Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 21, 2014.

Vitamin G[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 30#Vitamin G

Outbuildings[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The singular outbuilding is currently a redlink. Estate (land) is not a good target for the general concept of sheds, chicken-houses, excreta. There don't seem to be any good targets so I support turning it into a redlink per wp:redlink and for the sake of consistency. Tideflat (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There is a little bit about outbuildings at Barn, Barnyard (both articles are a mess though) and Outhouse, any of which would I think be slightly better than Estate (land) but not good. Outhouse (disambiguation) contains the sentence "Any outbuilding outside but adjacent to or attached to a main dwelling e.g. a shed or barn (outside North America)", to which I'll add the outbuilding redlink. I can't find anything else, so a deletion per WP:REDLINK seems the best way to go. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we don't usually have plural titles unless absolutely necessary to disambiguate. Outhouse is an article about an outside toilet/WC (I have one on my property). I'm surprised outbuilding is a redlink. shed is possible but not great. annex seems no good. Si Trew (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Smacks[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget. --BDD (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this one. Essentially, the question is about whether or not the primary topic for the term "Smacks" is the cereal Honey Smacks. My thought is to retarget to Smack (a disambiguation page) due to the lack of a primary topic and since the term could refer to the verb, but I'm also for (weak) keep, since I'm not completely sure. Steel1943 (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the dab page per nom. The current target is already listed there. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom et al. Si Trew (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:44, 23 April 2014‎
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Vertebral border[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. I'm inclined to dabify, as below, but I don't know what would go there except for the target article. --BDD (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As with 'superior border', this page is too generic to be used as a redirect, and too broad to be used as a disambig. I cannot think of any user who would search for 'inferior border' expecting to be taken to an article about the medial border of the scapula (even less than the superior margin of pancreas!). Therefore I propose deletion of this redirect LT910001 (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Inferior border[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was dabify. While this would seem to be a WP:INVOLVED violation, this has been stale for over a month. Something needs to happen here. No one wants it kept, and in general, we're encouraged not to delete when alternatives exist. So I'm going to go ahead and replace this with a disambiguation page, which can in turn be taken to WP:AFD, perhaps along with Superior border. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page is too generic to be used as a redirect, and too broad to be used as a disambig. I cannot think of any user who would search for 'inferior border' expecting to be taken to an article about the inferior margin on the pancreas. Therefore I propose deletion of this redirect. LT910001 (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I am not a medical man, but I can imagine a medical student searching for this. It's not as if someone wanting to know about the extent of countries etc would search for "inferior border" so this is obviously a medical term: I am not saying there aren't other exterior or interior borders in the body (I have no clue, I am quite glad that God put most of the disgusting bits on the inside where you can't see 'em) but in the absence of a better target it might as well stay. Si Trew (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In order to provide some explanation, 'Inferior' means below in anatomical terminology, so every organ (not to mention bone and every other structure) has an inferior border. Hence the statement is too general to redirect to pancreas, and too general also to be used as a diambiguation--LT910001 (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I can imagine that. But either then we have to delete it and let the search engine take care of it, or redirect it somewhere more general, or leave it where it stands. Since moving it can break incoming links and there is no proposal to retarget it anywhere better. I note that Superior border is a DAB page with two entries Superior margin of pancreas and Superior border of scapula: It doesn't need to be a DAB since they can just be hatnoted (assuming in anatomocial terminology that "margin" and "border" are used pretty much synonymously?) Your expert knowledge is a great help and I thank you for it sincerely. Si Trew (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate this and the one above at inferior border in the same way it is done at superior border. I appreciate that is not perfect, but it is better. We don't have vasa cava inferior and vasa cava superior for example, nor even vasa cava which is what I was taught was part of the arterial route from the heart to the lungs: now I may have mispelled, I did my biology lessons thirty years ago, but if I can't find it they would be useful redirects. We do have hepatic portal vein which is my favourite shortcut, saves a lot of time. This is a case of WP:NOTFINISHED. If medical/anatomical experts are taking these out because they are "wrong" then they have misunderstood the point of redirects, which is to enable people to find the information they are looking for, whether it is technically wrong or not. Si Trew (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Presuming you mean vena cava, vena cava superior, vena cava inferior, they do exist on Wikipedia CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The whole pattern of these very stubby articles on elements of the geometry of these body parts strikes me as a great deal of padding, especially since they appear, nearly in their entirety, in the main articles on these bones and organs. Gray's Anatomy, for example, deals with the superior border of the scapula in four sentences and a caption on a diagram (which picture appears in our article on the scapula). There's something to be said, in light of @LT910001:'s comments above, to getting rid of these general names entirely and redirecting the specific names back into the corresponding main articles. Mangoe (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is far too broad to form a disambiguation page. Nearly each and every feature of the human body has an inferior border, and as in an earlier example having this article would be like having an article Southern border and have it disambiguate to all articles of countries, cities, villages, forests, etc. etc.
    Its just rediculous. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. We have lots of articles on borders (for example Berlin Wall or North-South divide or Khyber Pass or whatever), but apparently only two on the superior margin/border of internal organs and two on the interior margin/border of internal organs. It doesn't matter that every organ etc. may have them, the question is what would an intelligent but unknowledgable reader expect to find in an encyclopaedia? Now, you can argue that it's worthless because they want to find I dunno the inferior border of the fibula or something and that article doesn't exist, that's just tough luck. What would a reader expect to find if he typed in "inferior border". I doubt he is looking for geographical articles, or finishing off wallpapering, because he would just type in "border": countries don't really have inferior or superior borders. He is obviously looking for this technical, medical sense of the word "border" and lo and behold he finds a couple of articles on inferior borders. It would be wonderful if every anterior or exterior margin or border, superior or interior or whatever border, was described in great detail: it isn't, that is just WP:NOTFINISHED. Either these go somewhere or nowhere, that is basically the choice.
    I note by the way that interior border does not exist, even though it is used a lot in British English to mean, well, roughly, the Schengen Agreement or Common Travel Area. If that doesn't exist then perhaps this should not exist, but you can't argue "all or nothing". We have what we have. Si Trew (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Those arguments are completely beside the point, I feel you are intentionally misunderstanding. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am not: I am stating my case. I gave the example that Superior border is a DAB with two entries (which it doesn't really need to be, but it is). It's not my fault that nobody writes articles about the inferior border of the liver or the inferior border of the heart or whatever: we have what we have. It's not the job of RfD to create those articles but to discuss where the existing things go, to help readers to find them. Now you have expert knowledge and I know nothing about it: that is the point, one must assume a reader comes to an encyclopaedia with maximum intelligence but minimum knowledge. The decision then is how can they best find what they are looking for? That is all there is to it. Si Trew (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We also have Inferior border of lung, Posterior inferior iliac spine, Costal groove mentions an inferior border, Inferior sagittal sinus similarly, redirect at Inferior fascia of the urogenital diaphragm to Perineal membrane which also mentions it, and plenty plenty more brought up by a Special:Search. I fail to see your argument either: it's not right that that this one particular target has the sole rights to "inferior border", but what to do about it? Just delete it and let the search engine take care of it, or DAB it? Si Trew (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per Si Trew. Then, if desired, bring this and Superior border up at AfD. It's not an everyday occurrence, but dabs are discussed there from time to time. If there's consensus to delete both, so be it. I just don't see any benefit to inconsistency here. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the reason this is not worth keeping is that it just isn't interesting; there is simply no connection between the border of a lung and the lower spine of a bone, other than they are lower parts of their respective structures. It isn't a sensible search term, so it should be deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was thinking along those lines as well but I was patronised for not knowing what "inferior" or "superior" meant, or the terms that I was taught at school are no longer in use, when I perfectly know that "inferior" means "below" and "superior" means "above", and also I had added "interior" and "exterior" and "anterior" for good measure into my argument. It's not the fault of Wikipedia that people in the medical profession use Latin to an excessive degree: but the question is simply what would a reader coming here expect to find?. At this point I abstain. Si Trew (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sentence fragment[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retargeted, per consensus below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDLINK. Strangely enough, it's not discussed at the target article. BDD (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @BDD: I find it odd that this redirect doesn't have a good candidate for a "Retarget". I may find a possible option here in a moment, but I still find it odd. Are there any other articles/article sections you have found that made you come to this conclusion that it should just be deleted altogether, or do no other options truly exist (currently)? Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing anything. It looks like it was sent to Wiktionary once upon a time, but soft redirects are supposed to used sparingly. I do think we could have an encyclopedic article about sentence fragments. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: I saw the fact in the edit history that the redirect was previously a soft redirect to the Wiktionary entry. However, what you said about Wiktionary redirects: when I looked at the first page of Special:Shortpages the other day, I thought the exact opposite; looks like there are quite a few soft redirects to Wiktionary. Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to clause. A sentence fragment is esssentially a well-formed grammatical part of a sentence. There is no point sending it to Sentence (linguistics)] because that discusses what a sentence is, whereas the redirect discusses a sentence fragment, which the closest I think we have is clause. It is a linguistic term so I am not sure it is a likely search term anyway. Si Trew (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To declare an interest: I speak about six or seven languages extremely badly (one day I might get the hang of English) and studied computational linguistics as part of my bachelor's degree. Si Trew (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not discussed there either, though, nor is it an absolute synonym. I think that would still cause confusion. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what to do with the redirect, but it is a likely search term as computer grammar checkers frequently complain about sentence fragments (or at least they do for my writing). Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I think I see what you mean. When computer grammar checkers (a particular one springs to mind from one of the most popular word processing applications) complain about a "sentence fragment" then what they mean is that somehow you haven't formed a complete sentence according to their own grammar rules. Like this. That last sentence would probably be marked as a sentence fragment since it has no verb. I agree, the trouble is where to put it. There are teaching examples such as here if you throw "sentence fragment" into Google, and that one starts "an incomplete sentence is called a sentence fragment", but incomplete sentence is also a redirect to sentence (linguistics). Perhaps the best is after consensus to add a short section at the target? I'm quite willing to do it, but don't like to do so while things are being discussed. Si Trew (talk) 07:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose there is a plausible article on the grammar of sentences that would be a good place to put that content if not Sentence (linguistics). Incomplete sentence should point to the same place as Sentence fragment, wherever that is. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of articles on the grammar of sentences, in particular things like SVO word order and OSV word order and VSO word order and so on. But there doesn't seem to be a good target for this, if my suggestion of clause is ruled out. Si Trew (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With an extra sentence or two added to Dependent clause#Dependent clauses and sentence structure, that would be a decent target, i think, but I am not an expert in this field so I could have it all terribly wrong. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have it terribly wrong. A dependent clause is one that requires context from an independent clause, often in the form of a pronoun that is used to refer to an antecedent (grammar). A sentence fragment is simply a fragment that in some sense is "ungrammatical" according to prescriptive grammarians such as H. W. Fowler because it does not follow the grammatical rules they laid down, which were mostly derived from the rules of Latin and classical Greek and have little to do with how people actually speak or write English (a descriptive grammarian would argue): in particular, so-called grammar checkers pick it up because there is no verb in the sentence. (Like this.) I don't think "Dependent clause" would be any better than "clause". Almost by definition a sentence fragment, or incomplete sentence, is an independent clause (or simple sentence, which that article mentions in the first line of the lede, and is a redirect to sentence clause structure). That might be a better target and we could stuff a bit in there? I am quite willing to stuff it in and do my homework etc. to make it all tight, but we have to know where we want it to go first.
While I am at it I have paid a hitman to go out and find whoever came up with the word "spellchecker". It doesn't check spells, it checks spelling. Si Trew (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence clause structure looks like a much better target! I'm glad my terrible wrongness was the cause of a great rightness from you ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 06:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's how it works, isn't it? I think you're right, no point going through the R to get to that. That's how we get consensus. But I will put a decent section in there if we get consensus in and I think you are right that is the best target. So should we then retarget the R at (nearly) the same time? Si Trew (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to sentence clause structure if the content is added there (it seems a good place to put it). In an ideal world the content would be added first, but in the real world it doesn't matter overly much about the order. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to section. Taking my cue from Thryduulf, I've added a section at Sentence_clause_structure#Incomplete_sentence so I guess we retarget both to that section. I usually don't like changing articles etc while they are being discussed, but in this case sentence clause structure was not the issue so I felt OK to go ahead and addthe content, which is essentially as my description above but more consicely and with piped links that I deliberately avoided here at the RfD (since I feel they just obfuscate things here). It's got three references all of which I would consider RS. Of course numerous more could come from various style guides but surely, at least for the purpose of deciding the RfD, that's enough. Si Trew (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hands in the Sky[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. --BDD (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that future films should redirect to the lead actor because it is often debatable who the lead is, and actors often drop out of projects. It should either redirect to the director, writer or not exist at all. JDDJS (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it should be deleted, it was one of my impulsive redirects. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 17:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bolden![edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retargeted (by me) as I suggested, with information added there. Let me know if this is unsatisfactory. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that future films should redirect to the lead actor because it is often debatable who the lead is, and actors often drop out of projects. It should either redirect to the director, writer or not exist at all. JDDJS (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree in principle, though it would be nice to just put a sourced statement at Buddy Bolden#Plays and films and redirect there in the meantime. --BDD (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree in principle, per BDD. Si Trew (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • JDDJS, would you be happy with this solution if I added a sentence about the film there? --BDD (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Πάθοςγἰγνομαι[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. “Πάθοςγἰγνομαι” is fake Greek, and pathogens are not especially Greek anyway. Gorobay (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete generic topic not restricted to Greece; WP:NOT a translation dictionary -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gorobay. More Latin anyway. Si Trew (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Περίμετρος[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete generic topic not restricted to Greece; WP:NOT a translation dictionary -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gorobay. More Latin anyway. Si Trew (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Κοσμολογία[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete generic topic not restricted to Greece; WP:NOT a translation dictionary -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as below, if this is well-formed Greek I would keep it as it will be written that way in etymologies in dictionaries etc (unfortunately all my books are in store so I can't check) and someone might search for it. If it is not well-formed and would not appear that way, delete it. Gorobay is obviously the expert on this. Si Trew (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Πορτογαλία[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not Greek. Gorobay (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is not Portuguese, the only language that would be the non-English language associated with this topic. WP:NOT a translation dictionary -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the Mirandese language also has official status in Portugal, and so I consider Pertual (the Mirandese for "Portugal") redirecting to the country also acceptable. The Greek is not though, I agree. Thryduulf (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Παλαιόςγράφειν[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek, and this is fake Greek anyway. Gorobay (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. There is a section in palaeography#Greek palaeography which it could be retargeted to. But I don't know what you mean by "fake Greek", is it along the lines of New Latin in that meaning? The two halves of this compound word are patently Greek, do you mean simply that it is not classical Greek? However, the only thing of anything close to RS is factolex.com here and I have a (totally unfounded) suspicion that they essentially copy and condense facts from Wikipedia without attribution. Si Trew (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By “fake Greek”, I mean that it is two morphemes concatenated to form a chimera unattested in actual Greek writing. The use of the final sigma in medial position is a give-away. Gorobay (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gorobay. Okay, I see what you mean (I am not familiar with Greek particularly). My ums and ars are simply if Greek terms crop up in English dictionaries, learned journals etc in the Greek alphabet even if they are malformed would an English-speaking audience then try to search for them? It's unlikely because presumably they would search for "Greeek palaography" or whatever in the Latin alphabet, but that is really my only criterion: we are not a translation dictionary, but if these things are actually in papers etc (and it seems this one isn't) then I can understand why people would search for it, that is my only criterion. (Actually "criterion" is another one for you to search for in Greek!) Si Trew (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete generic topic not restricted to Greece; WP:NOT a translation dictionary; the study of Greek writings is also not restricted to Greeks. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ελέφαντας[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. “Ελέφαντας” means ‘elephant’, which is not an especially Greek topic. Gorobay (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Gorobay. Si Trew (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete generic topic not restricted to Greece; WP:NOT a translation dictionary, and this doesn't appear to be the correct translation -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Virtual sim[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 30#Virtual sim

Ross Burkinshaw[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion-was entered as a redirect but no mention of the subject in the target article - if a normal article it would be deleted as non-notable and unreferenced. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. I don't know about his notability, but it is easily verifiable that there is a super flyweight boxer called Ross Berkinshaw. That said he is not notable enough for a mention in the main article about the weight category, so readers are not helped by the presence of this redirect. If he is notable, then the redirect is also hiding that we don't have an article on the topic (c.f. WP:REDLINK). Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf, WP:REDLINK. Si Trew (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Shaa[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The target has no additional information about the subject and Shaa is known to have authored other works.

References and links
Manry, Gia (December 2007). "Kyouhaku Dogs". Newtype USA 6 (12): p. 116. ISSN 1541-4817
ANN link – Allen4names (contributions) 05:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure if this can be repurposed as a dab for people named Shaa. (Edmund Shaa, John Shaa, Ralph Shaa and Shaa Wasmund ) --Lenticel (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Lenticel's good suggestion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Lenticel. Si Trew (talk) 11:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Assuming that it goes DAB, is it worth adding Shah (which is an article but has a disambiguation at Shah (disambiguation)) and Shia (which redirect to Shia Islam) at that DAB, or is that muddying the waters? Si Trew (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shah would certainly merit a "see also" entry (and reciprocally) as clearly they are plausible spelling errors for each other. For Shia, I don't want to say an outright "no", but I wouldn't include it if it were only down to me. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn for conversion to a disambiguation page per Lenticel's suggestion. – Allen4names (contributions) 19:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've converted the redirect into a dab page.--Lenticel (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dirk Dickbutt[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete, G10 by User:TParis. Procedural Close Lenticel (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. Abusive redirect, with no connection to target article other than for a hoax.

Procedural close please. This was deleted at 06:52, 21 April 2014 by User:TParis as CSD G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP. Si Trew (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Rivoli Cinema[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 30#Rivoli Cinema

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_21&oldid=1039434420"