Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 10, 2016.

Claudia Castra[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) 15:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for the redirect from Claudia Castra to Gloucester 🍺 Antiqueight chat 23:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a fairly common name including that of what appears to be a minor actress. I'm not finding any connection to the city, though. I am trying to assume good faith but the creator's contribution history is at best mixed. Delete unless a compelling counter-argument is presented soon. Rossami (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A sufficiently compelling argument was presented below. Keep (with the potential to overwrite to a disambiguation page if that actress ever becomes non-minor). Rossami (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not needed and we should not target random names at random places. Someone playing around. Legacypac (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I believe the origin of this redirect is the belief of the person who created it (whether correct or incorrect) that this is a Latin term that referred to the city ages ago, see this link here at Google Books (although the spelling isn't clear). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The spelling in this book is clearly Claudia Caſtra (see long s if you don't understand what that means), so unless someone can present reasons to discredit this book (it's seemingly the Dictionary of the Latin Tongue mentioned in the first sentence of the article about its author, Robert Ainsworth), this is clearly {{R from former name}}. Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Nice find, but that's not at the target. As you're probably aware, it's also in The Companion to British History here, without the long s, so it's clear that is the intended spelling. It says "later Claudia Castra" so that suggests perhaps it is Late Latin although it doesn't give a reason why it would be called this, so it would seem hard to add it to the "history" section of the target; the usual Latin name Glevum [Colonia] is derived from the English (itself likely from the Welsh), not the other way around. The ref you gave actually says "Claudia sive [or] Claudia Castra", i.e. it could just be called Claudia (or Clavdia Castra?).
Claudia, supposedly the first British Christian (Claudia Rufina), dwelt at Gloucester:
  • Lysons, Rev. Samuel (1861). Claudia and Pudens; or, The early Christians in Gloucester. London: Hamilton, Adams. p. 267. And if it be conceded that St. Paul visited this island, then there can be no doubt that his ardent missionary spirit would have led him to Gloucester, the residence of the proprietor,and the city where Claudia and Pomponia had dwelt
See also at Caratacus#Claudian_Invasion and #Modern traditions.
I'm not sure we could incorporate this without it being WP:SYNTHESIS, though (it could be another Claudia or Claudius or names derived therefrom). I guess it should be tagged {{R from other language|la}} if kept. Si Trew (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suspect the description of Claudia Castra as Gloucester is not entirely accurate based on this information and my knowledge of how such dictionaries of words are put together but it does give a reason for the redirect to exist (and my belief is WP:OR) - however it would make more sense if there was some reference to it in the target page since otherwise the google search initially brings up no meaningful information. Should I add this or would one of the people above add it? 🍺 Antiqueight chat 12:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me if you do it, no doubt taking care of WP:DUE and all that. Si Trew (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added "Claudia Castra is mentioned in the 18th Century as possible Latin name related to the city." in the section on the city name. 🍺 Antiqueight chat 23:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Antiqueight: I'm not sure why you deleted what I wrote here yesterday:
A better exposition of the name – and disputes over it – is given here, quoting in turn from the Historia Brittonum (I quote the first para): :::*"Gloiu Long-Hair". vortigernstudies.org.uk. Retrieved 13 February 2016. Gloiu is said by the Historia Brittonum to have built a great city on the banks of the river Severn named in welsh Caerloyw and in English Gloucester. This shows the origin of the name; it's clear this is an eponymous explanation of the name of Gloucester. The original Roman name for their newly founded colonia was Glevum, and the Saxon name Gleawanceaster, but a latinised name was Claudia Castra. Later medieval commentators, however, had other ideas and fantasies. Geoffrey of Monmouth ascribed the foundation to the first emperor Claudius, from whom it received its name Kaerglou. However, Geoffrey also mentioned an alternative, where it was a son of this Claudius, Gloius, who really gave the city its name.
Hope that helps. Si Trew (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you didn't want to use it, you needn't have deleted it from here. (edit conflict)? Si Trew (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: I was utterly unaware of you having posted at all - I did not intentionally delete your comments. As far as I knew the only update I made to this page yesterday evening was to add what I put on the target page after you said it was fine by you. 🍺 Antiqueight chat 13:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC) ---By which i also mean to say OOps, Sorry! 🍺 Antiqueight chat 13:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the information given above now and I am now a little more confused by the names for Gloucester - is what it claims in the target page correct or does the whole paragraph need to be rewritten? It seems there is a need to have this redirect for sure and possibly a need to take this conversation to the Gloucester talk page? Roman England isn't my speciality. I am nervous of making any further changes. 🍺 Antiqueight chat 13:49, 14 February 2016 (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.

Smarch[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 19#Smarch

JD Turbeville[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) 15:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nonsense redirect. This name is not mentioned in the article now and was not when this redirect was created. Peter James (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Huh... Turbeville is an english transliteration of a french placename and from that became both an english placename and a surname (meaning someone from ...). I can't find any evidence of a connection to the Turkish Sultan, however. We have a surprising number of Turbevilles on Wikipedia already (the town in SC, William, Deborah, George and Henry but no disambiguation page that I can find. So delete this but as a separate issue, we should probably convert the existing Turbeville redirect to a disambiguation page. Rossami (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2016 (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.

Banana (film)[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 Bananas (film). --BDD (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-existing film, unused and useless redirect, not mentioned in the article, nor in the IMDB filmography of the actor. Apparently there were some rumors about a film with this title starring Abraham back in 2013, but such a film was never produced. Cavarrone 22:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree, I think such a redirect would fell under WP:RFD#D2. Statistics are at normal bot-only level actually ([1], [2]). There are other films with similar titles, eg. Bananas!*. Once the redirect would be deleted, Bananas (film) would be the fourth option in search results for "Banana (film)", just below other titles with similar names [3]. As long as Allen's film was never referred to as "Banana", I think it's virtually safer to let the reader who typed Banana (film) to overview the multiple titles which include Banana in the title or have similar names, instead of deciding what they were searching. Cavarrone 08:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Both arguments are completely valid from a policy standpoint. More opinions could settle this, though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2016 (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.

British politician sex[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 18#British politician sex

Template:Boxquote[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) 15:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused (it was used on a handful of pages, 6 I think, but I either corrected them to use a block quote template for a block quotation, or, outside mainspace, bypassed the redirect). We do not need redirs for every possible conceptualization of the appearance of a template. This one was ambiguous and unhelpful, since more than one quotation template uses box framing. It's also useful to reduce the number of redirects to the pull quote templates. Per MOS:QUOTE, these should not be used in mainspace except in the very rare case of an actual pull quote, and not used for regular block quotations. Any profusion of redirects to the pull quote templates increases their abuse in articles for drawing excessive attention (a WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE problem) to particular block quotations. If there are only a handful of such templates, without a bunch of alternative names, it is easier for editors to remember that they are only for pull quotes (or for decorative use outside of actual articles).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:46, 10 February 20016 (UTC)

  • Keep it is literally a box for a quote. So it is quite useful for searching for a box for a quote. And we don't usually bypass redirects just because redirects exist, so we should keep it because it was in use before you bypassed it. All statements about UNDUE and NPOV do not apply to this redirect. Instead they are arguments to delete the template itself, which you are not nominating since this is RFD and not TFD. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the IP, who's correct in saying that it's literally a box for a quote, and that it wasn't orphaned until just a little bit ago, due to SMcCandlish's actions. I see no reason to object to this title as long as the target template exists, and as noted by the IP, all of the objections given above are actually objections to the target template. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with this title, and as it's been used plenty of times since it was created a year ago, there wouldn't be any reason to call it implausible, either. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Say what? I'm not sure what you mean by 'a vector for abusing MOS:QUOTE'; however, it sounds as if you think that editors who don't follow the MOS are pathogens and the only way to 'control' them is to make it harder for people to find and use the template that they are (correct to your style standards or not) trying to find. That comes off as rather disrespectful (with a terrifying nod toward the Ministry of Truth) don't you think? In any case, this redirect clearly seems common enough that it should go somewhere: perhaps to Template:Quote (which is, an 'easier to type and is more wiki-like than the equivalent HTML <blockquote>...</blockquote>'.) Although I personally feel that the current redirect, to what many people think of when they imagine a block quote, is appropriate. Crazynas t 07:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
[4]. Although I agree with Nytted and the IP above who recomend Keeping as is. Crazynas t 05:03, 12 February 2016 (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.

Biscayne Wall[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) 15:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend for deletion, no relevant content WP:ROC on target page. Redirect is a cleaver coined phrase, but questionable notability. 1305cj (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what if it was discussed last April. The outcome was wrong. The page was redirected to a section of a page that has no relevance or context to the subject WP:ROC, as there is no mention at all of "Biscayne Wall" on any section of U.S._Route_1_in_Florida#Miami-Dade_County. Nor should there be as it's most likely original research with no verifiability. It's a cleaverly coined phrase WP:A11 not credible in the article about U.S. Route 1. 1305cj (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It supports your argument for deletion, in my view. But I shall leave you to it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what happens now? What can I do? 1305cj (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions are usually open for about a week. Wait for about a week. Si Trew (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2016 (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.

Naprapathy[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. Action was neither desired by nominator nor taken. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article topic suffers from a lack of reliable sources other than Quackwatch. It is probably more appropriate to briefly discuss naprapathy on the chiropractic page since it is an offshoot of that philosophy and shares a history tied to D.D. Palmer. Delta13C (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree There's not enough decent sourcing for a standalone article on naprapathy. Alexbrn (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Both of you seem to be advocating for redirecting this target to Chiropractic, but it's already a redirect to that page. Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah I did it (and re-did it) because I thought we had consensus per the Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ahh, so basically you're seeking consensus for the action that already happened? This isn't quite the right place to do that, but since we've gotten started, we might as well continue here. Support your action, because indeed this looks like the right thing to do. Nyttend (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as the nomination does not propose an action for the redirect. Whether or not the former article should be merged into the target is a discussion for either article's talk page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ivanvector is correct - speedy-close. This can (and was) decided and implemented based solely on a Talk page discussion. There is no need to escalate it here. Rossami (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2016 (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.

File:Picture009.jpg[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) 15:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need to retain this generic meaningless image name redirect after the file was moved under WP:FNC#2. Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 07:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fundamentally agree with removing this; it's too vague a name to be used for anything. Or repoint at File:Name.jpg.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Why break the file history? Explain how the project would benefit from creating linkrot. At the moment, the filename remains in use at [5], its appearance interrupted by the RFD template, but minus that template, it still works. If you really want it, I can supply you more than three hundred URLs that currently use this image, all of which would be impaired by deletion. Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Guh. That XfD notice does break the file link. In that case, I am just OK with doing nothing.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No impairment here. WP:FMV/W has been followed. If the redirect points to the generic Commons:File:Name.jpg, one would understand what is going on be seeing that image if they revert to an old reversion, and then hopefully correcting the link. Steel1943 (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Linkrot present in old revisions is not problematic; linkrot present in edit notices and deleton notices is what is problematic, and in this case, such linkrot does not exist. Nyttend's rationale for keeping this redirect seems akin to keeping a redirect named "dhcxhxhhdg" in existence because it once existed as a redirect to Google and was present and linked in Android (operating system) somewhere in its revision history. Steel1943 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That, and considering that this image has a vague name, and the fact that most web sites require that images be uploaded locally, the collateral damage will be very negligible, if even existent. Steel1943 (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And then afterwards, create the title as a redirect to Commons:File:Name.jpg per Jo-Jo Eumerus. In cases of incredibly vague file names, correcting them to point to the generic Commons:File:Name.jpg makes more sense than retaining it, even surpassing linkrot concerns. Steel1943 (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I wish we had some sort of way to provide disclaimers to file users and/or uploaders that the file is best saved locally wherever it is used (so, uploaded to the site directly) to avoid external links that seem impossible to track in the case of file renames on Wikipedia. I hold the belief that third-party web sites should hold their own responsibility to maintain their pages, and that responsibility should not fall on the hands of the Wikipedia community. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC) (Adjusted: Steel1943 (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Also, since WP:FMV/W has been followed (replacing all incoming links to the leftover redirect being replaced by the new name), per that guideline, there is neither a reason to retain the current redirect in its current state, nor has one yet been presented during this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get it. Deleting this image would produce linkrot in hundreds of pages, and that's just on this wiki alone. Where else on the Internet is this image used? No benefit accrues from deleting this, and as noted by WP:RFD#KEEP point #4, you risk breaking a large number of links, especially because this is a title that has existed for more than seven years. Come back when you've replaced all of its currently existing uses in those hundreds of old page revisions. Nyttend (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend I do get it. See my response to you above. Steel1943 (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to create linkrot when no benefit accrues, and you think that there's no problem in damaging hundreds of page revisions, despite what's said at the RFD#KEEP think that I mentioned. Nyttend (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: If you had posted further up in the discussion, your edit here would have been an edit conflict. (There's a rather specific reason why I'm pointing this out.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the history is properly attached to the renamed file; the redirect itself has no history. Nothing on-wiki seems to link to this, and the stats are so low as to suggest nothing external links to it either. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The file is in use in Special:PermanentLink/701044852 and other historic versions of the article St. William Parish (Lawncrest), and deleting a file or template redirect normally creates unnecessary red links in the page history. That said, if this redirect is deleted, Wikipedia's article would instead use a redirect on Commons with the same title, and the Commons redirect points at an identical file, so as long as the redirect is preserved on Commons, there is no need to have a redirect on Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2016 (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.

Stark Mele[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) 15:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another Neelix WP:PTM construction. There's no evidence that Casandra went by this name. -- Tavix (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2016 (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.

Lizardheaded frog[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) 14:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor opposed to the Neelix cleanup has returned to reverting CSDs, Many similar frog redirects are being deleted that are similar constructions, but since the CSDs were reversed, I'm taking these to RfD for wider input,

These are fake words which I could not find any use of in RS. We should not allow random words to be shoved together to make new words, especially on little known species because this spreads error across the internet that quickly starts to look like an actual alternative species name as the mirrors copy it.. Legacypac (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong and speedy keep. Please stop telling lies about editors who disagree with you. These are legitimate redirects. In each case, the target article identifies a slight variation of the redirected phrase as an alternate species name; for example, "lizardheaded frog" goes to Zakerana sauriceps, which states in its lede that "lizard-headed frog" is an alternate/vernacular name for the species. This discussion is just a retread of [[6]], which was an overwhelming and unanimous keep. Your anti-Neelix jihad is leading you into damaging the encyclopedia. You should stop. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Responsible editors appreciate work on the Neelix cleanup. What have you done to help? We've had lots of discussions leading to deletion of his wordcombinations, not withstanding the one cited. Legacypac (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A review of the redlinks on this version [7] of the Neelix frog redirect list (still being worked on) will confirm that many of these fake words are being deleted. Examples Fourlined frogs, Bubblenests, Annandales highaltitude frog, Pleskes highaltitude frog, Jerdons narrowmouthed frog, Bright yelloweyed frog and those are just a few since the frog page was formed. Legacypac (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Responsible editors appreciate responsible work on the Neelix cleanup, and this is irresponsible. You cite a group of redirects that were deleted on unrelated grounds: omitting the apostrophe from a possessive is not likely, and omitting entire words opens the possibility of ambiguity. This is no different from Pleske's highaltitude frog or Bright yelloweyed crawl frog, which were not deleted, because the use of a space, hyphen, or neither appears inconsistent to those not familiar with the situation (why would this last one be a Thai spadefoot toad, bright yellow-eyed crawl frog, and spotted litter frog, instead of spade-foot toad, yellow eyed crawl frog, or spotted-litter frog?), so we must account for all of them. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face. Nyttend (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous discussions on plausible modifications from known alternate names for species. Drop the sticks, everyone, a valid question was asked. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia should not be inventing new variants of already poorly attested vernacular names. Google reports just 210 hits for the "correct" form "lizard-headed frog". There are vernacular names out there with minor variations that exist in (more or less) reliable soruces. We should be documenting those and creating redirects for them. There's no point in inventing brand new variants in hyphen/spacing/plurals in Wikipedia. Plantdrew (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Plantdrew. This discussion kind of reminds me of that RFD discussion I started about several phrases pertaining to "horse". Steel1943 (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as plausible punctuation variants of accepted names for these animals. (Wow, it would help if I read these target articles.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But didn't we end up keeping almost all of those? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ivanvector: Actually, I think it was more like a 35/55/10 split for keep/retarget/delete. Since no options have yet been presented here for retargeting (and I don't know of any myself,) based on Plantdrew's comment, I would default to "delete" in these cases. (No longer valid. – Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)) Steel1943 (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and stop this self-destructive "cleanup" abuse. These are entirely plausible variants of known and accepted names. Some of what Neelix did was against Wikipedia policy and practice but some was not merely allowed but encouraged. Rossami (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rossami we are still speedy deleting vanishing stupid and really innappropriate redirects. The ones you see here are those deemed worthy of discussion. Scroll back even the last few days for examples of junk brought here and deleted. Legacypac (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2016 (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.

UASVMCN[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) 14:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, inaccurate acronym: the university uses "USAMVCN" as their acronym. This has literally no usage outside of Wikipedia. I got 19 search hits, all of them are mirrors. (Neelix) -- Tavix (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete one of many such fake constructions he dreamed up. Legacypac (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2016 (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.

Petrolet[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) 14:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:R#D5, as I'm pretty sure this is nonsense. I can't find any connection between the redirect and the target and it's not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. -- Tavix (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I don't see it mentioned anywhere at all except for an obscure Youtube channel and in formulations of "petrol et gaz", but that's all nonsense here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense per above --Lenticel (talk) 09:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2016 (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.

Asset-backed[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 17#Asset-backed

False equivalencies[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. (non-admin closure) sst✈(conjugate) 08:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to false equivalency as {{R from plural}}. The related topics of False balance and false equivalence already link to each other through hatnotes. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:32, 10 February 2016 (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.

Jeb?[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. The delete voters have the stronger argument here: this phrase isn't explained anywhere, nor is it unambiguous enough to point to one place. (Is it a commentary on Jeb himself or his campaign? If the latter, which campaign?) --BDD (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand that this is a play on Bush's "Jeb!" slogan, I don't feel like this redirect is appropriate, especially since it points to a WP:BLP. Delete per WP:R#D3, especially since there isn't any non-neutral discussion of "Jeb?" at the article. -- Tavix (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Jeb! → Jeb Bush since he has used the slogan since 1994 (see also the RFD for Jeb!.) -- Tavix (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about "Jeb!" we are talking about "Jeb?" which is the 2016 campaign criticism and not any other Jeb campaign. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that this is his first campaign where he had this type of criticism? I can guarantee you that Bush has been criticized in 1994, 1998, and 2002, and he used "Jeb!" in all of those elections. -- Tavix (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're not discussing any and all criticism of Jeb, we are not discussing "Jeb!", we are discussing "Jeb?". The topic of discussion here is "Jeb?" and not Jeb Bush in general. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The symbols menu on a recent Android phone - the ? and ! are one key apart.
@SimonTrew: Could you explain why you feel it's a typo? The question mark and exclamation mark are on literally the opposite ends of the keyboard and I can't imagine someone accidentally typing ? unless they they are purposefully looking for "Jeb?" as a question of his character or something. -- Tavix (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not on all keyboards, not everything is QWERTY. And I can see that if something were printed as "Whatever happened to Jeb!?" people may mistype it, being unsure of the multiple punctuation. Whether that counts as an {{R from typo}} is a bit weak, but if it's not a likely typo, this should probably be deleted as WP:RFD#D2 confusing since it's not at the target. Si Trew (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't implying QWERTY. I can't find a major keyboard in which the ? ! are near each other. -- Tavix (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are next to each other on many cell phone keyboards. pbp 06:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, I didn't think about cell phone keyboards. -- Tavix (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget: IMO, the D3 claim is specious; I don't see how the redirect is harming anybody. Frankly, this discussion is splitting gnats. pbp 01:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not harmless, it's an attack to make him seem indecisive or uncertain, which isn't something we should be promoting in our WP:BLPs. -- Tavix (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, multiple RS criticism using this term is fair game if not WP:UNDUE, but this link ain't it (if it were, I'd add it to the target and say keep). Si Trew (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: Are you going to bludgeon everybody who votes keep or retarget, rather than your preferred option of delete? I hope not. pbp 06:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as it is a unsourced negative redirect at a real person which is forbidden. Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a fairly common joke made at Bush's expense (I've seen examples on at least two network late night talk shows), and it's nowhere near derogatory enough to require deletion, especially when a high-profile public figure is involved. See Slick Willie, Tricky Dick. But there's no discussion of it in any plausible target article (likely because it's obvious and superficial). No target, ergo no need for the redirect. Can always be restored if a decent, relevant discussion is written (which won't happen unless Jeb? overtakes Donald Grump). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there is the possibility that it can be harmful then per WP:HARM we should abide by that. I do not see how this could be a typo unless you accidently type "Jeb@" or "Jeb~". The ! and ? are on the opposite sides of the average QWERTY keyboard. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Retarget to Jeb Bush presidential campaign, 2016 - plausible mobile typo, where keyboards often have a "special" key that brings up a menu with all symbols, in which ? and ! are likely to be right beside each other. Furthermore, while apparently meant to be derisively humorous, we do not censor such things and it would point at the right target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible misspelling of Jeb!. As a misspelling, its target should be the same as Jeb!'s target. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:58, 15 February 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_10&oldid=1142587037"