_Obama#Hussein_Onyango_Obama? I don't see why it is tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}, though. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget its targeted that way either because some rightwingers in the States liked referring to Obama by his full name to imply he is Muslim, and the template was added in 2017, the person likely didn't realize it was his father, not the full name. I prefer retargeting since there is a section of another article that contains the information. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support retarget Unfortunately this is the likely information that a reader using this would be looking for.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Champion's suggestion, as that is a person in the family whose given name is Hussein. 06:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Subclude

An odd portmanteau of substitute and transclude, not referred to (linked or not) anywhere in project space. — Train2104 (t • c) 00:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete seems like an unlikely cross-namespace redirect. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian

Does not serve any purpose, lacks content, and context. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - @ThatGirlTayler: It does serve a purpose, that is, it leads readers to our search engine and a page containing its definition at wiktionary. The page contains a shortcut of {{wiktionary redirect}}, so it doesn't lack content (i.e. it is not blank). The text of the template provides context. That aside, the intended candidates for soft redirects are topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated. This meets neither of those bars, but redirects are cheap, and it leads readers to the information they are seeking. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as it meets the criterion of reader use for wiktionary redirects (You might wonder why users search for such monstrous hippopotamic foot-and-a-half-long words, but they do: the redirect receives over a hundred views per month). Whether there is a suitable wikipedia article to redirect to instead, I'm not sure – but Verbosity and Autological word come close, and either of them could be expanded with a mention of the term. – Uanfala (talk) 07:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Uanfala. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sesquipedalian does the same, retarget to the dictionary.
Damn them, those words that are are
Sesquipedalian:
Seven-feet horses I urge you to miss:
Seven feet in a metre
is hardly completer,
but now get on a horse,
gallop to the abyss.
WP:NOTDICT, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If we have nothing to say on the matter, we should say so.
Si Trew (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "If we have nothing to say on the matter, we should say so". We do. Soft redirects to Wiktionary say (paraphrased) "Wikipedia has no encyclopaedic content for this title. If you want to look it up in a dictionary, here is a direct link to the entry." which is far more helpful to those searching for this title than simply showing them unpredictable search results, inviting them to search and/or inviting them to create an article. Thryduulf (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

March 26

Metro-North Railroad redirects, Part 1

Implausible typos (spaces and punctuation inside acronyms). — Train2104 (t • c) 23:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep "M.n.r.r." and "M.n.c.r.". as full stops after letters in acronyms is common (possibly even "correct") in American English. Delete the others. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all I don't see any logos with any of these acronyms, only MTA. MNR on the other hand has tons of logos. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 06:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Metro-North Railroad redirects, Part 2

Too generic - propose retargeting to MN (disambiguation). — Train2104 (t • c) 23:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  • retarget as proposed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. Not associated with the railroad. Logos lead to MN and Mn combinations covered by the dab. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 06:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Metro de la Ciudad Nueva York

WP:FORRED, no particular affinity for Spanish. — Train2104 (t • c) 22:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete: This is not the Spanish Wikipedia. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 23:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Spanish is a relatively common language in parts of the United States, as per Demographics of New York City states:Hispanics and Latinos make up 27.5% of New York City's population. According to the American Community Survey, there were 2,287,905 Hispanic or Latino Americans residing in New York City. The Hispanic/Latino population is categorized with four groups, "Puerto Rican" (785,618 or 9.4%), "Mexican" (297,581 or 3.6%), "Cuban" (42,377 or 0.5%), and "Other Hispanic or Latino" (1,165,576 or 14.0%)., I would not be opposed to deletion, though, and the Spanish article is at es:Metro de Nueva York, this particular name is not mentioned there. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

History of the United States (1991–present)

WP:XY, there is no reason to prefer the present target over History of the United States (2008–present). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. This is an {{R from move}}, the page was at this title until it was split. Ideally it should continue to point somewhere, perhaps History of the United States or Timeline of United States history, but there might be something better I haven't found yet. Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete; "the present" is not 2008, so the R is WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, and targeting to the other is no better. I don't see why it should continue to point somewhere. If someone is searching for "History of the United States (1991–2008)" they are in an WP:XY; but they are probably not searching for that, and this R just hinders their more-general or more-specific search.Si Trew (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Skiagraphy

Delete: Skiagraphy is an artistic technique that is not related to Radiography. Made WD entity: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q29034960 Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Sciography and add a hatnote to Radiography. Given the range of meanings also includes "the art of drawing outlines" and various obsolete ones like "telling the time of day by the position of the sun", "scenography" and "cross-section", disambiguating could be an option as well. – Uanfala (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Uanfala: Redirect to Sciography, as that appears to be the primary topic. A hatnote at Radiography also seems fine, since that does appear to be a secondary meaning of the word. 786b6364 (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Dubya See Dubya

Target is not known by this name, see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_19#Dee_dee_are. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. This got 36 hits last year, which shows the redirect is used, and a google search for "dubya see dubya" finds many instances of the term being used, exclusively referring to the target. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Roosevelt Republican

Not mentioned in target, unsure if this is a notable term or not, also Roosevelt is ambiguous. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't; in the latter case a "Roosevelt Republican" could be akin to a Blue Grit. Although I see now that's a Canadian invention. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't the popular concept of a "Roosevelt Republican" be the opposite of a "Blue Grit" kind of politician? Socially traditionalist in terms of restrictive immigration, increased defense spending, and proud nationalism coupled with a centrist, somewhat Keynesian-esque economic policy having a strong welfare state... I suppose 'communitarian' or 'populist' fit better to describe the underlying TR philosophy. This is somewhat of a tangent, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I can only find a couple of uses of this, both in the context of Theodore Roosevelt, identifying a Republican Party member (or any conservative) as an adherent to Teddy Roosevelt's style of conservatism as a contrast (to some other kind of conservatism; Trumpism or whatever). For example, "'Roosevelt Republican' Zinke to face smooth path to Interior post". Honestly I'm not sure if this should point to some philosophy, maybe to Political positions of Theodore Roosevelt, to Roosevelt himself, or even to Ryan Zinke since he seems to have coined the term, or maybe best off deleted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I was able to find usage of "FDR Republican" in one source [5], but I'm still not convinced that this is a notable term. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to 'Political positions of Theodore Roosevelt' since the term appears to have some historical legs in describing TR's followers, influence on his Party, and legacy. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Is Progressive Party (United States, 1912) worth consideration at all? On one hand, I can see how it would be misleading, since members of that party were, by definition, not Republicans. On the other hand, you could argue that "Roosevelt Republicans" became the Progressive Party. That article doesn't mention this phrase by name, but it does mention candidates running as "Bull Moose Republicans", which seems pretty darned close a synonym. --BDD (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I see your argument, but I can't quite agree since the general concept and specific term of "Roosevelt Republican" preceded the existence of that group by years. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Then I think the best result would be a new section in the target article on historical factions. The article includes some history, but mostly just starting in the New Deal era, and it's presented as the history of individual factions rather than now defunct factions like the Roosevelt Republicans. --BDD (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

MT GDF Suez Neprune

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

RWBY: Grim Eclipse

Misspelled redirect (probably just an {{R from misspelling}}, but might as well list it)  ONR  (talk)  07:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep as a plausible misspelling of the adaptation RWBY: Grimm Eclipse which is mentioned in the lead. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm happy to support refining this per AngusWOOF's comment below. Thryduulf (talk) 06:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Refine target to RWBY#Video game which is what RWBY: Grimm Eclipse points to. Agree with tagging R from misspelling. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 06:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

March 25

Jikkyō Powerful Pro Yakyū series/Power Pro Kun Pocket series

I believe that these redirects should be deleted because the title formats are incorrect, and they currently have no internal and external links. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Nixonian

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 4#Bushian, should these be retargeted to the respective political positions articles, Clintonian points to Clintonism, but Fordian points to Henry Ford, and Johnsonian points to Samuel Johnson, not to any of the presidents with the surname, these could be nominated later on in a separate discussion. But note that Obaman, Carterian, Kennedian, Eisenhowerian, Trumanian and Rooseveltian all don't exist. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, there's so strong consensus that Nixonian should be kept. But how about the other two?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep all. "Trumpian" gets 100k+ Google news hits, and "Reaganian" does get a few hits there as well [9]. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Reaganesque

Not sure if these are even plausible search terms, there are entries on Wiktionary, but the targets do not explain the terms, I think they are better off targeted to the political positions articles, but prefer deletion overall, I'll note Obamaesque, Bushesque, Carteresque, Fordesque etc. all don't exist. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. These are plausible search terms and I'd be happy to provide examples if needed. While redirects are cheap, it is much more important to note that eponyms like these sometimes crop up in literature without any explanation of who or what they may refer to. While these particular terms might be obvious to native speakers from the US, who they refer to may not be clear to others. Retaining a redirect here is better than having a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Many of the entries in Category:Redirects from eponyms do not have explanations for the term at the targets and don't really need them as -esque merely means "in the style or manner of". As to retargeting, these terms might be used to refer to their policy positions, but could just as easily refer to their demeanor or manner of speaking. gobonobo + c 03:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I still don't believe that keeping this would be helpful to readers for there is nothing relevant in any of the current targets, I would prefer a Wiktionary redirect if these are not deleted. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Given that terms such as 'Clintonesque' and 'Reaganesque' seem to be used in the context of ideological policies and political approaches, maybe we should direct them over to 'Clintonism' and 'Political positions of Ronald Reagan', respectively? ('Political positions of Bill Clinton' itself is merely a redirect right now, which I don't think is right, but that's a different issue.) As far as 'Trumpesque' is concerned, it seems more like an empty neologism without proper context or coverage to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree with CoffeeWithMarkets. Another option is to direct the terms to Wiktionary, since all three of these terms already have an entry, as CHAMPION stated before. HapHaxion (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep A reader may see these terms in the public domain and search for it. Let's give them some info.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Weak delete. I think User:Gobonobo needs to provide examples. Reaganism does not point to things Reagan said, but what he believed in; those things are perhaps Reaganesque but (according to Wikipedia) are not "Reaganisms", whereas several books of political quotations that I have call things Reagan said "Reaganisms" (for example, "Honey, I forgot to duck", variously attr.) We don't have Reaganish, Fordish, Carterish so I am not sure we should have -esque either, without evidence of use. Surprising as it may seem, Wikipedia is not just something someone made up one day. We have Thatcherite, Reaganite, and so on because they are attested, but people who were Template:Thatcherite -> Thatcherism, but not Thatcheresque; Reaganite -> Political positions of Ronald Reagan.
Or perhaps it is meant as a a portmanteau word of grotesque and the person, like their Spitting Image puppets? Without evidence, it's hard to tell. Si Trew (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Needle inside a ball of cotton

Totally implausible redirect. I'd love to know how the author came up with this! Exemplo347 (talk) 09:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete: Unlikely search term and who's author came up with this little bit funny redirect! lol. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 12:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • There are results on google books that make it clear this that he was compared to a "Needle inside a ball of cotton" (alternatively rendered as "a ball of cotton with a needle in it") because of his tolerance, which was nevertheless limited. At least one source describes it as a nickname. Not sure how widely used it is. – Uanfala (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete WP:R3. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, sources above show that it was used to refer to Deng Xiaoping, and that it has been the subject of academic debate. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. The target does not mention "needle" or "cotton" at all, let alone the longer phrase. So, someone finds "Needle inside a ball of cotton" and says "what does that mean?" Looks up Wikipedia and finds himself surprisingly at Deng Xiaoping. Searches for that phrase in the page, finds... nothing but disappointment. That is not very encyclopaedic. If we have nothing to say on the subject, we should say so. Si Trew (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Corncockle

These should all point to the same place. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

March 24

Philippine population by country of citizenship:

Seeking deletion due to incorrect/implausible title (misplaced colon) HapHaxion (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment This is a {{R from move}}. The page was at this title from creation in March 2015 until it was moved in July 2015. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Андрей Новаков

There is no more affinity for a soft redirect to this individual than any other individual within the Bulgarian Wikipedia. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Left and right bank

These were hard redirects from late 2003 and early 2004 respectively to mid 2016. In mid 2016 they were converted to their current form. I converted these back to hard redirects about 3 weeks ago, and was reverted. These should be converted into hard redirects, proper disambiguation pages, or wiktionary redirects. Pseudo-disambiguation is inappropriate. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Anything but the current state. A soft redirect with a bit of text below is confusing for readers, and it's also not needed as that text is also present in the first lines of the targets. So at the very least, these could be converted back to hard redirects and the first lines of the targets trimmed down for clarity and links added to Bank (geography), which has a neat picture illustrating the concept (and is itself a possible target for the redirects). But still, I'm not sure the arrangement will be optimal. My knee-jerk reflex was to propose moving Left Bank (disambiguation) to the primary title Left bank per common practice, but – taking note of the difference in capitalisation – all but one of the entries on the dab page are proper names in title case. In that case maybe it could be moved to Left Bank? But this redirects to an article about the Left Bank of the Seine. Is this really the primary topic? – Uanfala (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Exactly my point, Uanfala and thinking when I changed them over a year ago. Bankedness is more important than cardinal directions, as the same rivers twist around in big hooks, and meander inside large regions. See a map of the Allegheny River]] for an example, or the Susquehanna Rivers. // FrankB
@Uanfala: I had the same knee-jerk thought three weeks ago, and almost took that action before I pondered the capitalization. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as Soft Redirects, or delete, Right bank (disambiguation) & Left bank (disambiguation) & Right Bank (disambiguation) & Left Bank (disambiguation) for left bank & right bank as the disambig pages (As amplified below) - and thanks to Godsy for anticipating me in bringing this up here, but not for the discourtesy in addressing me about it before his revert three weeks back. This, if there is any place, is a case for soft redirects--as with any term little more than a dic-def that has been high-jacked by some cultural johnny-come-lately reference. I have no idea why Paris deserves two redirect for it's Left Bank and Right Banks, but being proper place references, grammar school rules of capitalization suggest to me the appropriate English terms are those two forms for the French named articles.
     • I agree having them at page top is contraindicated, had I not appointments this morning, I might have gone back to put them at page end. As is plain when I look at these three Mar 10th, Mar 17th, Mar 24th notice groups, its getting so the whole project is one big ass mess of disambiguation pages... AND for Pete's sake, WHY would we settle for THAT as the title of a disambig page? Left bank (edit talk links history) and Right bank (edit talk links history) would and should be perfectly fine for such purposes, and as with any other term of art (and not of culture) should lead such pages, as I added to the disambig pages themselves just this morning before fixing the redirect again.
     • I will own, I should have noticed his revert far sooner, but I'm focused at any time on 6-10 articles with related or same sourced cites and bot notices aren't high on my everyday routine. Heck, sometimes I'm working the same article on different computers. Working to add deep content, I might not have everything lined up to close a edit for some days. If I can deal with disambig notices at the time I get the banner notice, fine, but that is not a common case. That these have not been erased from my talk just says how busy I've been. The priority is low until I examine text!
     • So... Persons talking to me are more of a priority, Godsy, so you should have rang me up.
     • Bottom line, I'm also nominating Left Bank (disambiguation) (edit talk links history) and Right Bank (disambiguation) (edit talk links history) to AFD as being irresponsible. One cultural reference mode, should not be able to take up three slots in phrase compositions so they adversely affect other more needful referents, especially when the one we're fighting over can stay all lower case. And make no mistake, both the French term is like saying 'The Bronx', Lehigh Valley, 'Hollywood' — all capitalized for a reason as all are specific. Whereas left bank, right bank are specific geophysical descriptions for a winding twisty sneaky stream bed which faces west, east, or north on a seeming whim... yet in need of explanation for many a article. // FrankB 20:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fabartus: I didn't look into the page history three weeks ago; I did that in preparation for this discussion. I made the change I did because I believe the pages in their current form are inappropriate uses of {{soft redirect}}; in the mainspace, it should only be used to invite readers to visit another page on a different Wikimedia project. There are currently only three transclusions of Template:Soft redirect in the mainspace (all of which are nominated for discussion here). Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget both to Bank (geography), which now contains links to wikt:bank#Etymology 2, wikt:left bank, and wikt:right bank, and add a {{hatnote}} stating '"Left bank" and "Right bank" redirect here. For other uses, see Left Bank (disambiguation) and Right Bank (disambiguation).' — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep but edit. A confusing content dispute now in danger of getting out of control because of duplication at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R&L banks - Culture clash. There is no policy reason to delete. Left Bank redirects to Rive Gauche. Left Bank (disambiguation) acknowledges a primary topic and lists other uses of Left Bank and Left bank (small b). Left bank should redirect there. Same for all Right... pages. To repeat my AfD comment: "What does need deleting is the latest edit adding a non-standard preamble that could be obtained by the linked dictionary-definition". And we could add Bank (geography) to See also of both Left and Right Bank dab pages. Redirecting a user's lower-case search entry "left bank" to Bank (geography) doesn't help a user who really wanted the primary topic of Rive Gauche. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Your mileage may vary

Why does this page exist anymore? Google search for the phrase shows the Wikitionary's page first. If any purpose, it is confusing. Doesn't belong on Wikipedia. RoCo(talk) 15:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep as it meets the criteria for wiktionary soft redirects at Template:wi: there's no relevant wikipedia page (excluding TV Tropes, but that doesn't seem redirect-worthy), there is a relevant wiktionary entry and users are searching for it on wikipedia (on average 5 hits a day). – Uanfala (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Uanfala. Google is not the only way people search. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I previously nominated this article for deletion and the outcome was this redirect. Vectro (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment YMMV is also a {{wiktionary redirect}}, and the nominator User:Rollingcontributor or others may wish to add it to this nomination. (The expression to mean, if I may paraphrase, "You may not think the same as I", is not very WP:WORLDWIDE, and I guess there is some mileage in actually making an article about where this expression comes from, which is more than Wiktionary can do: I presume it was some required strapline for car adverts in the U.S. at some time, but it is very much an Americanism that is not understood well in the UK at least.) Si Trew (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Logo PVV.png

Orphaned file redirect. File was moved over three years ago. The name is not a plausible search term for the target. Safiel (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment this has been getting regular hits all the way through last year very recently suggesting that either it's linked from somewhere externally or was only orphaned very recently. I don't think that this is an implausible search term for the logo of an organisation known as PVV. Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Note The orphaning I believe occurred recently. I believe another user recently updated any links that pointed to this redirect. Safiel (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Create Commons:File:Logo PVV.png on Commons as a redirect to Commons:File:Name.jpg, then delete this redirect per {{Db-redircom}}. The acronym "PVV" is obviously ambiguous, and this is a method to fix the ambiguity issue. Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - The instructions for moving a file state, "After moving the file, please replace all uses of the old file link with the new one.", hence all file redirects should be orphaned. The guidance concerning file redirects states, "As when a page is moved, a redirect is left when moving files. In most cases the file redirect should remain on the original page, except if the original name falls under one of the revision deletion criteria (purely disruptive, grossly insulting, privacy breaching, etc.) or shadows a file on Commons."; they shouldn't be suppressed unless they meet one of the criteria for speedy deletion. This means that there are many redirects in existence that are no different than this one (I create them regularly when renaming files), hence I see no reason to delete this one in particular. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Liberal bias

This term is not restricted to the United States (e.g. [10] [11]). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup, so do Progressive bias, Conservative media, Conservative media bias (and others that are basically synonymous with "media bias" so are OK by me.) There are a couple of others such as Media-bias which are harmless (but annoying) clutter. News coverage is a bit worrying, I am not sure that should go straight to media bias, will list separately. Si Trew (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

3.14159265358979323846264338279

Overly long (and inaccurate) redirect to Pi. By this point, it might be worth blocking creation of all titles starting with "3.14159", because there's little to no reason for someone to search beyond the fifth decimal place if they're looking for pi.  ONR  (talk)  05:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. The length is not a problem at all, but the inaccuracy is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Just so it's obvious where the inaccuracy is, the relevant digits of Pi are 3.141592653589793238462643383279. The 3 I have bolded is omitted in the nominated redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:PRECISION. And special maths prizes to Tavix and User:Old Naval Rooftops! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

March 23

List of the best movie sequels

The word "best" isn't exclusive to "box-office improvement"; for one, it could also refer to a "best" ranking based on film reviews. Steel1943 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete subjective term of which we have no specific article as with the video games. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 05:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Jack (BioBhock)

Unlikely misspelling of "BioShock" in disambiguator. Steel1943 (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Candy Land (2014 film)

As far as I can tell, there is no 2014 film of this name. -- Tavix (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete was not released in 2014, but there were news of lawsuits in 2014. [12] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 05:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Amped (2014 film)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. The target is a novel, and makes no mention of a film. -- Tavix (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Failed crystal and no news since. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 05:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Asteroids (2014 film)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. The film is still in development. -- Tavix (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Jewel Of India

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. I was unable to find any information about a film of this name via IMDb. There's no mention of such a film at Cohen's article. -- Tavix (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not mentioned at Cohen's article, so it must not be that important to his career. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 05:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't find a good target for this redirect. The term can define restaurants, regions in India and notable Indians. --Lenticel (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Bullet Run (2014 film)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF as the film is still in development. -- Tavix (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

1950 (2013 film)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF as the film is still in development. -- Tavix (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thriller (album)

There was a clear consensus at Talk:Thriller (Michael Jackson album)#Requested move 15 March 2017 not to move the article. It was suggested within that RM that this redirect be retargeted to Thriller#Albums, but given that there have been 2 former RfDs for this redirect, a 3rd RfD is warranted. Remember that consensus can change. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Don't keep the status quo If the Michael Jackson album is the primary topic among all albums with this name, then the article should be moved to this title. If it isn't the primary topic then it should be retargetted to the relevant section of the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously the Michael Jackson album is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this redirect. Really, the MJ album should be moved over this redirect and the failed more request was the wrong result. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Thriller#Albums, because this title is not fully disambiguated. If the Michael Jackson album is primary, then an RM should be started to move it to Thriller, without disambiguation. kennethaw88talk 03:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    • The argument isn't that the MJ album is the primary topic for the un-disambiguated "Thriller" (which would fail because of the thriller film genre) but that it's primary for "Thriller (album)" since no other Thriller album has anything close to the cultural significance that that one does. While I did support moving the MJ album over this redirect above, there's nothing wrong with having an article be at a WP:PRECISE title, while still having a redirect that is technically ambiguous, but which clearly has a primary topic, point towards that title as well.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, "consensus can change", but not necessarily has to change. This is the third time this is discussed (specifically because this was discussed first in 2013, and later last October, and nothing changed those 3 years, so it is safe that nothing has changed in 5 months). Michael Jackson's album is the best-selling album ever, and it has an excessively long legacy, so it is highly expected people typing both "Thriller" and "Thriller (album)" are looking for this album, like the page views mark (pageviews from 25 February to 25 March: Michael Jackson (71,284 per month / 2,458 per day); Cold Blood (159 per month / 5 per day); Eddie and the Hot Rods (274 per month / 9 per day; Lampchop (405 per month / 14 per day).) The only reason MJ's is not the primary topic is because of the genre. So this is one of those cases where "occasional exceptions may apply" apply. Although the status quo is bureaucratic nonsense, it is by far the best solution at the time. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 08:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep out of all the albums with this title, Michael Jackson's is by all means easily the most likely search term with regards to page views AND lasting impact. I'm surprised that the most recent RM (and other past RM's) didn't gain enough support to move the article to that title, though it doesn't mean this shouldn't at the very least redirect to there. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Jon Kent

Retarget to Jonathan Samuel Kent per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Google search mainly gives results about the fictional character. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete – This redirect is redundant, only a result from a page move. Please don't retarget the page to "Jonathan Samuel Kent". I'm planning to rename the Jonathan Samuel Kent article to "Jon Kent", which the fictional comic book character is most well-known and commonly referred to. Thank you. Rootone (talk) 06:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Move Jonathan Samuel Kent to Jon Kent per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Tavix (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • A retarget to Jonathan Kent is the best option. I didn't realize how ambiguous this was. -- Tavix (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Jonathan Kent which is a dab page containing a bunch of Jonathan Kent variants. I don't see a clear primary topic, but then again, I'm not versed in the comics world or cricket world. But yikes, that dab page is nuts. A bunch of characters related to Superboy but with slightly different interpretations, and two different cricketers. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 05:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Jonathan Kent seems to be the best solution, helping a user wanting the cricketer, or a shortened Jonathan, or a misspelt John. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Jonathan Kent per above. Hard to determine a primary topic, and it's a common short name for the full name. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

March 22

Wikipedia:CONTEXT

Misleading, and was a personal WP:SURPRISE when I went looking for policy on how much context is needed in an article. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Frankie D

Nickname not widely used, it seems. There are results referring to the target, but they don't make it worth keeping because (a). it seems like individuals invented the nickname themselves, unaware of others using it, (b). it is being used very informally in non RS sources and (c). the nickname seems have been created relatively recently (21st Century, maybe?) and certainly not while Roosevelt was alive or recently dead. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete - not only do I not find any significant use of this nickname for FDR, I find some use for it referring to other persons or businesses entirely. Seems like a hoax or something to me. ETA: Also, I just noticed the creator of this redirect Parable1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was indef blocked for socking over 9 years ago. --Krelnik (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - WP:NOT for something made up in school one day, and humanizes a war criminal--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Twilight hack

Not mentioned at target after the redirection of the Wii homebrew article almost a year ago. Pppery 20:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - I was the one who originally redirected it 3 years ago, because there was simply no way it'd meet our notability requirements. It's not a particularly helpful search term either, so I fully agree with getting rid of it entirely. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Sargent, Missouri

I found this redirect very confusing, so much so that it almost put me off fixing the link that took me to it. There are dozens and dozens of links on the page, most having nothing to do with Missouri. Isn't it usually the practice to have a city/state name combination with their own page? have seen dozens, if not more, like that. The "section" function doesn't work in the dab solving tool by the way. That just took me to the top of the page. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment I don't think there's a "best practice" on what to do in a situation when a state has multiple places with the same name. Some editors consider it incomplete disambiguation and redirect it to the parent disambiguation (which is the set-up with Sargent, Missouri. There's Sargent, Scott County, Missouri and Sargent, Texas County, Missouri, both listed at Sargent#Places). Other editors create a separate disambiguation page at that name, an example of which is Baisden, West Virginia. Personally, I prefer having less disambiguation pages to maintain, so I usually prefer redirecting to the parent disambiguation (the current set-up). A big exception is when there's a lot of entries on a disambiguation page, and someone might get confused by the amount of entries. In that case, I'll usually just leave/create the disambiguation at "City, State". In this case, I think the best solution would be to just leave it alone, and split the people out to a separate surname index. There'll be a lot less links on that page, and hopefully be a lot less confusing as well. -- Tavix (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Refine target to Sargent#Places the dab page has two entries pertaining to places in Missouri. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 05:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Refine target per above. No need to create a second disambiguation page. Smartyllama (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Power Rangers 3

Redirect with no incoming links, that currently redirects to what may not be considered the primary topic. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I accept that it does likely indicate it is the third movie, but even still that would not establish it being the primary topic. The topic could be the third season of the show or the third issue of the comic book. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
What would you think about bundling Power Rangers 2 with the nomination? -- Tavix (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I would support the bundling with a similar rationale as above. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Done. -- Tavix (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete not a working title, not a sequel. Given the 2017 film is a reboot, this has no context. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Iliana Incandela (Iliana)

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

Virginia State Route 696 (Lee County)

Delete. The target list's scope is literally all local roads in most of Virginia (see Byrd Road Act; every Lee County road, except perhaps a few streets in towns, is a state highway), so (1) it's not useful to redirect titles there (we have no need to provide information about average roads; we're not a directory of average, little country roads), and (2) this is a 200-foot-long spur of a typical minor road appearing on this list (I've removed it, per reasons given in (1)); if this one warrants mention, literally every road in most of the state warrants mention. See map; would it be reasonable to have a "List of roads in Tennessee" that mentions Maness Road, a significantly longer route a few hundred feet away, and would it be reasonable to have a redirect for Maness Road (Hancock County) to that list? If not, no reason to have this one. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The redirect's creator had not been notified. I'm doing so now and relisting to allow time for a response if one is desired.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I restored the old target which had been redirected to the list without a merge. The route was formerly primary, hence its importance. --NE2 15:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep with new target - former primary roads are notable and this is a plausible search term. Smartyllama (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete—Although former primary state highways are barely on the notable side of the spectrum, they should be discussed in the context, such as a list of former primary state highways, rather than redirecting to a secondary highway article or a list of secondary highways. Virginia State Route 696 (Lee County) is not a plausible redirect because very few people even know about it. By comparison, Route 600 is plausible because it appears on official maps.  V 06:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Just About The Game EXperience

Delete: Implausible search term, "Jagex" etymology debated, and Wikipedia is not an ad where you can search for slogans. Lordtobi () 10:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Refine as above. This is more of a backronym, but was used in their press releases in 2010. [13] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Just About The Gaming EXperience

Delete: Implausible search term, "Jagex" etymology debated, and Wikipedia is not an ad where you can search for slogans. Lordtobi () 10:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

March 21

Guy Who Almost Got Run Over by Tank in Tiananmen Square

Seriously? The very embodiment of "implausible search term"; the only reason I haven't speedied it on sight is that it's somehow survived nine years so can't be considered "recently created".  ‑ Iridescent 17:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. I don't see what is implausible about this, as the redirect took the 157 people who used it last year (including 45 on one day in July) to the exact article they were looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Irish bailout of banks

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

Mukti (Newspaper)

This disambiguator has no more affinity for being capitalized than any other. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is an {{R from move}} and the content was at this title from creation in September 2012 for over four years until being moved in December last year. Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete dab with the capital N not needed. Has not attracted a pile of links. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep now but delete after a couple of years, when the likelihood of incoming external links has diminished. Is there a way to set a time delay to delete actions? – Uanfala (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Not automatically that I know of. The closest I can think of is {{update after}} but that will only put it into a large maintenance category and a human will need to review why it was marked as needing update and determine the best course of action at that point. Thryduulf (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep since it's an R from move and there may be a chance (slim) of unforeseen consequences of a delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per WP:COSTLY. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Rough sex

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 28#Rough sex

March 20

Template:Maintenance category

Delete. "Maintenance category" is a horrible synonym for the target. There's already an unacceptable level of confusion regarding the types of categories related to tracking/administration/maintenance of Wikipedia. The current target name is self-describing. Keeping "maintenance category" allows for many avenues of confusion. There is already some discussion about this on the target's talk page. Jason Quinn (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment Seems to me we have a very confusing naming scheme going on for category categorization. I hope we agree that a "Maintenance category" should contain items needing maintenance. Nothing about the Template:Wikipedia category suggests to me it exclusively contains items needing maintenance and there are to be sure Wikipedia-related categories grouping items where no maintenance is needed. The current default text at Template:Wikipedia category suggests that Template:Maintenance category may be best utilized as the main template, not as a redirect. Deletion is better right now because it doesn't compound the present confusion. If it is confirmed that Template:Wikipedia category is only for items with maintenance, then we should make that move now to free Template:Wikipedia category up for a more general class of categories. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the current usage of "maintenance category" (perhaps largely due to the wording of Template:Wikipedia category) is in reference to any category that helps maintain functionality of the encyclopedia's "backside", not something that necessarily needs fixed. For example, redirect categories (see the nutshell of that guideline; e.g. Category:Redirects from alternative names), fall under that umbrella. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Exit 9

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

Coast Starlate

Non-useful spelling mistake - not in target article Peter Rehse (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Late and light is a far enough deviation for WP:RTYPO. No such word called starlate. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment from author This was not created as a typo redirect, see the third paragraph of Coast Starlight#Operation — Train2104 (t • c) 18:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - "starlight" and "starlate" share the same soundex code, S364, which is the best gauge I can think of to estimate whether one might mis-hear the name of the train and search for it. But it has one hit in all of 2017. Probably not useful. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
fwiw, "light" (L230) and "late" (L300) do not share the same soundex. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. This term is used by reliable sources. See, e.g., this L.A. Times article (noting that "[t]he train has such a sketchy on-time record that it's affectionately known, among foamers and other knowledgeable travelers, as the Coast Starlate") and this article from Wired ("Why does the Coast Starlight, also known as the Coast Starlate, continue to run if other viable options seem much easier?"). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, good find. It's also mentioned in the article as a {{R from non-neutral name}}. Striking my vote and suggest these articles get added as references if they haven't already. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nominator's rationale is entirely reasonable, but with the stuff Notecardforfree found, it would be rather unhelpful to delete it. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Concrete Island (film)

The target article is a novel. There are no films by this name, certainly not a 2014 film. -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Add film when it is properly filming and meets WP:NFF AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Daredevil (2014 film)

Delete, another faulty crystal ball. A Daredevil film was not released in 2014 nor 2015. -- Tavix (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Doc Savage (2014 film)

The Doc Savage film wasn't released in 2014, 2015, or 2016; it's still forthcoming. -- Tavix (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete failed crystal. Tavix, can you add 2015 to this RFD as well? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done Thanks for catching that! I've also added 2016. -- Tavix (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Five pillars

Double "Wikipeda:" namespace, but per its edit history, looks as though its creation was intentional ... since it has over 500 incoming links, mostly in the "User talk:" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • On a related note, I think that all incoming links to this redirect should be replaced with a link to its target, probably through a WP:BOTREQ request ... since there actually seems to be over 1000 2500 incoming links. Steel1943 (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Because of this [16] [17] — Train2104 (t • c) 04:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per general housekeeping. The incoming links should be addressed first, it should be easy with AWB but I don't have it where I am now. I'll try later if nobody beats me to it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Ivanvector: I'd do that myself, but I can't ... since I mainly edit with a mobile device, and AWB is not compatible with mobiles. Steel1943 (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • DeleteDelete as above AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Replace existing occurrences with Wikipedia:Five pillars and then delete this redirect per those above. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't delete Keep unless all incoming links have been dealt with and after the passage of a period of time it has become clear that no new such links have sprung up. – Uanfala (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Changing to a strong "keep" per Nyttend's argument below and the overall absence of any tangible benefits from deleting. – Uanfala (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, but deprecate. Fix the links, monitor for about six months, and if it has gained no new links and the page views have decreased to near zero then it can be deleted. It has many incoming links demonstrating that it is useful. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Thryduulf: See Train2104's comment above. This redirect was the product of, what seems to be, someone trying to fix a bad link in a welcome templates by ... rather than correcting the bad link in the templates ... creating this redirect. From the look of this situation, it is only "useful" because it was essentially created in error, sort of like curing a symptom rather than fixing the root cause. Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Just because it was created in error does not mean that it has not since gained uses that are not due to that error. I see nothing in Train's comment that changes my mind. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Either keep and deprecate per Thryduulf or fix existing links and delete. Either is fine for a clearly erroneous redirect as long as no links to the 5P are being broken. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - but have a bot fix those links first --Temp87 (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Get a bot to do it - yeah, I started doing this with AWB and got up to about 800 replacements, then realized I'm probably effectively running an unauthorized bot. There's about 2800 replacements left, nearly all of them substitutions of whatever badly coded template led to this mess. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
That and a flagged bot won't set off the "new messages" notifications/emails for all these users. — Train2104 (t • c) 00:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. When it has all those links, people are going to visit them, whether in current versions of talk pages or old versions of talk pages. No good reason's been given for breaking links in the thousands and thousands of old revisions that link to this redirect. Nyttend (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Korea North

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

March 19

Toll Roads and Free Roads

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

Red plains texas

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 28#Red plains texas

Interstate 6

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

Theories of Population

This is misleading, the target article doesn't discuss Theories of Population. -- Tavix (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shhhnotsoloud: it is more than fine that you make a DAB page. Some people (i.e. me) do it by making a draft e.g. Draft:Theories of Population and then listing that here in this discussion. Others do it by putting their proposed replacement underneath the existing redirect, i.e. because the redirect is not actually a redirect at the moment, you can just add the content after the tag for this discussion. Putting it in a draft like I do makes very little sense really, I don't know why I do it that way really, just add it at Theories of Population. a DAB beats an R any day of the week. Si Trew (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Fireteam Rogue

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

Blade weapon

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 28#Blade weapon

Treatment of pool words in Australian English

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

Biological role of nitrogen

This targets the "Biological role" section of the main nitrogen article, but a section by that or any similar name doesn't currently exist. I'm not a subject-matter expert by any means but there is no section in the main article and no single article in Category:Nitrogen that appears to be about this broad topic. I'd rather target this somewhere useful than delete it, as it's a likely search term (80 hits last month, and c.f. Biological role of oxygen (a disambig) and Biological role of calcium a redirect to → Calcium in biology), but I'm not sure the Nitrogen article is a good target as that is about all aspects of the element not just it's role in biology. I will leave a note about this discussion for the Elements and Biology wikiprojects. Thryduulf (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This problem arose because a few months ago an editor deleted, without discussion, the section on the biological role in Nitrogen. The section needs rewriting and proper sourcing, but in my view it belongs in the article. Accordingly I have reinstated it, so the redirection under issue here now has a proper target. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I must object to this, being the editor who deleted this section. In my opinion, this section does not just need a rewrite, it needs complete deletion, because it is completely absurd to talk about the biological role of nitrogen when just about every biological process involves its compounds in some way or another, but the element itself (which I think the nitrogen article should be primarily about) is largely not involved. (Indeed, pretty much all organisms need to either convert N2 into more useful compounds, or rely on other organisms to do it for them and benefit from the products.) I salvaged the actually useful parts of the content into "Occurrence" (so reinstating this creates a silly redundancy). Essentially, that section is nothing more than a highly incomplete laundry list of how organisms use some examples of the huge class of N compounds (also highly incomplete), and if it were complete it would probably take up a whole thick book. Nitrogen cycle is a fair target, giving a brief overview of what N compounds are involved, so that the interested reader can read further on each of them. Double sharp (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
You are right, I should have looked with more care. The section you added on "Occurrence" does indeed cover some biological aspects. This still leaves the other option, which is to redirect Biological role of nitrogen to Nitrogen#Occurrence. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
That seems very sensible as well. I don't really have a strong opinion as to which one is better, but I would be okay with either. Double sharp (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nitrogen cycle or Nitrogen#Occurence?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Nitrogen#Occurence which I think is more sensible since the redirect focuses on the element itself rather than its compounds. We can always hatnote to the Nitrogen cycle so that at least that base is covered as well. --Lenticel (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Dutchophobia

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

That one

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

March 18

USSR Virus

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 28#USSR Virus

Kemono

Became a redirect after a 2013 AfD. The target article does not contain the word. Other targets suggested on Talk:Kemono do not contain the word, either. All articles that link to it

  • list it as 'see also', which is not helpful for a redirect,
  • have a {{citation needed}} stuck to the very phrase where it occurs, or
  • use it in a piped link for 'anthropomorphic'.

So in my judgment this is only a word. Other languages do not have citations for this article, either, so the parties in the AfD that mentioned WP:OR and WP:NEO are probably right. --Pgallert (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Pgallert (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. wikt:kemono marks it as the Romaji transcription of "けもの" which it translates as "Beast". The Kanji "" gives a more precise definition, "an animal covered in fur, a beast". ja:けもの is a redirect to the disambiguation page at ja:獣 that is interwiki linked to Beast - also a disambiguation page (ja:Kemono is red). Targetting this to Beast would neither be helpful nor in accordance with WP:FORRED. Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't think a soft redirect is appropriate here as this is word seems to be used in English only in environments where embedding of Japanese terms is common and frequent where readers are seemingly expected to know the meaning. If it had a specific, perhaps ideomatic, meaning when embedded in English then linking to Wiktionary may make sense but that does not appear to be the case so the link wont actually help anyone. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Might a 'soft retargeting' over to Wiktionary make sense? One can object that the page there needs more information, but we can add more there ourselves anyways. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Soft Retarget to wiktionary per CWM. Seems to be the best target for now --Lenticel (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • soft retarget and add a PTM (articles starting with Kemono) and a "see also" to Kimono, in case that attracts some typos. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. According to the Wiktionary entry, this is purely Japanese, not English. There's a few article titles where the word appears, so I believe search results to be the most helpful for our readers. -- Tavix (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Kemono (anime) should also be added to RFD, as there is no specific anime called Kemono. However, there's also Category:Kemono and Category:Kemono anime and manga which tries to explain it as a genre? But that's a lot different from furry fandom which is dressing up in animal costumes, rather than describing anthropomorphic animal characters. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to kimono and mark with {{R from typo}}. I can imagine someone mishearing the initial vowel and imagining that it's spelled this way. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    Comment: That's a good alternative, particularly as the dress is spelled "Kimono" in other languages, e.g. German. --Pgallert (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    Comment I'm okay with this alternative if the wiktionary suggestion won't gather enough consensus --Lenticel (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Pearl Egg

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

March 16

Agie

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 27#Agie

Yallanzai Rind)

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

New York-New Jersey English

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

Aisha (Singer)

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

First aerial victory by the U.S. military

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 27#First aerial victory by the U.S. military

Roosevelt Republican

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 26#Roosevelt Republican

iPhone 8

WP:CRYSTAL No mention in target, thus not helpful for readers, we should do the same for all redirects like this prior - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTALHAMMER Wait until announcement is made. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Per these multiple sources which link the term "iPhone 8" with the Apple iPhone in general:

[18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37].

  • For one, this is not some made up term. It is used in over 650,00 sources. All of which link it to the iPhone.
  • Secondly, the Wikipedia standard WP:Crystal is for articles. It was never meant to disallow redirects that could be helpful to someone who may be searching the term that is mentioned in over 650 THOUSAND web searches. The same goes for the essay, Wp:CRYSTALHAMMER.
  • Third, yes, most of the sources are just rumors, but that is why there is no actual article. Having an article full of rumors would be irresponsible, but a simple redirect hurts no one, does not violate any guideline or policy, and could be helpful to anyone who may be searching this widely used media term by allowing them to know that the source is referring to the Apple iPhone.
  • Fourth, Given that there quite a few people searching the term on Wikipedia, it would be foolish to give this number of people absolutely nothing. It will only make people angry with Wikipedia, which is already seen as a less than useful tool by many people.
  • Finally, nobody is arguing that this should be an article, but Wikipedia is supposed to be as helpful as possible. Deleting a harmless redirect isn't helpful at all, especially since there is no policy against using helpful redirects.--JOJ Hutton 01:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 00:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree that this redirect is even the slightest helpful or harmless, the term is mentioned nowhere in the target article, the pageviews do show people are searching for this, yes, but they do not show whether the redirect did fulfill their searches, and since there is no information at all on the topic, there's no reason to believe that a reader will be satisfied when they are lead to where this redirect leads them to, not having the redirect gives the reader search results, which allows them to quickly realize that there is no information about the topic on Wikipedia, leaving the redirect as is may mislead the reader into thinking that there is information about "iPhone 8" at the iPhone article, which there isn't. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 11:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --BDD (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, with edit to iPhone page -- instead of of all this wasted back-and-forth, how about somebody add a sentence or two to the end of the iPhone page, with the Wall Street Journal Apple-sourced info about the next-gen model? Infoman99 (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Update: Okay, I just made the change to the iPhone article myself. The change meets WP:CRYSTAL because: it's notable & almost certain, based on expert sources published in reliable sources, there's wide-ranging interest in the subject matter, it's a notable expected future event, it's well documented, specific information is available, it's not pure speculation or extrapolation, and it's merged into larger topic about series of products. It's under the Models section of the article.
Frankly, instead of all this wasted breath, whoever nominated for deletion in the first place, should have just added the two sentences to the iPhone article.
Inefficiency is bad, people! :Infoman99 (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. It leads to no solid info. [Insert my usual wild-goose-chase speech here.] —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, similar to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 6#Iphone 7. Let's wait for an announcement first, otherwise it's people grasping at rumors. I'd support the removal of the recently added section for those same reasons. This is an encyclopedia, not a rumor mill. -- Tavix (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Further Comment None of the reason given for deleting the article actually fall under the criteria at WP:R#DELETE. In addition redirects do not fall under the umbrella of WP:CRYSTAL. Additionally, since this nomination has been opened, the term iPhone 8 has been searched 1777 times with an average of 111 a day. That means that it is a useful redirect. Finally, Also, since this discussion was opened, with some just today alone (March 14), here are just a few links to articles on the web from media outlets that use the term iPhone 8 with the Apple iPhone, [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [[50], [51] and even Fox News is getting in on it. There are more but even I don't have that kind of time. Bottom line is that the term iPhone 8 is already being used in major news outlets. There is no reason to wait have a harmless redirect.--JOJ Hutton 02:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • None of the reason given [...] fall under the criteria at WP:R#DELETE. They don't have to. Consensus can bring about deletion regardless of what WP:R#DELETE has to say.
  • [...] the term iPhone 8 has been searched [...] That means that it is a useful redirect. No, it doesn't. If a redirect does not lead to solid information, it is harmful; the higher the number of searches, the more the harm. In a way, the number of searches is a multiplier of the existing status and does not confer a status on its own.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Response
    1. Consensus is based on the strength of the argument, not a vote. There is no policy or guideline argument at WP:R#REDIRECT that supports deleting the redirect. Anything short of that is basically an an I don't like it vote.
    2. There is no guideline that says that an article has to have, as you put it, "Solid Information". The redirect only needs to make sense, which is clear from it's intent, Major media sources are using this term and linking it to the Apple iPhone, so therefore it makes sense.
    3. Just because you don't find the redirect useful, is not a reason to delete it. WP:R#KEEP says that a reason to not delete a redirect is because, Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. stats.grok.se or the pageviews tool can also provide evidence of outside utility. The stats and page views show that people are searching the redirect. therefore it is useful to someone, even if you do not agree.
    End of Response.--JOJ Hutton 02:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


  • Further information/responses: Responses to comments above:
  • "No mention in target..." --> Now moot. A sourced mention has been added to the target.
  • "Delete per WP:CRYSTALHAMMER Wait until announcement is made" --> "Crystal Hammer" (or, more to the point, "Wikipedia user TenPoundHammer's law") is an essay, not policy. It is generally going to be superceded by WP:CRYSTAL. See my comment above re. my edit to iPhone and WP:CRYSTAL criteria being met.
  • "the term is mentioned nowhere in the target article,.... there is no information at all on the topic, there's no reason to believe that a reader will be satisfied" --> Now moot. A sourced mention has been added to the target.
  • "It leads to no solid info." --> Now moot. A sourced mention has been added to the target. And if they think the information is insufficient, obviously, they're welcome to add a few more sentences from the expert-sourced information available in the dozens of reliable source print publications that have published on this topic.
  • "Let's wait for an announcement first, otherwise it's people grasping at rumors." --> See my comment above re. WP:CRYSTAL criteria.
  • "Consensus can bring about deletion regardless of what WP:R#DELETE has to say." --> Sure, anything can happen. But is it likely in this situation? That's quite unclear. Infoman99 (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jojhutton: Actually, the situation was much the same when the discussion regarding iPhone 7 took place; there were many sources containing speculation then, just as the ones you refer to now do. Firstly, we shouldn't attempt to predict the name of the phone (e.g. Windows 8 was followed by Windows 10). Secondly, I'll echo Tavix, in saying that we should wait for an announcement from apple instead of promoting rumors. Lastly, I have no problem with a redirect from this title to iPhone, as soon as information about said device can be found there. iPhone#Expected 2017 model doesn't quite rise to that bar. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, of course, there is always a source or two. But the over 600,000 Yahoo hits and the over 24 million Google hits on an "iPhone 8" search is nowhere near the same number as the "iPhone 7" search had at the same time period. Nobody at Wikipedia is predicting the name of the next Apple iPhone. iPhone 8 is what the massive number of reliable sources are calling it. In addition to that, redirects do not, in of themselves, "promote rumors". They simply provide a quick link to a topic that is widely covered by a massive amount of media coverage. Therefore WP:CRYSTAL is not the issue, because CRYSTAL is only a policy about article content and not about redirects, especially redirect terms that are used so prevalently in many many sources. A redirect does not promote a single rumor. a redirect only states what is obvious from the sources, that the term "iPhone 8" is being linked BY THE MEDIA, to the Apple "iPhone". And the page view statistics confirm that the sources are working because people are searching the term on Wikipedia.--JOJ Hutton 02:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Response to Godsy comment:
  • The iPhone 7 redirect discussion Godsy links to is not apropos here. At a minimum, according to the comments at that discussion, the iPhone article did not have any information about the iPhone 7 at the time of the redirect discussion.
  • Godsy's directive that "we shouldn't attempt to predict the name of the phone" is also not relevant here. The iPhone page does not do so; instead, it reports that numerous reliable media sources, citing industry experts and inside sources within Apple and its partners, have referred to the phone as, inter alia, the iPhone 8.
  • Godsy's opinion that "we should wait for an announcement from apple instead of promoting rumors", while an interesting personal thought and characterization, runs contrary to the WP:CRYSTAL factors in this case, as specified at length in my comment above (at 00:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)).
  • I thank Godsy for his admission that he will not oppose the redirect once, in his opinion, "information about said device can be found there." If he believes that the current information "doesn't quite rise to that bar", he is more than welcome to take 5 minutes and search any of the dozens or even hundreds of reliable source print publications that have published print and online articles, sourced from industry experts and Apple- and Apple-linked corporate insiders 'familiar with the matter', and to add additional information about the upcoming model. It would certainly be a more efficient use of time toward "freely shar(ing)... knowledge" than haggling over a redirect. Infoman99 (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


Important Camorra arrests

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

Dubya See Dubya

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 26#Dubya See Dubya

Beauty and the beast (disney)

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

Bushists

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

Reaganesque

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 25#Reaganesque

Nixonian

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 25#Nixonian

March 15

🔞

Create the proposed redirect. The proposed redirect has been indefinitely create protected, only administrators can create it. Making this a redirect to Content rating makes sense because it literally is content rating. The proposed redirect provides many examples of content rating which may be useful. It was previously deleted and salted due to this[52] discussion. Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 14:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Create the proposed redirect. Someone proposed the redirect to List of age restrictions. I feel this is a much better alternative, as it is an age restriction more than it is a content rating. Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 13:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC) (added 13:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC))

The following comment by BDD was posted while the discussion was closed by me to "wrong forum" since the redirect doesn't currently exist. (This discussion is for creation of the redirect; emojis cannot look like red links, so it is impossible to tell that the page doesn't exist by looking at its link.) I reopened the discussion in this edit (which also included my response to BDD.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Steel1943, I'm not sure about this. Given the past RfDs, I wouldn't want to see some admin just recreate this at AfC without realizing what's going on. You could argue that this doesn't exist right now, and thus isn't a redirect for discussion, but this seems like a more appropriate place to build consensus. AfC isn't really built for that. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
    @BDD: I could present the exact opposite counter-argument and say that RfD is only for pages/redirects that currently exist. I mean, the fact that an administrator has to view the deletion log at the top of the page before creating it could provide some hint of why the page was deleted. But unfortunately, to my knowledge, an administrator cannot see the protection log unless they manually navigate to it. Anyways, I'll reopen this for now pending further discussion. (Hmm ... I wonder if the "Draft:" namespace could get utilized in some way for proposed redirects ... just an idea.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @BDD and Steel1943: The place to request permission to recreate a title that has been salted is technically WP:DRV but I'm just as happy to discuss a redirect here. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I was assuming since the argument was not "the close was made in error" that DRV would not be appropriate, but I suppose this fits WP:DRVPURPOSE #3. I suppose I was more familiar with MRV, which has no equivalent of this. --BDD (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • On the substance of the proposal, the emoji is "U+1F51E NO ONE UNDER EIGHTEEN SYMBOL" and it has a wider use than content ratings - the last time I saw it in the real world was at the entrance to the gambling machine section in an amusement arcade. I firmly believe that (almost) all single unicode characters should be bluelinks so the question is where to target it. Wed don't have a general age restriction article but we do have a List of age restrictions (which is more like a set index than a list article) which I think will be the best target. I've added a link to content rating as a see-also to that list. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted (1st preference), create a disambiguation page (2nd preference) per the fact that ... referring to the previous RfD discussions, this will now be the 3RD different target this redirect will target between the nominator's suggestion and the 2 different targets it had in its previous 2 existences (not counting the instance that was deleted per WP:G4.) Either way, I'd think that it not being recreated would be more helpful so that readers can attempt to determine themselves what they are looking for instead of being forced to determine their intended target based on a narrow and defined set of choices on a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
    • The problem with that is that a search returns zero results (not even this or any of the previous discussions), which doesn't allow anyone to determine what they are looking for. I wouldn't object to a disambig, but I don't think that it would be any more helpful than List of age restrictions given that the defined meaning of the emoji is an age restriction, especially as the nominators suggestion, and at least one of the previous targets appear on that page. I'm not sure what would be listed on a dab page for this emoji that isn't on that page. Thryduulf (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I would not know how to get to this title from my browser's address bar and do not think that many other people would know how. So it is simply not needed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    @RHaworth: I don't think that's a valid reason to prevent creation, one could say the same about characters like , but we still keep them. Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 13:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    Copy and paste is a thing. And it is also possible to enter any unicode character using the keyboard if you know the codepoint and the method (this varies by operating system) or other input method. Just because you do not know how to enter it does not mean that the same is true of everybody, and so it is not a valid reason for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: Comments before this were created prior to the additon of the second proposal Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 13:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    Second Option: I think the second option, which was proposed by @Thryduulf:, is much better than my original proposal, as this is an age restriction more than it is a content restriction. Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 13:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted It is an emoji but it is not tied to any specific rating system. Video game content rating system and Motion_picture_content_rating_system has a bunch of articles with specific icons, graphics or logos. Otherwise it could mean anything like "No on Proposition 18" for a political slogan. Note there is no No one under 18 or No one under eighteen search topic. Wikipedia is not an emoji dictionary unless you can dig it out of the Emoji page. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @AngusWOOF: you appear to have missed that the proposal has changed - it is now proposing to target the "No one under eighteen symbol" to List of age restrictions which links to all the encyclopaedic things it can relate to, including content ratings (which you are correct this is not correctly used for). Any use for political slogans can be added as see alsos if there is encyclopaedic use (I can't find any in a quick search). Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Well here it is in Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs where it is pointing to Age of majority#Age 18. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
In which case that link is incorrect as age of majority is only one possible meaning. Thryduulf (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted I declined an AfC request for this, and didn't have an opinion then, but I actually quote agree with RHaworth: I know we have emoji redirects, but I think they are ridiculous. Add on top of that that this one can mean no one under 18, or just no 18, who knows... I would have no clue what it meant if I saw it in real life unless I had seen it here. Even if the proposal has changed to list of age restrictions, I doubt it would be a common or useful search term, and don't see any need for this. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    • IDON'TLIKEIT is not, and has never been, a valid reason to delete something. If we have this redirect then you could search it and be taken to the encyclopaedic topic about it's meaning. So you would be educated - exactly the purpose of Wikipedia. As for "who knows" about the meaning, well every emoji that makes it into unicode has a defined meaning, in this case "NO ONE UNDER EIGHTEEN SYMBOL" not "no 18" (which is not the sort of thing that anyone will use this to mean, because it doesn't mean that). Thryduulf (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
      • And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason that emojis should be included in encyclopedias as redirects. Some people think they should be, and we do have others, but I am arguing against that view. Also, I don't care if there are official meanings for emojis: the vast majority of the public does not know them unless they are something painfully obvious like the flags or Santa. This emoji, like the vast majority of other emojis can be used to mean virtually anything and is not clearly defined to the public. Wikipedia is not an emoji dictionary and creating redirects for the symbols based either on their official meaning or their unofficial perceived meaning does nothing but cause confusion in most case. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
        • But the meaning of 🔞 is quite obvious, it means something is age restricted for people under 18 years old. Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 17:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Recreate to List of age restrictions per Thryduulf. Good find! -- Tavix (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Recreate and target to List of age restrictions, seems reasonable. I object to disambiguation: this is not a title match for anything, being an icon, and so there is no technical need to disambiguate. The list does a pretty good job of it anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - If I wanted information on an age restriction I would search "age restriction" and I assume 98% of the world would do this too, Well unless you were born in the 00s. –Davey2010Talk 17:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
    • People may be searching this symbol to find out what it means, or they may be using it search for information about age restrictions - even if your theory that only people born after 1999 will use this (any evidence to support this?) is correct, we don't do age discrimination on Wikipedia so that is not a reason to delete this. Just because you wouldn't use this does not mean that nobody will - see WP:RFD#K5. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • But that's my point - If someone wanted to know what the symbol meant they would just search age restriction either here or on the web?, Most people would (or atleast should) know what the symbol means ?, I agree with that but again other than children who would honestly use it ? ... No one?. –Davey2010Talk 14:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • If you don't know what the symbol means, how would you know to search "age restriction"? Even if you do know what the symbol means (not everyone can see what it is, they might just see a box or question mark), why do you assume that people will know what we call our article? Why do you think only children will use it (the person I know who uses emojis most often is in the early 50s)? Even if it is only children who use it, why does that mean it should be deleted? Keeping something if it is used by adults but deleting it if only children use is age discrimination and something I firmly oppose. Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Fair point, But then if someone didn't know what a symbol meant they'd search on Google or whereever ?, I appreciate we're an encyclopedia & everything but I just can't see anyone searching for a symbol here?, The first place anyone would go for info is their search engine surely?, We all do things differently I get that but I honestly can't see anyone searching for a symbol on a Wikipedia website, –Davey2010Talk 15:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Whether you think people should search for symbols on Wikipedia or not, they clearly do, so it clearly has benefit to take them to the relevant article rather than a search page with no results (our search engine doesn't seem to work with emoji at present). The redirect also helps those who search via google (and probably other search engines too) as they will then see our article in the search results. Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • With the greatest of respect all for we know no one is searching for that symbol, Either way I believe it's pointless and I still stand behind my !vote, You disagree & that's cool. –Davey2010Talk 17:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • You may think it is pointless, but that is not a reason to delete a redirect - particularly when multiple points have been explicitly noted. Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It's every reason to delete a redirect, Many redirects have been deleted in the past due to them being pointless and many more will be deleted in the future, Might I suggest you stop wp:badgering everyone who opposes ?, You may want to read WP:THELASTWORD. –Davey2010Talk 18:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted This has a more specific meaning than age restrictions. It beggars belief that someone would search for it looking for List of age restrictions. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @BDD: The more specific meaning is a sub-set of "age restriction" and as noted above we do not have a single article about the concept of age restrictions, but rather a set of articles about different age restrictions organised by topic not by age. I don't think it likely that someone will be looking for a list of age restrictions when they search using this title, but what they will find is a list of the encyclopaedic topics we have which cover what they most likely will be looking for. This is no different to the many other cases where searches for titles that don't correspond to the way our articles are organised are redirected to the relevant list, set index or disambiguation. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. As a preliminary matter, I don't think we should be in the business of creating redirects from emojis. We are not emoji-pedia (see also WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which states: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed"). I disagree with WP:EMOJI (note that it is neither a policy nor a guideline), but even if we did follow WP:EMOJI here, then I think that would also recommend deletion because there are multiple plausible meanings for this symbol ("The outcome is usually deletion if the glyph is unclear, or its meaning is difficult to determine, or there is no consensus on a target."). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    • The meaning of this emoji is clear, and we have a perfectly good list that deals with all the encylopaedic topics related to it (if it were called a set index rather than a list then there would be no argument about this despite the relevant content being identical). There is also no dispute about the target - the consensus of those who support having a blue link here is clearly that list of age restrictions is the correct target. The only disagreement is between those who think a term readers are likely to search for should lead to encyclopaedic content relevant to what they are searching for and those who prefer to make that content significantly harder for readers to find (at least some because they simply don't like emojis). Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Recreate and target it to List of age restrictions per above. I would note that not being able to easily type this or preferring to search "age restrictions" fail as deletion reasons if people are copy pasting this from a chat application/page that uses emojis and when people don't know what this emoji means.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Martin Pagel

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

Mankri

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 27#Mankri

Khalol the largest clan

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

Dixon Hill

Redirect target does not mention redirect topic --EEMIV (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Mention of target was formerly present in the Picard article, but removed in this edit. Mention of target was formerly present in the List of Star Trek characters, but removed in this edit. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment There's a paragraph where it says Picard is fond of detective stories. If that were expanded to include Dixon Hill as a favorite character to role-play on the holodeck (along with episode sourcing or book analysis), then that would suffice to attract the redirect. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Nerukku Ner (2015 film)

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

List of important opera terminology

The word "important" is subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. The information sought can be found at the target, even though it is organised as concepts rather than terms there is large overlap. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's the former title of the article, and it's been around since 2008 in the current form, not to mention however long the article was at this title. Including "important" isn't actively harmful, and we shouldn't delete old redirects unless they no longer work or unless they're actively harmful. Nyttend (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Nyttend: The article resided at List of important opera terminology for about half a day (i.e. 12 hours) on June 22, 2008. See here. I would agree with you per WP:R#K4 if it had been at this title for a substantial amount of time. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
So? The title has been a blue link for nearly nine years, making it likely to have gotten links in all that time. Nyttend (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
You stated "not to mention however long the article was at this title", so I thought I'd check the page history and see how long it was there. I didn't know how much of a factor that was in your !vote. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf and Nyttend. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:R#K4 and the first sentence of Nyttend's rationale. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - No more affinity for "important" than any other similar adjectives, for example, "significant" (e.g. List of significant opera terminology). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    • If that redirect existed I would argue that it should be kept for exactly the same reasons as this one - namely the information sought can be found at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
      • If that redirect existed I would argue that it should be deleted for exactly the same reasons as this one - namely that important and synonyms have no more affinity for this list title than any other. By it existing and especially being retained here, credence is given to this type of redirect, and one could argue for countless adjective redirects for every list. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. The "important" modifier is confusing and undefined. What makes a certain opera terminology important? -- Tavix (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Ottocento

Wikipedia is not a foreign language dictionary, and there is no strong connection between the 19th century and the Italian language. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep — doesn't hurt anyone, very unlikely to be used for anything else. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - per WP:RFOREIGN. Has another use in English as well (diff). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep The term is used in English for the 19th century in Italy, especially in works on art history, e.g. this book [53]. Compare Quattrocento, Cinquecento and so on. It also has its own entry in the concise Kindle version of the Oxford English Dictionary, showing the term is in common use in English. --Folantin (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    If that is accurate, that suggests a better target would be History of Italy (possibly History of Italy#Unification) or a soft redirect to wikt:Ottocento. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Change !vote to disambiguate. Neither "19th century in Italy" or the typeface is sufficiently common to indicate a primary use. WP:TWODABS suggests there shouldn't be a disambiguation page with two listings, but neither should point to a location in the article where a {{redirect}} template can be placed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate - "Ottocento" is frequently used in English art history to denote the 19th century in Italian art. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. The term is common in art history. There is no better target at present. A stub article could easily be created. Srnec (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. The current target doesn't seem to have any Italy-specific content, so I'm wondering if Italian Neoclassical and 19th-century art might not be a more suitable target. I'm not entirely sure disambiguation is a very good idea as Ottocento (typeface) redirects to an article where the typeface is just an entry in a very long list of typefaces with no other content about it. – Uanfala (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. A disambiguation becomes feasible when including the typeface, a variant of Tarocchini, and there's also an album titled Ottocento from the band Ödland. The art history definition should probably be mentioned somewhere for it to be included. Uanfala mentions a great candidate to do so, but I'll defer to the art history editors. 18:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Fatty2k10/Thurmaston Shopping Centre

This redirect redirects to Thurmaston Shopping Centre which in turn redirects to Thurmaston, Editor hasn't been on since 2013 and so I see no need to keep this around, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep a redirect from a user's subpage is entirely harmless and there is no reason to delete if the user doesn't want it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It may be harmless but either way it's still pointless having around, The user appears to have retired and I'd imagine no one would be searching for "ser:Fatty2k10/Thurmaston Shopping Centre" on any search engine so as I said it seems pointless to keep it just for the sake of it ?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Davey2010: Is it okay if this discussion could be reopened? I'm asking since as I stated above, I don't agree with the status quo, and I see that this nominated redirect has since bypassed the double redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Steel1943, Yeah sure, Sorry I wasn't ignoring your !vote I just thought it was better off closed but hey ho anyway reopened :), –Davey2010Talk 21:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete since the shopping centre has since been redirected. I don't see any tangible benefit to Wikipedia by keeping the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Columbian Period

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

Little group

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

March 14

Earthseed (2014 film)

These redirects have misleading disambiguation as the target is a novel, not a film. -- Tavix (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per failed crystal and no information concerning any adaptations. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Almost Heroes 3D

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The film is also not mentioned at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete failed crystal, and not so notable film, also it's not his pet project. He just stars in it. Writer and director do not have articles. Was renamed Bling in 2016. Even the primary production company DigiArt does not have an article. If someone thinks this animated feature is notable, they can create Bling (film) AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

2019 Pro Bowl

Delete. There's nothing about the 2019 Pro Bowl at the target article, and it's WP:TOOSOON for there to be any significant information about it. I don't even think this game has been confirmed yet. -- Tavix (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Super Bowl LVI

WP:TOOSOON. There's nothing significant to say about this event so far in the future, so it's best to leave it red until there is. -- Tavix (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Looking at google results there is actually quite a bit of speculation about the 2022 Superbowl already (not surprising as the host venuefor the game up to Superbowl LV in 2021 has been decided). I don't know that there is enough to write an article yet, but until there is or someone writes a general article about future Superbowls, there is no suitable target I can find. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect to Super Bowl, depending on what the crystal allows for. It doesn't make sense to redirect to the champions page. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Super Bowl. It's the first future Super Bowl that doesn't yet have an article, and there's no reason for it to have an article yet, but it's a plausible search term. That's what's typically done for future competitions when there's not enough information to make an article yet, especially when we have articles on all instances of the competition prior to that one. Smartyllama (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

New DNAs are Coming

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

West–Central Canadian English

This redirect targets Canadian English#Standard Canadian English. It was once an article that was redirected/merged into Canadian English and later refined to its current target.

But why that section? What is in the section that warrants this? When I searched the page (Ctrl-F) for "west-central", I came to Canadian English#Canadian raising where it says that Canadian raising is the most notable feature of Canadian English, and that Canadian raising is most prominent in central and west-central Canada. I believe this redirect should be targeted towards Canadian raising. Mr. Guye (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget as proposed. Makes sense, could have done so boldly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget as proposed. I agree entirely with Ivanvector. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Nominator's comment: @Ivanvector:,Thryduulf The reason why I wasn't bold was because I'm sure that Canadian raising isn't all there is to this accent. But it is the most distinctive thing about the accent.--Mr. Guye (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Restore article. I think it was a well put-together article. There were some under-referenced areas, but I don't understand why it was redirected, especially because it was done without any rationale. My concern about the proposed target is that while Canadian Raising is perhaps the most notable feature of this dialect, it's not the only notable feature, so it may be confusing for some wondering how they ended up where they did without much explanation. -- Tavix (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should hear the opinion of Wolfdog, who performed the merge in 2015. – Uanfala (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I redirected because there is no "Western-Central Canadian English" in any source I found and what that term refers to seems to be easily encapsulated by what William Labov, Charles Boberg, and others have called "Standard Canadian English" (i.e., the English fairly homogeneously used by Canadians west of Quebec). Obviously, if my vote counts for anything in this type of discussion (I'm not ever really up-to-date on small-scale WP policy), I would Retarget as proposed. Even if the article were restored and separated from the rest of Canadian English, it should be under the name actually used by linguists (and probably nonexperts as well): Standard Canadian English. P.S. The Atlas of North American English also names an even more specific subset of this geographic dialect area: Inland Canadian English. Wolfdog (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd be fine with a restoration and renaming to "Standard Canadian English". The Standard Canadian English section of Canadian English seems to be a bit undue and I could easily see a couple sub-sections split out and integrated with the restored-and-renamed article. -- Tavix (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Microsoft's proprietary code page extensions

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

Kongonya

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close: this is not a redirect, the fact that the article starts with #REDIRECT [[Kongonya]] is clearly an error. The article is also nominated for speedy deletion, and should that get turned down, deletion can be further pursued via either WP:PROD or WP:AFD.

Virginia State Route 696 (Lee County)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 22#Virginia State Route 696 (Lee County)

The Fearless of the Furious

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

Fast and Furiosa

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

Lore (future film based on comic)

Delete. As far as I can tell, this film hasn't entered production yet. It certainly wasn't released in 2014, and it can still be cancelled, which would no longer make it a "future" film. I can't know for sure, since I don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- Tavix (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep Lore (future film based on comic). Director Dave Green is still in charge. No press release indicates the film has been cancelled. The reference used in the wiki article about director Green reads "Green has closed a deal to helm Lore, an adaptation of an IDW book/graphic novel written by Wood and T.P. Louise that has Dwayne Johnson attached to star, pending scheduling.". So, it is clear it has not been scheduled but, it has not been cancelled either. This redirect page will help people get information about what has been planned by taking them to another article such as that about Green. It might lead to the article about Wood, instead. As long as people can eventually get the information. Without this, how are people going to know who the director and leading actor are? Besides, some people are mistakenly led to the article about the film from 2012 (I was one of those). So, a disambiguation note there might come in handy.

Delete Lore (2014 film). I did not find any evidence there was any intent to release it at that time or, that a release year was ever set. Maybe someone else could. But, it is 2017 now and it is obvious it did not happen and, this specific redirect page must be deleted because it is misleading. (People might think it was already released at that year).

It looks like there is a line about Lore in Green's article that describes the adaptation, so this may be okay. The 2014 one should still go away though. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

March 13

Bush Administration's

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

Template:Rotartsinimda

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

Alan Cano

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

Mrs. Donald Trump

Retarget to Family of Donald Trump, an article that delves into further detail concerning his three marriages. --Nevéselbert 22:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. I still don't think it's a useful search term. -- Tavix (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep or retarget'. The very recent consensus was that this is a useful redirect so it should not be deleted. The suggested target was not discussed last time to a speedy close is not appropriate either, but I don't at present have a strong opinion between the two. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 23#Mr. Trump, including discussion on the redirect Mrs. Trump. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support retargeting – I think this is a much more logical target, as the current target suggests that Donald Trump is a woman, and Donald Trump's wives are discussed in very little detail on that article. ~Mable (chat) 18:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to either the family article or Donald_Trump#Family, where his wives are immediately discussed. This style of referring to husbands is dated, but still used. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Melania Trump as originally created. If this is ever used by anyone at all, it's probably someone looking for Donald Trump's wife who can't remember her first name. But it doesn't matter much. Station1 (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Remember that Donald Trump's previous wives, especially Ivana, were very famous in their time. Retargeting to Melania would be WP:RECENTISM. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Twelve years isn't all that recent. And former wives are no longer Mrs. Donald Trumps; there can be only one at a time. I still think if anyone searches for the term they more likely want Melania than Ivana. Station1 (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Geraldo Pereira

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate: an article has been created at Geraldo Rocha Pereira and disambiguation is the obvious outcome here. Closing per WP:SNOW. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverend King

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: wrong forum

Srebrenica Massacre of Children 1993

Delete. The redirect is not NPOV, nor does it adhere to WP:AT. The shelling was not a deliberate massacre of children, nor were children the main victims. Reliable sources (academic, legal) predominantly use the neutral terms "shelling", "attack", but never "massacre of children" or similar. Furthermore, capitalized as such, it also reads as a movie or book. Same goes (delete) for redirects Massacre of Srebrenica schoolchildren, Srebrenica Child Massacre, Srebrenica Child Massacre 1993, Srebrenica Children Massacre and Srebrenica Children massacre, with 0 hits at Gbooks. Zoupan 16:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment note that, per WP:RNEUTRAL redirects do not have to be NPOV nor do they have to follow WP:AT if they are useful search terms or if there are other reasons to keep. I haven't looked yet to see if such reasons exist in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all -- I was not able to confirm that these names are valid search term for the 1993 event; in fact, usually the actual 1995 Srebrenica massacre comes up. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. They're all redirects from page moves. This means that the target article had all these names at a certain point in the past, so these redirects are likely being used in external sites to link to this article. A few redirects also have internal links still (eg: Massacre of Srebrenica schoolchildren has a link from Serbia in the Yugoslav Wars), which is concrete evidence of use. I'm weak because I do sympathize with the nominator that these terms are not well used in sources. -- Tavix (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment: faulty internal link changed. indef-blocked user Bosniak created those rd's. These names are not at all (never) used in RS.--Zoupan 15:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all. All redirects were created by a persistently uncooperative POV warrior, who was later topic-banned via WP:ARBMAC and then indefinitely blocked for persistent violations of WP:NPOV and WP:NPA. I'm not sure that anyone other than him uses these terms for the incident described in the article, at least not in English. If someone can point me to clearly reliable sources (even in Serbo-Croatian) that use these terms, then I'd be happy to withdraw my !vote. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Irish bailout of banks

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 21#Irish bailout of banks

Vinay Gupta

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

Mukti (Newspaper)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 21#Mukti (Newspaper)

RCT peep

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

Mr. Bones Wild Ride

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

Kairos - The Slow

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

Slowest RollerCoaster Tycoon rides

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

Feddy Roosevelt

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

Prostitution in Senegal

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

March 12

Liste des accidents ferroviaires en Grande-Bretagne

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

Dance Dance Revolution Extreme Plus

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

Prostitution in Ghana

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close. As this concerns the title of an article, it should be handled at WP:RM.

Why is the sky blue?

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

Template:Maintenance category

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 20#Template:Maintenance category

Jagex Tower

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

Java Gaming Experts

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

Just About The Game EXperience

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 22#Just About The Game EXperience

Just About The Gaming EXperience

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 22#Just About The Gaming EXperience

Constant Tedder

Delete: Target holds no information on this item, other than a mention. Lordtobi () 10:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete despite being mentioned in the article as a CEO, Jagex article does not have any biographical information to build upon concerning Tedder. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as co-founder of the company. -- Tavix (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Geoff Iddison

Delete: Target holds no information on this item, other than a mention. Lordtobi () 10:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete hardly any biographical information to hang a redirect on. He was CEO for 2 years. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, former CEO and mentioned in the article as such. -- Tavix (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Ian Gower

Delete: Target holds no information on this item, other than a mention. Lordtobi () 10:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete only listed in infobox as a founder, but not clear what role he had in it as most entrepreneurial articles discuss only Andrew and Paul Gower. No detail in the article that would be biographical. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as co-founder of the company. -- Tavix (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Mark Gerhard

Delete: Target holds no information on this item, other than a mention. Lordtobi () 10:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak delete Gerhard was CEO from 2009 to 2015, and article has some quotes from him, but not much to have biographical information about him that would better explain the company. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's a former CEO of the company, and he's mentioned as such at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Paul Gower

Delete: Target holds no information on this item, other than a mention. Lordtobi () 10:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment he's a founder and also worked on the RuneScape video game with the notable Gower. Business articles also show Andrew and Paul as the primary developers on RuneScape. Is that enough to hang his redirect to this company? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as co-founder of the company. -- Tavix (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Vince Farquharson

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

March 11

Glatiramer acetate-induced lymphocytic infiltrate of Jessner

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

List of every... redirects

The use of the word "every" is misleading in these redirects since Wikipedia is a work in progress and since the redirects' titles leave the reader with the expectation that they will indeed find every individual on the target lists. Steel1943 (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Hmm. I can't quite bring myself to say these should be kept, but I think a reader with any amount of competence (I firmly believe it's required for readers as well) will know that we don't and can't have such complete lists. But that is the goal, pipe dream though it is. --BDD (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete not useful. You can have a list of every (topic) redirect to list of (topic). Or add "please give me a list of" AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've actually updated the NHL lists by name a few summers. It does contain every NHL player up to when it was last updated. Which basically means it doesn't include rookies. I wouldn't call that misleading, but perhaps it makes the redirects slightly inaccurate once a season begins. -- Tavix (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep all. It's not misleading if it fits the aspirational goal of the list. If the targets are not up to date, either fix it if you can or tag it to notify other readers.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. These seem like plausible search terms, and the current targets are not astonishing. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as not constituting meaningful variation on the target titles (after all this isn't different from List of all NHL players, Comprehensive list of NHL players etc., which do not exist). Also, such generically worded redirects clog up the drop-down list of suggestions in the search box, nudging away more specific and relevant titles that start with the same words. – Uanfala (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Gulf of Policastro

Delete to encourage article creation as it is a notable separate geographic entity from the town. Brycehughes (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. An article is certainly welcome on the Gulf, but if someone does enter "Gulf of Policastro" then this redirect brings them to a highly relevant best available target. It's useful. Alsee (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep its first official website link and picture on article indicates Gulf of Policastro. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, especially since it's currently being used as a circular redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak delete to encourage article creation. A user searching for the gulf will still see the current target at the top of the search results, along with a few other relevant articles where the name appears. – Uanfala (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

DENK (political party)

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget to Denk (political party)

DDENSIDH

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

Fireteam Rogue

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 19#Fireteam Rogue

Accolade (game)

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

Grade rationing

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

March 10

How can a tram route cross a trolley bus route without short circuits

Implausible redirect - deleted in 2005, it has been inexplicably recreated. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep and refine to Overhead line#Crossings. This was merged, not deleted, in 2005 so it needs to be kept as an {{R from merge}} for attribution purposes. It was deleted as part of a bulk nomination of 90 redirects in 2010, where it was apparently not individually examined as it was not mentioned by commenters who did not spot its history. As for the question posed by the title, the target section answers exactly that question so it is not misleading and takes people to the information they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I've now tagged it with {{R from merge}} without prejudice to this discussion (although I firmly believe it should be kept). Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Note to Exemplo347 its first deletion was not until 2010. On 2017 Feb 17 user Killa77killa re-created it with a bit of vandalism that I have sent you. Goodness knows how Killa77killa found their way to this title. It was speeditly deleted. But then PRehse came along and restored the edits from 2005 not realising that they had actually been deleted in 2010. However now that it has been restored, I propose:
  • Move to tram route crossing trolley bus route since we do not like titles which sound like WikiAnswers and point it to overhead line#Crossings. (I would like it kept as a record of my early work before I learned Wikipedia standards or is it that standards have tightened up in the last twelve years? Indeed I am tempted to update it with an example from San Francisco where a tram line merges into a trolley bus line!) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Yep, if I remember rightly I nominated that ranting, rambling angry page for a Speedy when I encountered it. Your move proposal is sound - it's a plausible search term. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
If there is a simpler phrasing maybe Crossing tram lines or Crossing trolley lines or Crossing tram and trolley lines then opt for those, but I think RHaworth's version is better than the original question. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I've just created a redirect from Overhead line crossings to the article at Overhead line crossing (which is about spans by high-voltage electricity supply lines of rivers, valleys, etc) and added a hatnote to Overhead line#Crossing there. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak refine per Thryduulf because the article does answer the exact question posed by this title. Deryck C. 00:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Move without redirect per RHaworth, especially taken within the spirit of WP:G7. -- Tavix (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC) clarified 21:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist so a log page can be closed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Military and Hospitally Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem

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

JAMALDINI

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

Twyla

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: create SIA

Git wizard

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

Tribes in Balochistan

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

Communist Party of Nepal (disambiguation)

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

White weapon

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

Significance (2014 film)

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

Seven Years, Three Days

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

The Key Man

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

By Virtue Fall

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

The Ballad of Pablo Escoba

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

First North American blizzard of 2010

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

Redirect category

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

March 9

George W.

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

Important education facilities in Pokhara

The word "important" is subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. Someone searching for this will find a list of the education facilities in Pokhara at the target, including the important ones for whatever definition of important they choose. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - No more affinity for "important" than any other similar adjectives, for example, "significant" (e.g. Significant education facilities in Pokhara); a redirect of this nature has no more affinity for this list of education facilities than any other, making it costly. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Godsy. -- Tavix (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Godsy and the rationales for the other similar redirects below on this page. – Uanfala (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Important Sikh Personalities

The word "important" is subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. However one defines importance, the information sought can be found at the target page. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete with caps on each word, there is no group or proper noun of such name. "Important" is different from notable. Is "Personality" a Sikh title or occupation? Also, can someone be a Sikh Personality? Or any religion personality? Usually I think of radio or television personalities and not a religion personality. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Important milestones in Kannada literature

The word "important" is subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The word "important" was used not as a "peacock term" but rather to stress that these milestones set trends for future developments. However, the redirect to "List of milestones...." is okay and not an issue with me.Pied Hornbill (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. The information sought can be found at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment "important" is bolded in the list lead sentence. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As opposed to all the minor, trivial milestones?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
In reply to BDD's relisting comment, my view is that using "other" to redirect to a main list is potentially problematic because "other" implies they're looking for a list of non-top tier importance entries, which the main list wouldn't have. Using "important Xs" as a search term though should be seen as a rough, natural language analogue for searching for "List of X", which would have inclusion criteria which would keep out the less important entries. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I just thought "important milestones" sounded tautological. --BDD (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, it reads to me as "selected list of the most significant milestones". To use a Wikipedia analogy, Wikipedia reaches a milestone every time a multiple of 100, 500, 1000, 500, 10,000, 25,000, 50,000, 100,000, 250,000, 500,000, 1,000,000 etc articles/edits/pages/views/featured articles/etc is reached, and there are many more listed at Wikipedia:Milestones. A list of important milestones would be a subset of all those milestones. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I suppose. What constitutes a milestone at all, major or not, is always going to be subjective, though. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Right, but what is and isn't notable on Wikipedia or for inclusion on a list is at the whim of the consensus of whatever group of editors agree on, which can often be subjective as well. At least searching for "important milestones" is broadly consistent with the goal of the target article, unlike a search of say "other milestones". ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - No more affinity for "important" than any other similar adjectives, for example, "significant" (e.g. Significant milestones in Kannada literature). Furthermore and echoing BDD, that something is being called a milestone (i.e. "a marker of something significant") implies that it is considered important, making adjectives to that effect redundant. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Godsy. -- Tavix (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Godsy: the title of the redirect is one among many ways of expressing the same general (and tautological) idea – there's no reason why this redirect should exist and not the others, and if all were created, that would be lunacy. – Uanfala (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Robert Brown (botanist)

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget to Robert Brown#Scientists

Obamagate

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

Acne

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Wrong forum.

WAFWOT

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

File:Logo PVV.png

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 24#File:Logo PVV.png

Sri Ramdeobaba Kamla Nehru Engineering College

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep the correctly capitalized redirect, delete the other two.

Population Science

Very likely to cause confusion. Searchers entering the term are unlikely to be seeking the target department at University of Rajshahi. Thinking otherwise is the height of hubris. Worldbruce (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The consensus for Pop Science may be clear, but the consensus for Population Science may not be. There is a chance this discussion may result in the redirects targeting different targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • To be explicit, I don't think these redirects targetting different articles would necessarily be a bad thing. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • retarget pop science to Popular Science per above. Delete Population Science per WP:REDLINK: searching this phrase shows that it is used in the USA at any rate to designate certain research on cancer prevention (don't ask me why they chose that, I'm just reporting the Google search); it appears perhaps that in the UK it is used in a larger but related sense. It seems to me that we could have an article on this. Mangoe (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget Population Science to demography, which is the field that studies people and populations; retarget Pop Science to Popular Science per the above comments. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget Pop Science to Popular Science. Delete Population Science as per Mangoe's comments. It is a well-used term but could have different meanings like Epidemiology and Demographics. See [54] which the first few pages discuss that the term is not well-defined. Should a dab be made with the most likely topics? It should definitely not point to a specific institution as primary topic, and there are plenty of schools and organizations that use this as a PTM. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I did post a comment to a similar effect above, but I see the need to reiterate it more strongly, this time as a !vote: retarget Pop Science to Popular science, which is also where Pop science is pointing at. Retargeting, as suggested by numerous users above, to the magazine Popular Science, sounds like a distinctly bad idea as that's a much narrower topic and there's no indication in the article it's actually known by that name. – Uanfala (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget Pop Science to Popular science (not the magazine) per Uanfala; retarget Population Science to Population. Demography is too narrow for my taste and in general I prefer redirecting to topics that are too broad than too narrow. The last sentence of the lede of Population discusses population in science, which works for me. (Best of luck to whoever decides to close this, it's getting messy!) -- Tavix (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

John Ledger

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

Teresa May

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep as a redirect.

Apostrophectomy

Delete per WP:CNR. Someone searching this concept would be surprised or confused to end up at a MoS page. -- Tavix (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to Apostrophe#Non-standard English use. I created this redirect specifically for use in edit summaries which is why it shows no incoming links, and deleting it will break these links. But I certainly agree it's not ideal as is (while noting that WP:CNR redirects to the essay at Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects). Andrewa (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete (not redirect). I removed it from the proposed target page. It was added to that page today, sourced to Urban Dictionary. Not a reliable source WP:UGC. A google search turned up 1k hits for the word, limited to forums and other similar usage. It's an insignificant neologism. Alsee (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

No big deal... it will break the links mentioned, pointlessly IMO as I really don't see the harm it does... and as I pointed out above, nom is based on an essay, not any official guideline or policy. I found it useful in building the encyclopedia, otherwise I would not have created it. But if it makes you happy, delete it. No big deal. Andrewa (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the nom's essay is based on a guideline, WP:R#D6. My apologies for not being clear earlier. -- Tavix (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that strictly speaking that claim is false, but let us not play with words. That new link to a guideline is certainly relevant, thank you for it.
WP:R#06 reads 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. (my emphasis)
This redirect is a redirect to the MOS, and is not just potentially useful, it is in use as explained above, and it has existed for two years... perhaps not really longstanding.
I repeat, no big deal. If deleted it will just make my existing edit summaries useless (and I can't change them now), and future edit summaries a few characters longer, but I can easily set up a shortcut in the project namespace, where in hindsight it really belongs. Andrewa (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The exception refers to shortcut redirects with the "MOS:" prefix. Because there is not a MOS namespace, those shortcuts are technically CNRs. -- Tavix (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • soft redirect to wikt:apostrophectomy, an entry I've just created. Per Andrewa there are links that will be broken if this is deleted but there is no mention of it on either the MOS page or article so neither will help someone looking to see what this is. The Wiktionary entry (which meets the criteria for inclusion there) will help people following the links and anyone else who searches for this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Soft Wikt redirect per Thryduulf. This is a fair search term; some readers will be looking for it as a portmanteau.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I would much rather see information about this neologism included at the Apostrophe article and have it retargeted there. --BDD (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to Wikit per Thryduulf. The current target is way too surprising. — Train2104 (t • c) 17:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The only reason for not deleting this would be its use in Andrewa's edit summaries for the past year or so (how many are there of these?). Keeping targeted to the manual of style is sensible, despite the CNR issues, as that's the intended target in these edit summaries. As the term has only a few hundred google hits, it's extremely unlikely to be searched for by users, and hence one of the necessary conditions for soft redirecting to wiktionary wouldn't be met. – Uanfala (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Roosevelt Republican

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 16#Roosevelt Republican

Kellan Tochkin

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

Arabella Knight

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

Västra Frölunda IF (disambiguation)

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

Kate faulkner

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

Biological role of nitrogen

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 19#Biological role of nitrogen

March 8

Adobe distiller

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

Wikipedia:Opera basic topics

Project-to-mainspace redirects are not useful. The redirect has been here since December 2005. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 03:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - This redirect isn't being used. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Opera_basic_topics. It is safe to delete it without causing any dead links. The Transhumanist 06:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 5#WP:Basic topics where 33 similar redirects were nominated and kept. Note: I was the admin that closed that discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm also happy with a retarget as suggested by Steel1943 below. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of opera topics. The consensus on such redirects titled "Wikipedia:TOPIC basic topics" seems to be targeting them to pages that are titled "Outline of TOPIC" ... and since Outline of opera targets List of opera topics, this seems to be the best choice. Steel1943 (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf: I'm pinging you since per your comment, you may want to note the comment I just posted since it seems to fit a pattern. Steel1943 (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per The Transhumanist. I'm not disputing the close of the other discussion, but it did not generate much discussion, so I don't think it's very helpful as precedent. --BDD (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per my opinion in the previous discussion. My thoughts on the matter haven't changed. -- Tavix (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't believe that this is really that helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not useful or helpful. Being in projectspace, my initial instinct was that this would go to something about Opera (web browser). — Train2104 (t • c) 14:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Small Penis Syndrome

The target doesn't mention either "small penis" or any "syndrome", so the redir is misleading. 81.96.84.137 (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Human penis size, which discusses small penises. One of the references (presently number 12), used several times, does contain "small penis syndrome" in the title, but the abstract suggests that it is not the formal name of an actual syndrome. Regardless, I don't think anyone searching for this will be surprised to land at the article about penis size even if it doesn't explicitly mention their search term. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to micropenis. I think that's a more precise target than human penis size. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
    • No, they are very different: "small penis syndrome" is a complex (psychology), and micropenis is a physical condition. --217.140.96.140 (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree with the IP. I looked at the micropenis article before leaving my comment above, and it is not suitable as more than a see also for this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - The odd capitalization and the lack of a proper target make it seem like we should just get rid of this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @CoffeeWithMarkets: Why do you think this lacks a proper target, given the comments above from myself and the ip user? This capitalisation is not what we would use for an article title but we have thousands of redirects from title case search terms to sentence case article titles - what makes this one "odd"? Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep (with convert to set index as second choice) - WebMD refers it to anxiety over fears of penis size. So do other sources: [55][56][57][58]. The encyclopedia distinguishes it from "micropenis". This book considers it a part of Body dysmorphic disorder, whose article doesn't mention "penis". I don't know what this book refers it to. George Ho (talk) 08:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I created a Wiktionary definition of wikt:small penis syndrome. George Ho (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Thryduulf, whose suggestion makes the most sense to me. -- Tavix (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose a retarget to micropenis, as this term is not synonymous with that per 217.140.96.140. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Human penis size, whose section #Male self-perception has the relevant scope for what I glean from George Ho's findings. I don't really see how the redirect could stay pointing to Penis envy, which is a about a rather niche psychoanalysis topic, and it doesn't seem to mention anything about size. – Uanfala (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Important Events of 2005

The word "important" is subjective. Also, no other pages beginning with "Important Events" exist. Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • weak keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. The information sought can be found at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - No more affinity for "important" than any other similar adjectives, for example, "significant" (e.g. Significant Events of 2005); a redirect of this nature has no more affinity for this list of events by year than any other, making it costly. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Godsy. -- Tavix (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Dej Buh Stesti

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

January 20, 2004

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus to delete. That being said, there was no objection to GeoffreyT2000's suggestion, so feel free to carry that out.

Very bad trip

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

List of restaurant chains in Bahrain

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

Downhill (film) (2014)

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

Downhill (upcoming film)

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

Martin Pagel

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 15#Martin Pagel

Nerukku Ner (2015 film)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 15#Nerukku Ner (2015 film)

Dixon Hill

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 15#Dixon Hill

Moana (2018 film)

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted, G7.

Template:Gaelic handball by region

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

Trumpcare

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget to American Health Care Act. There's been enough input where the result seems inevitable at this point.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=772587601"
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