Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 7, 2016.

Po Qinhui[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) 22:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No affinity for romanized Mandarin. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Boku Kinkei[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) 22:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be a valid transliteration. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I have never seen this being used and as such, doesn't seem very useful for a search term. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Source[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 17#Template:Source

Spray-on clothes[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. --BDD (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several different redirects on same subject, seems unnecessary to create individual disambigs/redirects for TYPES of spray-on clothing. Spray-on clothing is a catch all and does not need more detail in that respect. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 18:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have combined the nominations due to them posessing the same rationale. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 19:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all misleading target, should anyone search for these, they will be disappointed. More Neelixism at its best. (No I don't mean created by him, I mean created by someone with similar ideologies). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 19:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as very likely search terms. If I was looking for information about any of these things I would find what we have at the target (that article coul be better, true, but that is not relevant to this discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- redirects are supposed to be useful, correct? Perhaps Chrissymad or Champion could explain their reasoning more fully? I'll remind them that WP:Wikipedia is not censored. It sounds like you may be saying, in your personal opinion, the topic of spray-on-clothing is too trivial to be fully disambiguated, and that the stupid readers who search for it should be punished, if they don't initially try searching under the terms you will allow to remain. I hope you mean something other than that, because that sound like a bad reason to restrict search terms. Geo Swan (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are misleading due to that the relevant terms are not mentioned in the target and thus unlikely to help a reader. Geo Swan's concerns can be raised elsewhere and not at RFD. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you describe is an editorial problem. The article didn't mention the redirection terms? Two possible reasons for that could be: first, that those terms weren't really related to the main article topic; or second that the article needed expansion, and the terms were meaningfully connected.

        How do we figure out if the terms are connected? User:Champion, are you suggesting our only choice is to look to the article itself? Don't you think it would be appropriate to do a web search?

        Please remember, we are all supposed to be here to build an encyclopedia, not tear it apart. Geo Swan (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Geo Swan I don't think anyone was implying that readers were stupid, particularly myself, so please do not put words in my mouth (or I guess in this case, keyboard?) I don't find it to be a helpful redirect and find it to be overly specific, especially in the case of Spray-on garment and Spray-on clothes. They are just adjectives for the same word and would fall under Spray-on clothing. Imo, it would be like having redirects to cover every possible word used. Wiki search will generate Spray-on clothing if you search Spray-on clothes, it's not going to leave anyone in the dark and the original subject is not covered in the article or stub. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 22:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are many ways to search and browse Wikipedia, only some of which result in useful search results from the internal search engine and those results cannot be guaranteed even when they are seen. Take a look at some redirects tagged with {{R from search term}} to see that, yes we do routinely have redirects to articles from other terms people might use to find them but which have not been chosen as our article title. Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep almost all per Thryduulf, as most of these are simply synonyms for "clothing". I'm neutral on "dress", as that one seems a bit more specific. (Can you have a spray-on dress? I'm not sure, and the target isn't helpful there). -- Tavix (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, they all seem like plausible redirects to me. --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as likely search targets. If companies produces even spray-on socks, and we have no separate article on that in particular, then that should redirect to this article as well. Redirects are cheap, and their job with regard to mainspace is getting readers to appropriate content.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Champion's argues that the redirects have to be deleted, since the redirected terms weren't explicitly used in the article.

    Point of order -- which policy contains this requirement?

    RS did use those terms, so I explicitly added them to the article.

    FWIW the article should be at "spray-on fabric"; "spray-on clothing" should be one more redirect, as the website for the site of the first manufacturer of this kind of product says that it can also be used for "spray-on bandages". Apparently the product is sterile. Geo Swan (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all per above, since they're useful search terms. @Tavix:, I would think "dress" is fine if understood in the sense of "formal dress" instead of the specific item of clothing.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as plausible synonyms for "clothing." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Famous ham[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) 22:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Cooked sliced ham[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 17#Cooked sliced ham

The Google[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 (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never referred to by this name, it is not a name like "The Donald" or even "The Wikipedia". Disregarding my comment at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_21#The_Truro_by-election.2C_1987. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Common enough silly slang, like "the interwebs" (cf.). --BDD (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Likely to be used by people less familiar with the internet, or those who pretend to be those people. Since the target is unlikely to be moved, it's mostly harmless and cheap. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Patar knight: How do you know that people will look for this, people "less familiar with the internet" would probably not know what Wikipedia is, and is the "those who pretend to be part" of your comment a joke, "The Wikipedia" is a plausible name for I have seen it being used even in professional sources, but this name suggests something specific. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Besides anecdotal experience that people do in fact put "the" in front of all types of proper nouns to mock those who are less knowledgable, this redirect gets a hit a day. Evidently, people are using this. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above, and because en.wp should at least attempt to account for common errors by non-native speakers. Full mastery of when to use or not use the definite article in English is not only challenging but a moving target. In my own lifetime, it's been dropped from Gambia, Ukraine, and Crimea by most native speakers, but not The Hague. And it has never been consistent for many major organizations ([the] ACLU), bands ([The] Pixies), etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Inaugurated[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 Inaugurated → Inauguration; keep Graduating → Graduation; retarget Graduated → Graduate. There is consensus to adopt User:AngusWOOF's proposal (which interesting de-harmonizes analogous redirects). Deryck C. 19:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix-ish redirect, not plausible search terms. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all valid and common word forms for target articles. Hatnotes to DAB pages can be added if needed. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget graduated to Graduate which is a dab page with various definitions and has the wikt dictionary box, and also the link to graduated cylinder. Keep the rest, although graduating is a common word that does not need a link for most articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget "graduated" per Angus -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Patar knight. -- Tavix (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - the target confusion identified by AngusWOOF is exactly the reason that the creationness of redirectionings from every plausiblish variantation of a word is harmfulinglyishness. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse Angus Woof's recommendations per his reasoning. Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget the one per AngusWOOF, keep the others as plausible search targets. Ivanvector's complaint appears invalid to me, because it's about fake, made-up pseudo-words like "redirectionings" and "variantation", but these redirs are in fact common, everyday English words. Redirects are cheap and, with regard to mainspace, exist to get people to actual pertinent content. It is not our job to torture incoming readers into learning the nit-picks of WP naming conventions by osmosis. It will not be at all immediately obvious to the average user that we have articles usually at nouns like "inauguration" not at other parts of speech. And we're not even entirely consistent about that, having many articles at names that are gerunds (i.e., verbs which can also be used as nouns in particular constructions). Be reader-friendly not "reader-hateful". >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AngusWOOF, he's correct for the correct reasons. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with AngusWOOF's proposal. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bear versus bull (Reality)[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) 22:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. Target article does not involve bulls fighting against bears. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bear versus bull.  Sandstein  13:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does.Leo1pard (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I agree that you may delete it. Leo1pard (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible search term. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The redirect is pretty awkward. I don't think that people are going to actually search like this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Natalie Imbruglia: The Collection[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 Procedural close Due to the overwhelming consensus that this should be reverted and discussed at AfD and not RfD. I'll go ahead and nominate it. Being bold here as I believe such a discussion can almost be unanimous. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Album is not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • revert to this version, the last revision prior to being unilaterally changed from an article to a redirect (in good faith), and send to AfD. I don't think it's notable, but RfD is not an appropriate venue to discus the deletion of articles. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: I did a quick check and confirmed that this does not meet WP:NALBUM due to that I cannot find any sources that would otherwise make it meet the criteria, (Update:on second check, I cannot even confirm whether such an album ever existed in the first place, due to there being absolutely no sources) so sending it to AfD would be a waste of time and undoubtedly unanimous "Delete" so I guess its better to prod it if this RFD is closed. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • PROD or AfD is fine, and I agree that it is almost certain to be deleted, but it is important to get deletion processes right even if it may seem bureaucratic. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Thryduulf: Upon further investigation, I'd strongly be against restoring this as this is almost certainly the second-longest hoax in the history of the 'Pedia. I didn't realize that this was an article before you pointed it out, so thank you for the heads up. I repeat, I found absolutely no evidence that this ever existed. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • You make good arguments for an AfD, but this is not an AfD, this is RfD and this is not a competent venue to determine if an article should be kept or deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Thryduulf: I'm worried that if I restore the article mirror sites would quickly pick up this hoax and thus it would be spread on several websites, that is why I said I'd be against doing it, but if you have any objections, please do state them and I sure will reconsider. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • I repeat the objections I have made above at least twice directly above: It is completely inappropriate to delete an article at RfD, regardless of why you want to do it. If you tag the article with {{Hoax}} that should be enough to alert anyone who sees this directly or via a mirror. Thryduulf (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • I have not changed my decision for it to remain at RfD, if another editor objects, I may reconsider, for now, I don't see the need to revert this to an article, regardless of whether here or at AfD, it will certainly be deleted. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert and list per Thryduulf. The current nomination, while made in good faith, amounts to backdoor deletion and is not appropriate. - Eureka Lott 04:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert & AfD per the above. I would expect this to get merged into the main article as a discography entry without dwelling on details, but whatever.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SMCandlish: Are you kidding me, I just basically proved that this was almost certainly a hoax, what is the point of merging with another page. While I'm at it, I'd now be happy to close this and take it to AfD if nobody objects. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ukr[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 both (non-admin closure). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure is a plausible abbreviation, support dabifying by all means if other usages can be found. Couldn't find other abbreviation, just delete for these two redirects don't conform to one another. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Torn Music Video[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 refine target to Torn (Ednaswap song)#Music video (non-admin closure). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous, as seen by the dab page Torn, there are multiple songs, retargeting to the dab will just make it harder for search results link directly to the section that is appropriate. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and refine to Torn (Ednaswap song)#Music video. This is the only use of "Torn" that has a notable music video ("rated the second best video of all time by MTV Italy.") making it the clear primary topic. The Creed song article makes no mention of a video, the Disturbed song article simply notes that a video exists and while the LeToya song does have a "Music video" section it's entire relevant contents is "The video was directed by Chris Robinson and debuted on BET Access Granted.". Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Thruduulf said.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine as Thryduulf suggests. Either retarget to Torn#Songs or – if the Ednaswap song seems like the primary use – add a {{redirect}} hatnote at Torn (Ednaswap song) pointing to the DAB page. Cnilep (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Amended Cnilep (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

User talk:Aliaume Damala Badara Akon Thiam[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, now that the page is just a legitimate message for the user (which happens to be the notification of this discussion). As noted, user talk pages really need to function as such, unlike user pages, which can at least soft redirect to almost anywhere the user desires. --BDD (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate CNR. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to a soft redirect. The user in question made the redirect, so they obviously want it. The soft redirect lets them keep the link while avoiding the serious problems with a user talk → article hard redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a rather interesting paradox at play here. The user needs to be notified of this discussion, but placing a notice on their talk page would mean that their talk page is no longer a redirect. Once the user talk page is no longer a redirect, this discussion could then be procedurally closed as it'd no longer be in RfD's jurisdiction. With that in mind, just notify them of this discussion and remove the redirect. Probably leave the discussion open to give them time to respond, but there's no need to debate this. There's better things we can be doing. -- Tavix (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and did just that. -- Tavix (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as wholly inappropriate to begin with. The purpose of user talk pages is for communication between editors, and this is an attempt to thwart that. If the user really wants a redir (or, rather, a soft redir) in their user space for this article, they can create one that doesn't get in the way of everyday WP process.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

LH Server[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 17#LH Server

Server 2003[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) 22:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY, also a PTM for Exchange Server 2003. Delete. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Windows XP server[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) 22:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing, perhaps retarget to Windows Server 2003 as {{R from incorrect name}} but not sure if it is super plausible. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Low-cost Windows[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) 22:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what this is supposed to refer to, but it seems more likely to refer to windows than the operating system, delete nevertheless, vague search term. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This seems to relate to an October 2005 news story about Microsoft "planning" to release a low-cost version (or maybe just license) for either India or "economically less well-off countries" more generally. However I can't find the original news story to verify more than just snippets and if anything did come of it it wasn't under this name. It would not be an implausible search term if we had an article about the cost of MS Windows, but the closest thing I've found is Bundling of Microsoft Windows#The "Windows tax" which is tangential. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague and per WP:SURPRISE. My first thought would also be that this would tell me about windows rather than the operating system. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because any target we could refer this to would fail WP:OR because "low-cost" isn't defined. What is the threshold for "low cost"? Nothing, if you don't have a source to tell you what. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Flying Windows[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) 22:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Term not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this a screensaver for, I think, Windows 3.1? Whether that's useful to have, I don't know. (We have Flying toasters). Searching the Interweb for "Flying windows.scr" tends to indicate that it is/was, and has been retrofitted by various third parties to Win8/10, but how much use that is to Wikipedia I don't know. Si Trew (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: I remember XP did have like a Windows flag screensaver that folded, I don't have access to an XP PC or a virtual machine, not sure if it is notable for a separate article though. My personal favourite would have to be the Maze one in Win98/2k. But your typical Linux distro has literally hundreds more than any Windows OS, such as the flying GNOME feet etc. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flying_Windows. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is an ancient article, that only in 2014 was redirected to Microsoft Windows. While I wouldn't call this specific screensaver notable, a general article on Windows screensavers might be, and the threshold for redirects is lower than notability (the redirect target should be notable, though). Consider redirecting to Screensaver instead. – gpvos (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Reluctant delete. This was merged into the current target, but a discussion on the talk page (archive 4) indicates that the content has since been removed. I am very surprised we don't have a list of Windows screensavers to retarget this to, but I can't find one so I have to relucantantly recommend deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no prejudice against re-creation and redirection to an article on Windows screensavers (or even an article on screensavers generally) if this one is mentioned in it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We have a main article on the concept and history of screensavers, but there's no specific list of notable screensaver options that have gotten popular, nor should there be (in my opinion, although I've no strong feelings here really). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wind OS[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) 22:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not plausible, there is a non-notable operating system by this name. The closest target I could find was Wind River Systems but I still support deletion. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tied together[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) 22:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this isn't the primary meaning of "tied together." -- Tavix (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of earthquakes in 2018[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) 22:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Page can be recreated when we have information about earthquakes in these years. -- Tavix (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Psychic tears[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. -- Tavix (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, due to the fact that this term isn't described at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the page to include the term in the appropriate section. It seems to be a commonly used term that is now treated appropriately. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that works for me! -- Tavix (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Contain (disambiguation)[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 (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ex post facto note: After closing this, I took it upon myself to try to expand Contain into an actual disambiguation page. However, the only thing I came up with were definitions that are already present in Containment (disambiguation). Because of that, I've WP:BOLDLY merged Contain with Containment (disambiguation), adding the links to wikt:contain and Container (disambiguation). It seems obvious to me, but do let me know if you disagree and we can talk about it. -- Tavix (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Target is a soft redirect to Wiktionary that has several "see also" entries on it. This page has "(disambiguation)" in the title, and the target is not a disambiguation page, so this should be deleted to leave the search engine free to find the page. Speedy declined. — Gorthian (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The target may not, technically, be a disambiguation page but it clearly functions as one. Thryduulf (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf useful to the reader, does have the function of a dab page. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current target, Contain, was PRODed by User:JHunterJ because there are no articles with ambiguous titles. User:Bkonrad removed the PROD and made the soft redirect. It seems to me that Contain is not necessary, though perhaps older≠wiser disagrees. Perhaps we should decide what to do with the target, and then what to do with the redirect. Cnilep (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, target is not a disambiguation page. Keeping such redirects dilutes the purpose of intentional links to disambiguation pages. I've no opinion regarding whether contain should remain as a soft redirect. older ≠ wiser 12:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Conelrad (disambiguation)[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) 22:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect with "(disambiguation)" in its title that no longer targets a dab page; it needs to be deleted as housekeeping. Speedy was declined. — Gorthian (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There are two pages with ambiguous pages, and one is clearly primary, so a DAB page is unnecessary. It was a DAB page from the start, and the article history is mainly just minor changes to format, etc. Cnilep (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The target is not a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 12:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Google Browser[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 and hatnote. -- Tavix (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous, it could refer to the default browser on Android, which is just called "Browser" but not sure if we have an article on that. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & hatnote per Patar knight; that seems a good solution. My original thought was that this was meant to refer to "Browser" in Android, since I use an old phone.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Google Space[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 Google Space to Spaces (app); delete the rest. -- Tavix (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the actual existence of some of these, but they may be plausible and a target may be able to be found for them. If such products actually exist, that is, but redirecting to Google is certainly no help. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed about Spaces. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & retarget the Space one, per the above. Delete the rest unless/until there's somewhere appropriate to send them, where these things are at least mentioned.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Communist Party of Nepal (disambiguation)[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 no consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy was declined, so I bring this here. This page used to be a dab page, until it was moved to List of communist parties in Nepal as a result of a RM. That was over three years ago. Now, with "(disambiguation)" in its title and no dab page to target, it needs to be deleted. — Gorthian (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominated. The target is an article (a list article), and articles shouldn't be targets of (disambiguation) redirects. -- JHunterJ (talk)
  • Keep serves the same purpose as a disambiguation page, points to where the readers expect it to point, there is also a link to the target at Communist Party of Nepal. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 19:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    List articles do not serve the same purpose as disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not always, but on this occasion there is nothing that would be listed on a disambiguation page for "Communist Party of Nepal" that is not included on the "List of communist parties in Nepal". If that changes in the future then this can be revisited, but for now there is no benefit in inconveniencing the user because of semantics. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if someone is searching for this title (and people do search directly for titles such as this when they know there are multiple articles but don't know what the one they want is called) then they want to find links to articles about communist parties in Nepal, which is exactly what they find at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Obviously, from the looks of it, this increases readers' curiosity. George Ho (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, target is not a disambiguation page and keeping only dilutes the meaning of such intentional redirects to disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 01:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Opinions so far appear to be split between members of WP Disambiguation (who are for deleting) and the RfD regulars (who are for keeping). It seems to me that there is some scope for a broad discussion (although maybe not an RfC) to decide on that, as redirects like this are bound to come up again and again. – Uanfala (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The target article has the content that readers looking for a disambiguation page would be looking for. This is not a case where the list article contains extensive details on each entry and a separate DAB page may be justified, since it merely lists the different parties that use or have used that name---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hozho[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) 22:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to whatever language this is. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The language is Navajo. As in the prayer Hózhǫ́ naashá (in beauty I walk). The best spelling is hózhǫ́ , but hózhó is very common because it's hard to write hózhǫ́ without a Navajo keyboard. I think the only reason I added hózhó was because it was better than either hozho or hozhó. So I don't care whether it is kept or deleted. —Stephen (talk) 09:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Navajo. The term is used throughout that article, and explains it a little better than the Beauty article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all This is not what the word means at all. Its just for dumb white people who want to sound cool and then come to our lands and think they know it, like I read that on wiki so it must be true. you dont know shit. delete. learn the true meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.214.119 (talk • contribs) 01:06, December 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • delete all, Beauty is not a Navajo specific concept, so we do not need such redirect from another language. Also, we do not link more or less random words in foreign language to the language article. - Nabla (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Navajo, where it is described. -- Tavix (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK as it seems to be a notable concept in Navajo culture relating to beauty and harmony and possibly sacredness or something like that from what I can find in the several brief mentions around Wikipedia. I will leave a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redlink delete, per Thryduulf, and the irritated Navajo anon. If it's kept, then redir to Navajo where it is at least briefly covered.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Seraikistan, a movement against Punjabi and Pushto[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) 22:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDEL #3. This redirect is a remnant of a page move from Feb 2007, when a user apparently decided to share their personal opinion on Saraikistan by renaming the article. As this wasn't undone until six months later, it's conceivable there might be incoming external links, but I don't think this is very likely. – Uanfala (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as useless; this is no a plausible search phrase.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

11 September 2002[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) 22:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem to be plausible, more likely people are not making a typo when they search for this. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Champion assert that "...more likely people are not making a typo when they search for this..." In fact the CIA symbolically chose to execute key raids in Pakistan on the first anniversary of September 11th, 2001. Those dozen or so individuals were then sent to the CIA's archipelago of sites where torture was routine. So, I disagree that this is an implausible search term. Geo Swan (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Individuals captured by the CIA, on this date, include:
  1. Ramzi bin al-Shibh
  2. Hassan bin Attash
  3. Ammar al-Baluchi
  4. Ayoub Murshid Ali Saleh
  5. Bashir Nashir Al-Marwalah
  6. Shawki Awad Balzuhair
  7. Musab Omar Ali Al Mudwani
  8. Ha'il Aziz Ahmad Al Maythal
  9. Said Salih Said Nashir
  • Delete. This date likely holds no specific connection to people, except, I guess, as "the year after 9/11", but that's not really a tangible topic of encyclopedic discussion. It's also a WP:XY, as it could point to September 11 or 2002. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 13:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading. The topic of the target article did not happen in 2002. I agree that an article could certainly be written about "anniversary" actions by US forces, but it hasn't happened yet, so delete per WP:REDLINK.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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/2016_December_7&oldid=1088109747"