Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 19, 2015.

Independent Democrat Party[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Independent Democrats (disambiguation). Deryck C. 14:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing. How can the Dems be independent, when being independent means lacking affiliation with any party? Mr. Guye (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've corrected the redirect to point to Independent Democrat.—GoldRingChip 23:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the confusion, here's what that page says: An Independent Democrat is an individual who loosely identifies with the ideals of the Democratic Party but chooses not to be a formal member of the party (i.e. chooses to be an independent). Several elected officials, including members of Congress, have identified as Independent Democrats.—GoldRingChip 23:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but it's best to let this discussion come to a conclusion first. It can't function as a redirect with the {{RfD}} tag anyway. --BDD (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean no one's using it. We can't account for links from external sites, and stats.grok.se shows it's getting views above noise level. So it's a plausible search term. Do you remember why you created it? --BDD (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, I don't remember why I created it, as it was a long time ago (June 2006, 9 years ago). But looking at its history, I see I created Independent Democrat Party, less than a day after someone else created Independent Democrat. —GoldRingChip 14:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD - readers could reasonably be looking for several of those choices. WilyD 17:13, 21 May 2015 (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.

Fighting Democrats[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 as unopposed. Deryck C. 14:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if this is promotional or pejorative, but either way it is WP:POV. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment is it supposed to be about Dems that supported Gulf War II/Iraq War? There is War Democrats about the Dems that supported the Civil War... -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing/ambiguous. --BDD (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2015 (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.

Wednesday Group[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 27#Wednesday Group

The Party of No[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 27#The Party of No

Johnny Hunter Sr.[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) 14:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense. No evidence to suggest this person even exists. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this was originally and article and according to that he is the first Chairman of the Florida Federation of Black Republicans and a publisher for what I assume is a newspaper called Tempo News. However, since neither of these entries have had articles since 2006 I see it as a strong indication that they are not notable and that he is not either,--70.27.231.57 (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2015 (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.

Angelia Boynton[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) 14:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable person whose redirection to the Republican Party serves only to promote herself as a conservative (see her website). Mr. Guye (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2015 (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.

Erik Telford[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) 14:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no mention in target article Hugh (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I've combined these nominations. --BDD (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2015 (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.

Sap ventures[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Sapphire Ventures. --BDD (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAP Ventures is now Sapphire Ventures, which has its own article, so it's no longer appropriate to redirect to its former parent company. There is already a redirect SAP Ventures, and the search engine finds both, so there is no need to retarget this page; it is redundant. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, which search engine? Si Trew (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia search engine.—Anne Delong (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget, I'm going with Thryduulf on this one as Retarget to SAP Ventures. Anne Delong is quite right, but a number of bots will tie up double redirects, and that way the bot(s) will catch all of them and not just this one. Si Trew (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC) (although they leave snail trails behind them when they do.) Si Trew (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2015 (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.

Yetvart Danzikyan[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. There seems to be weak consensus for REDLINK deletion. --BDD (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, the page for this media figure should not redirect to the newspaper he is now working in. RekishiEJ (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And where else should it go? Si Trew (talk) 10:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it to encourage Wikipedians to create the article.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea of the language, @RejeisheEJ:? It seems kinda Slavik to me but you probably know better. Polish? I'll have a go to translate but need the language first. Croatian? Si Trew (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My native language is Chinese, but I can use English. I think that the redirect should be deleted to encourage others to create the article about the man.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, @RekishiEJ: My native language is English but I am struggling with this one.... is there any way to translate it better? It don't sound very Chinese to me but that is just cos I don't speak Chinese well, but seems an odd translation, would seem more Japanese to me than Chinese. Any clues you could give us? Si Trew (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you're asking here is kinda unclear. He edits an Armenian newspaper, so I infer a lot of the sources are probably in Armenian. Checking, there are a lot of Turkish sources through Google News or whatnot, though I haven't found any where they are really about him, rather than quoting him as an expect (though there are a lot, and I've only looked at a handful. I could certainly believe an article could be written. WilyD 17:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) don't mean to trample over you. Could be Armenian, I guess. There's a bio page [here] in Turkish, which seems quite authoritative, dated 29 April? 2015. I am not sure how much use that us. cos we can't copy material that has copyright, it doesn't say it has, but I presume it has. Si Trew (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. He seems to be notable but most of the English sources only have scant info about him. I think we need the help of Turkish or Armenian editors to construct an article. --Lenticel (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Currently, the subject is only mentioned at the target article. Either outcome would be within policy here, but maybe with extra time we can better assess his notability, or someone can make a stub and obviate the need for discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2015 (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.

Zombie sonics[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) 14:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-neutral term used by a few upset Seattle Sonics fans after they moved to OKC. As it doesn't have significant use, I think it should be deleted. If not, it's probably better to have it at Seattle SuperSonics relocation to Oklahoma City or even Seattle SuperSonics over the Oklahoma City Thunder (as it seems more like a Seattle term than a OKC term). Tavix | Talk  08:59, 19 May 2015 (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.

You Tube Voice Recognition[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) 14:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable concept. There are no mentions of voice recognition at the YouTube article or in reliable sources elsewhere. Tavix | Talk  08:29, 19 May 2015 (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.

Xbox Done[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) 14:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL. It's a non-neutral term that doesn't have significant or notable use. Tavix | Talk  08:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I was thinking of keeping it as a plausible misspelling but I think "Done" wasn't one.--Lenticel (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2015 (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.

WEAPONS AND WARFARE[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) 14:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. This was an essay that existed for one minute back in 2006. It's not a likely search term so it's best that we get it right now and delete it. Tavix | Talk  08:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If I was searching for this, I think I'd find the History of weapons page a useful page to land on. However, I'm not certain that it is a likely search term. Thryduulf (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2015 (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.

Vin Diesel Facts[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 - nobody argued for keeping it as is, and there's no consensus on the best retarget, so default to delete. Deryck C. 14:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fact: "The letters in Vin Diesel's name can be rearranged to I end lives." Chuck Norris facts became a huge phenomenon and I'm assuming Vin Diesel facts were created to parody this popularity. However, this just seems to be a novelty and they were removed from Vin Diesel's article a while back. I could see this being retargeted to Chuck Norris facts if it could be determined that this topic is notable enough to garner a mention in the "inspirations and similar trends" section. Otherwise, this should probably be deleted. Tavix | Talk  08:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very common mistake—Vin Diesel facts were the original, and Chuck Norris facts were just the (much more) successful variant (source). This is definitely worth retargeting to Chuck Norris facts and explaining. --BDD (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, today I learned... Shows how bad that article is, Chuck Norris facts makes it seem like it originated with Conan. Tavix | Talk  15:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work, BDD. My personal preference is to retarget to the general article as the article's not large enough where someone would get lost looking for a Vin Diesel reference. I've updated my nomination to reflect this. Note to the closer: if this is closed as "retarget", Vin Diesel facts should point to the same place. Tavix | Talk  16:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on both counts. {{R to section}} often makes sense if a subject is only discussed in one section, but I think this is an exception. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2015 (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.

United States of Freedom[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. Just Chilling (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable quote from Three Kings (1999 film). It's probably best to either delete it or retarget it to United States. Tavix | Talk  07:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Too obscure/silly redirect for the US. --BDD (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it would be inappropriate to redirect it to the US article, since the US is not an anarchist country / failed state. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2015 (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.

Tomb Raider: Fraud Edition[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) 14:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-neutral redirect that hasn't garnered significant or notable use. It isn't mentioned at the targeted article. Tavix | Talk  07:36, 19 May 2015 (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.

SS Frank B. Kellogg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Tavix made a good point for deletion to encourage article creation. But without an overwhelming argument suggesting adequate notability, the default action is to do nothing at this point, as the presence of a redirect doesn't hinder article creation. Deryck C. 14:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDLINK. This needs to be a redlink to show that an article does not exist and to encourage article creation. Tavix | Talk  07:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep At the moment, if you type in SS George Chamberlain you are taken to the WP article with basic information on SS George Chamberlain. I can't see that it is helpful to readers to meet a redlink (nothing) instead. If there is information on SS George Chamberlain on WP, we should help people find it. Redlinks can encourage article creation, but often just sit there for years, adding nothing and misleading readers as to think that WP has no info on that topic. The redirect goes to a list article which does far more than just list names of ships, it gives basic info. There is also the question of whether it is actually WP:NOTABLE. If it is, it would take less time to create a stub from the info on the list page than it would take to discuss deleting the redirect. Boleyn (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Boleyn: per WP:REDLINK: "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished." The List of Liberty ships contain a lot of good red links. Someone browsing that list knows exactly which ships have articles and which do not. If there is a particular redlinked ship that piques their interest, they might do more research about it, find some sources, and create the article. This improves Wikipedia because there is an additional article on a notable ship. On the other hand, if each of those redlinks are converted to redirects to that list, that situation can't happen. To address your statement about "meeting a redlink": that isn't a problem because they are not, in fact, hit with nothing. They are taken to a search page where, (using your example) List of Liberty ships (G–Je) is the second result (after George Chamberlain). That user can click on the list and find what they are looking for just as easily (and without the WP:SURPRISE of being automatically directed to the list, they get the notice that there isn't an article and the relevant articles that contain that term). Tavix | Talk  09:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tavix, thanks for your points above; I'm not convinced but I understand your viewpoint. However, are you sure this meets REDLINK, i.e. is it notable? I did a Google search to try to start an article on it, but couldn't find any suggestion of notability. Boleyn (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that it "could plausibly be expanded into an article," which is the wording that WP:RFD#D10 uses. I see a lot of usage in various list-type sources, but nothing significant. It probably couldn't be expanded past a stub, but that is something... I'll hold off on any further judgements of notability. Tavix | Talk  15:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep per Boleyn, info on the ships can be found on the lists. While REDLINK can also apply, I think the pointer to the list is more useful/usable at the mo'. WPSHIPS editors are experienced in how to repurpose redirects, and WPSHIPS is very active; while outside editors would probably prefer the redlink. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Boleyn and IP. Most of these Liberty ships seem to not have standalone articles, suggesting to me this one won't have one any time soon, if ever. --BDD (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2015 (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.

Reenergizational[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 27#Reenergizational

Quad laser cannon[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) 14:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a minor weapon from Star Wars (source). However, I can't find any sources confirming that this is a "directed-energy weapon" and it seems like a trivial or WP:CRUFTy redirect anyway. It's not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia so it should be deleted. Tavix | Talk  07:19, 19 May 2015 (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.

Poopey face tomato nose[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) 14:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extremely minor character from Family Guy. FWIW, it's actual name is "Poopyface Tomato Nose." There's nothing worth salvaging so it can safely be deleted. Tavix | Talk  07:13, 19 May 2015 (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.

Ottawa List of MPs, MPPs, and Senators[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) 14:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as confusing. From what I can tell, there isn't a list of this nature that includes MPs, MPPs, and Senators. Tavix | Talk  07:08, 19 May 2015 (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.

Nat'l Breoadcasting Co.[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) 14:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an implausible search term. Breoadcasting by itself seems like an unlikely typo to me, and it is combined with a weird way of abbreviating NBC (just use the letters!). Tavix | Talk  06:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

unrelated discussion about time
Comment. I put mine after Lenticel's but the timestamp suggests I put it before (which I didn't). I am on UTC+2 and I think Lenticel is on UTC+elevenses or something. How did it do that, but I definitely put it after. How else would I manage to read Lenticel's comments? Si Trew (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem here... There is a difference of over 22 hrs here. His comment was made at 00:51 (51 minutes after midnight UTC) and yours was made at 23:03. Tavix | Talk  23:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do. Unless I am mistaken the day is the same. I thought WP always listed with UTC. The problem – and a minor one – is if the WP software knocks the time back/forward on UTC but not the date. Lenticel's should probably then have been on 21 March if he is 22 hours ahead (which he isn't), has some silly bugger been screwing on the back end of the Wikimedia software? I just put it up really because I didn't want anyone to think I had pre-empted Lenticel's comments, since I patently haven't or could not have replied to them, but the timestamps are out. It might be 22 hours ahead of Vancouver or something, I haven't checked, but I don't live in Vancouver, I live on UTC+2. Si Trew (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that you made your comment 22 hours after his, not that you and him are 22 hrs apart. The timestamp clearly reflects this. 23:03 is a lot later in the day than 00:51. Time zones don't matter here because Wikipedia uses UTC, not local time. Tavix | Talk  01:55, 21 May 2015 (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.

Makudonarudo[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'd like to take this opportunity to recommend International availability of McDonald's products, one of my favorite articles. --BDD (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. McDonald's isn't a Japanese topic. Tavix | Talk  06:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete original English-language topic originating in the U.S.A. originally created in an English environment; no particular affinity for Japanese -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It would seem a reasonable back-translation of transliteration from Katakana back to English, (I learned a bit of Japanese some years ago not much and you have consonant-vowel pairs, which means you have to elide the S at the end, I suppose Makudonarudosu would be OK too since the final U tends to be very light, if not elided, as in "So desu", roughly "It is that" or "That's right", to take it to the most basic example I can think of). But if we don't have that we shouldn't have this. WP:RFOREIGN, as above. Si Trew (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete since McDonald's neither native to Japan nor a crucial part of their culture. --Lenticel (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2015 (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.

Life before bees[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) 14:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting concept to consider, but it's not encyclopedic. The bee article doesn't cover what life was like before bees, or what life would be like without bees so it's not helpful. Tavix | Talk  06:35, 19 May 2015 (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.

Kjfdj[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) 14:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this is nonsense. The only thing keeping me from tagging this as G1 is the fact that this has been around for seven years, so I want someone else to take another look at this. Tavix | Talk  06:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete seems to be nonsense. My search just pointed me to random stuff. --Lenticel (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yeah, Lenticel, that is what I tell my missus too when she sees me looking at "random pages"... anyway I presume this was random typing or a test and patently not useful, though it's a stretch on a QWERTY on one hand from K to D, but maybe just running across the middle line. Any more in a similar vein? FDSGH or whatever? Si Trew (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wake up and live! Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2015 (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.

Jane Winecooler[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) 14:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an obscure synonym; there's only about 1,000 hits on Google. I can't find any significant use of "Jane Winecooler" as a placeholder name. Tavix | Talk  06:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is probably meant as an equivalent of Joe Sixpack, but it's not mentioned at its target Average Joe either. I've never heard of this one. --BDD (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then if this were kept, it would target Average Joe? -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but that shouldn't happen unless it's added there, ideally with a reference. --BDD (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to those unfamiliar with English and Welsh procedure: contemporaneous recording such as TV cameras, dictaphones, and even reporters taking shorthandnotes, are not allowed in those jurisdictions, they must report from memory, after they have left the court from the public gallery: to the undeniable betterment of the public knowledge of the facts of the proceedings. I think it was Lord Justice Berkeley who said "In England, the law is open to all, like the Ritz Hotel".
In England this would denote a middle-class woman almost by definition, and would be derogatory and sub judice in itself, probably, for a newspaper to refer to her as such (or to a man who decided to be called Jane, which he is entitled to do without even filling in a form, but just letting it be known, the easiest and usual way is by deed poll, for ten quid).
Caveat: I am not a lawyer. Si Trew (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2015 (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.

Interesting Innuendos from Rocko's Modern Life[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) 14:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This topic does not seem interesting to me. WP:POV violation? Tavix | Talk  05:54, 19 May 2015 (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.

Hvítakristr[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) 14:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN: Jesus doesn't have any particular connection with Old Norse. Tavix | Talk  05:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK there might be an article here or at least probably a section at Christianization of Scandinavia. According to this article it seems that this is a pejorative term translated as "White Christ" which is contrasted to "Red Thor". --Lenticel (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jesus is a Greek/Latin/Aramaic/Hebrew topic with an English name, no particular affinity for the name in the redirect -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2015 (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.

Gangrene wet of feet in diabetic[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) 14:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as confusing and/or implausible. A Google search only turned up ~500 hits, most of them from Wiki-mirrors. Wet gangrene "occurs in naturally moist tissue and organs," and feet don't qualify because they are not naturally moist. In that case, I'm not sure what this would be referring to then... Tavix | Talk  05:49, 19 May 2015 (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.

Future Flame[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) 14:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was created as a hoax before Maroon 5's fifth album came out. Maroon 5 has nothing to do with "Future Flame," from what I can tell. Tavix | Talk  05:03, 19 May 2015 (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.

English colony ship Mayflower[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Tavix | Talk  16:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this to fall under WP:RFD#D8: "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful." While it's true that the Mayflower was an English colony ship, it is a very obscure synonym and should be deleted as implausible. Tavix | Talk  04:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't think I've seen a ship titled in this fashion. I had to do a (re-)read of WP:NCSHIPS. It seems like this kind of style is used for "ships from navies without ship prefixes." As a civilian ship, I doubt it would actually be named this way. I don't know, this just seems like a really awkward and novel way to unnecessarily disambiguate this to me. I see what you're saying though... Tavix | Talk  15:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing I'm eating my own words here. Not even 24 hours after I said I've never seen a ship named like that, I came across Spanish cruiser Almirante Oquendo while putting together a new surname article. I'm taking it as a sign or something. Even though the Mayflower is a civillian ship and wouldn't be named that way according to WP:NCSHIP, obviously not everybody knows that. For example, I didn't even know about it until yesterday. Tavix | Talk  16:38, 20 May 2015 (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.

Diamond Mixer[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) 14:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What even is this? It's not mentioned at the targeted article and Google gave me hits ranging from blenders to games to something having to do with audio mixing. This should be deleted as nonsense. Tavix | Talk  04:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as vague. I'm getting hits ranging from apps to home appliances. --Lenticel (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lenticel. The redirect doesn't relate to the target, and all search engine hits I get show it to be a promotional name for a blender. Steel1943 (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2015 (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.

Commonly known dark-side (force) powers[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) 14:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This began life as WP:FANCRUFT and eventually was redirected by an IP back in 2005. Seeing how implausible of a search term this is, it probably should have been deleted then. I don't see how this is helpful or necessary to keep as a redirect. Tavix | Talk  04:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unlikely redirect -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. This is better served at dedicated Star Wars wikias. --Lenticel (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2015 (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.

Bob l'éponge[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 28#Bob l'éponge

Alphabet, Christian Use of the[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) 14:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as confusing and implausible. I'm assuming this is referring to ways Christians use the alphabet, but nothing of that sort is mentioned at the targeted article. Tavix | Talk  04:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too ram the point home, we do not have Alphabet, Christian (withought the silly qualifiers at the end) nor Christian alphabet. There could be a reason for that.... 00:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_19&oldid=1136448154"