Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 26, 2016.

United Federation[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. JohnCD (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are various articles here that start with United Federation including United Federation of Teachers and United Federation of Trade Unions as well as the now renamed United Federation of Postal Clerks. I don't see any of these as the primary topic nor the value of a DAB page. Search does not prove that United Federation is used to refer to the Star Trek topic in particular. Delete per CONFUSING. Legacypac (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's an argument to disambiguate, not to delete. Rossami (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do any of these, Star Trek included, get referred to as "United Federation" alone? --BDD (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - that is not an argument to disambiguate, lest we end up with a dab that has nothing but partial title matches. "United Federation" doesn't match anything. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Setindexify per Rossami, or delete per nom; the fictional Star Trek entity is referred to as the "Federation" not "United Federation" -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "United" is not really a meaningful enough word to be worth disambiguating. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Never heard of it referenced as "United Federation". Miyagawa (talk) 14:40, 2 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.

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ (song)[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. JohnCD (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to have this as a redirect, it's an unlikely search term. Anarchyte 09:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems likely to me, especially for the non-English speakers. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, implausible as a search term, especially since the song isn't known as "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ." I say this half-humorously, but also per WP:NOTLYRICS. -- Tavix (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ doesn't exist, and that was the result of a recent deletion discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being "unlikely" is not a reason to delete. "If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect." It's quite plausible - indeed it's used more than four times a day average. More importantly, I don't see any reason to delete it that's among those listed at WP:RfD#Reasons for deleting.
    As for ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ - more people voted to not delete, so it looks like it was wrongly deleted (I've asked the admin about it). ··gracefool💬 20:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Gracefool -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP and per Gracefool. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gracefool. Redirects do far more than merely support the search engine. Rossami (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943. I don't think we have any evidence that someone would consider this the name of the song, and it looks very strange to have ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ red but this redirect in place. If this is truly a likely search term for the song, then the form without the qualifier should also redirect there, and I'd be surprised if anyone was really prepared to argue for that. This is not getting many page views, and I suspect that many of those are a result of idleness—someone starting to type the alphabet in the search box to see what shows up—rather than genuine queries. --BDD (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. Then let's redirect ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ also.
2. Why is an idle search not genuine or worthwhile? Isn't serendipitous discovery an important part of an encyclopedia?
··gracefool 💬 22:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I bring that up more as a point of caution that page views are blunt instruments. They tell us the page is being used—but nothing more. Not how many of those views are human, not how many were satisfied with their results, etc. But no, I don't think serendipity is any way essential to an encyclopedia, not in this sense, at least. I enjoy learning about new topics as I read about topics I've sought out, but typing whatever characters into the search box to see what shows up really isn't serendipity as much as randomness. --BDD (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, if you want "serendipitous discovery" and randomness, I highly recommend Special:Random. -- Tavix (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion could be closed as "no consensus, default to keep", but in light of the deletion of ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ earlier this month I should ask all of us more plainly: do we want to accept a situation whereby "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ" is red but "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ (song)" is blue?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the other discussion pretty much covers this variation. Not very useful. Legacypac (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think it's highly unlikely someone will search for the song by typing out "ABCD ... etc." I think it is much more likely that such a reader will be looking for the English (or Latin, German, etc.) alphabet. If we are going to keep this, then we should definitely create a DAB page at ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ to direct readers to information about the alphabet. Incidentally, I also added Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz (song) to this discussion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTLYRICS (jokes!) but also as it's not a plausible search at all (most people don't search with disambiguators) and useless as a wikilink. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the words to the song has and between Y and Z, so it's incorrect (more jokes) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is simply unhelpful and useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:55, 30 January 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.

Wo'rlv[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. JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia a Klingon -> English translation service via redirects? Legacypac (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fancruft. Softlavender (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an application of WP:RFOREIGN. Wo'rlv would be Worf's Klingon name, so it is a helpful redirect since Worf is Klingon. To address the fancruft: I'd probably think otherwise if Klingon language wasn't notable on its own. -- Tuvix (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tuvix. Emergency Medical Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep since Klingon-language resources do exist in the world (and Tokeinian Elvish, etc) This topic has a strong relationship to Klingon -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:54, 28 January 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.

Professionalisational[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 both. JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These seem pretty marginal. The "word" is essentially undefined and sees almost zero use (many hits just say they have nothing on this "word") and some are like "... and irregular 'professionalisation': A L Brown," picking up the letters al from the next word making them false results. Just stacking suffixes behind suffixes introduces nonsense into the internet. Can't see this helping the reader with the nonsense spread online being a good reason to delete. See search results [1] and [2] Legacypac (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. essentially worthless. Very unlikely search terms. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unprofessionalisticalities. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:58, 1 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.

Coxalgia[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. JohnCD (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coxalgia is hip-joint pain (see eg https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coxalgia or http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/coxalgia ), not coccyx pain, but there is no Wikipedia entry for hip pain and there doesn't seem a reason for creating one purely for the definition of coxalgia. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as misleading and to encourage article creation. Legacypac (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation --Lenticel (talk) 10:37, 2 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.

WP:TIME[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 Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Time of day. JohnCD (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not WP:WikiProject Time an expected target for such a shortcut. Nor is it Help:time; Nor is it MOS:TIME destination target, so isn't the MOS target page. The current target is therefore wrong. Adding a hatnote indicating the location of the WikiProject for WPP-TIME resulted in a deletion of the hatnote, leaving no navigation information for editors. Therefore this should be converted into an index page of project pages relating to time, such as Help-Time, WPP-TIME and MOS-TIME. 70.51.200.135 (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Looking up this shortcut could pertain to looking up information about how to format time in article. So, the current target is plausible and helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, works as intended. If you turned this into a dab, it could no longer function as a shortcut so none of those targets would be directly served by the shortcut. The other targets mentioned in the nom have their own shortcuts. I do think the solution to this situation is a hatnote. -- Tavix (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Godsy, I do agree that target is slightly better. -- Tavix (talk) 15:25, 27 January 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.

El Kaide Terör Örgütü Türkiye Yapılanması[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. JohnCD (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the name of the Al-Qaeda branch in Turkey, but we don't have any information about them, so this could benefit from WP:REDLINK deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely we could add a sentence at the target about them. Legacypac (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was going off the edit summary of the redirect when it was created. From the search results I'm getting, I actually think a WP:RFFL deletion would be more appropriate. -- Tavix (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REDLINK does not say that deleting redirects is OK. Actually even redirects for misspellings are useful. WP:RFFL does not apply either because here we are talking about a Turkish organization, so redirecting from its official name is appropriate: "appropriate use of foreign-language redirects include: Original or official names of [...]". Cheers! Syced (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
REDLINK is appropriate when we have no information on a subject. Turning it "red" shows that there isn't any information and sometimes someone will act upon that lack of information with an article. Alternatively, if the organization is simply the Turkish translation of an Al-Qaeda, then WP:RFOREIGN could apply. I haven't seen any sources confirming or denying either way, I'm just covering the bases. -- Tavix (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above discussion. Legacypac (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Syced, what's your source for this being al-Qaeda's name in Turkish? It translates to something like "Al-Qaeda Turkish terrorist organization". It seems wildly implausible to me that they would label themselves as such, and "El Kaide Terör Örgütü Türkiye Yapılanması" -wikipedia only returns 69 results. --BDD (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can't be their name in Turkish. It literally translates Al Qaida Terror Organization Turkey Structure. I could see an paper writing phrase to describe their affiliates or cells in Turkey, but not plausible that is the group's actual name. Long War Journal talks about both al-Qaida cells and 'Three local groups in Turkey stand out as being (or having been) potential collaborators with or ‘subcontractors’ to al Qaeda in Turkey: the Turkish Hizballah; (a Kurd operation no relationship to the Lebanon version) the Great Eastern Islamic Raiders’ Front (IBDA-C); and in the past, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)'. None of these are the name in the redirect. We should delete it as a coined term, and since the terror group has no special affinity to the Turkish language. Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found further evidence that the group has no specific organization in Turkey with a name, only cells. There is no Turkish branch name. They do have connections with the three groups named above but each of those groups have their own name. This should be snow deleted as just a phrase discribing the group in Turkish. Legacypac (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible synonym per the above-mentioned findings --Lenticel (talk) 10:34, 2 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.

El lay[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 El Lay. JohnCD (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the premise underlying this redirect is that someone may search for the phonetic pronunciation of "LA," but I wonder if this is really a plausible search term, or if there is potentially a better target out there. Maybe Lay (currently a DAB page)? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I get a Snoop video [3], a production company, & a restaurant but I'm thinking the Snoop song is the primary. Legacypac (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed the Snoop Dogg track, but I agree that retargeting to Doggumentary (the album on which the song appears) is a good idea. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I think creating a DAB page is a good idea. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DAB sounds like a good plan. Legacypac (talk) 23:02, 26 January 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.

Howie Shia[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 Deleted by User:Ponyo Legacypac (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had created this redirect. But I now think it is counterproductive as it shows a bluelinked redirect to one of his films, instead of a red link calling attention to the fact that there is not yet an article on this notable Canadian animator. Any possibility of deleting? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's five years old so much too old for the speedy-deletion criterion to apply but you make a decent argument to redlink it. I'm not sure about notability but I'll give it the benefit of doubt. We can always restore the redirect if no article shows up. Rossami (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I should have just buckled down and done it, repurpose the redirect, instead of bothering Rfd. I just didn't know if I'd get to it right away. He won the Grand Prize at the Tokyo Anime Awards for Flutter and he's up for a big Canadian one, for his latest film, BAM. I do think he's probably notable on the basis of WP:ARTIST, at this point. thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete and let's try a C7 CSD. Legacypac (talk) 03:52, 26 January 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.

President Trump[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy deleted by User:Anthony Appleyard (G3: Vandalism) Legacypac (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While he is currently doing well in the polls he has yet to win a single state in the primary let alone the general election so it is far to soon to declare him President of the Unitied States,--174.91.186.82 (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball even by the loose standards we hold for redirects. Grossly premature. Rossami (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This may be a candidate for speedy deletion as a hoax. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author comment: I had no intention of this being declared a hoax. MB298 (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless I think most people would see that declaing Trump has won the general election 10 months from now before winning a single state in the Republican Primary as constituting a hoax. Please note that a similar redirect Inauguration of Hillary Clinton was recently deleted on the same grounds.--174.91.186.82 (talk) 05:10, 26 January 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.
  • Comment isn't Trump president of any of his enterprises? (though I suppose a set index would be necessary to address all Presidents Trump (such as his father) ) -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, or Chairman, but anyone searching that is thinking POTUS since he is trying to be that. Legacypac (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also can't imagine anyone typing that to look up the enterprises he chaired.--174.91.186.82 (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • To the best of my knowledge, there are no examples on Wikipedia of a corporate officer being referred to by his/her title. Honorifics are reserved for religious and political leaders. Rossami (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Popular government[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) 15:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see this redirect as a value judgement on a form of government and not useful. Governments can be widely unpopular in a democracy and dictators and monarchs can be widely popular. Legacypac (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I thought of Populism at first but a populist government may not be popular either. Legacypac (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting point, but if a government is unpopular, doesn't that mean that by definition it has failed to achieve populism? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A populist party (like Reform Party of Canada) is an orientation like conservative, liberal, socialist etc. Populist refers to direct input to policy at the party level and when in government via referendums etc. Populist refers to population not popularity. I've not looked, but hopefully our article says stuff like that. Legacypac (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean; I was interpreting the term "popular government" to mean "a government that embodies populism," rather than "a government that is favored by the people" or "a government that is not unpopular." How do you feel about Popular sovereignty as a potential target? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since Popular government is essentially an adjective noun combo, at least the reader would learn something at Popular sovereignty Good find. Let's see if others endorse that. Legacypac (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You will not learn anything about any of these books at the target. Maybe a DAB page is appropriate here? Legacypac (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that the target should mention the books, I'm using them to illustrate that "Popular government" has been a synonym for "democratically elected government" since at least the 1650s (the authors are a major political philosopher of the English Interregnum, a President of the United States, and the founder of the discipline of sociology of law, respectively, and all are using the phrase without an attached explanation in the assumption that their audiences will understand what's meant.) ‑ Iridescent 23:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Iridescent, can you include a citation to passages in the books cited above that say, explicitly, that popular government is synonymous with democracy? As I understand the the issue, some theorists claim that democracy is a precondition for popular sovereignty, while others argue that different forms of government (e.g. Popular monarchy) can allow for popular sovereignty. The article at popular sovereignty explains this split of opinion. To put this in other words, democracy may be one kind of popular government, but there may be other kinds of popular governments as well. Therefore, to avoid problems implicated by WP:XY, I think popular sovereignty is the best target. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the Macquarie Dictionary entry for 'democracy', it says it's derived from the Greek 'demokratia' meaning 'popular government'. Also, the WIkipedia entry for 'popular sovereignty' defines it as a principle, while the entry for 'democracy' says it's a form of government, so it would make more sense for 'popular government' to redirect to the one about a type of government. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Iridescent. Popular government = government of the populace = democracy. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:46, 27 January 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.

Interlec[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. JohnCD (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence of "Interlec" referring to the Internet. My search is dominated by an Electrical Supply company. -- Tavix (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not related to the target. This search [4] shows exactly why we should aggressively delete bad redirects for they get turned into definitions all over the internet. Legacypac (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC) -[reply]
  • Delete - This just appears totally useless as a redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to be an Australian company, not synonymous to Internet --Lenticel (talk) 10:36, 2 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_January_26&oldid=1146032685"