Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 29, 2016.

Death Note (2014 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 delete.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created when no one was sure what year the film would come out. However no such film from the year 2014 exists. Sro23 (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. 2016 was when the latest film (and the similarly titled The Death Note) came out. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:54, 1 July 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.

Death Note (2015 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 delete.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created when no one was sure what year the film would come out. However no such film from the year 2015 exists. Sro23 (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. 2016 was when the latest film (and the similarly titled The Death Note) came out. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:55, 1 July 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.

HSDPA+[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 7#HSDPA+

Long term evolution advanced[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 7#Long term evolution advanced

Fotiallian[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any evidence that the creature in "The Man Trap" has ever been called this. Miyagawa (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any of the Star Trek guide books that use this term instead of the salt vampire, only one old fan web page. [1] Salt vampire is the known term for the creature. [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:03, 29 June 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.

For the sake of honor[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase seems to refer to books more than honorary degrees Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:15, 29 June 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.

Oklahoma City Barons roster[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Oklahoma City Barons where the circumstances of the team move are mentioned. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we keep this, I'd prefer Bakersfield Condors (AHL)#Players as it gives the roster for the current iteration of the franchise. However, I don't see how that's useful and could cause confusion, so I'm leaning towards deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the help in having this at all so it should be deleted. If it were to be redirected it would be more appropriate to direct it to Oklahoma City Barons article. We treat geographical moves as separate entities so it would not be appropriate to redirect to the current franchise location. -DJSasso (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:12, 29 June 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.

2016 in Chinese football[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:10, 29 June 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.

2010-11 in Egyptian football[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:07, 29 June 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.

2009 in Malaysian football[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:05, 29 June 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.

1974-75 in German football[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose that, fairly strongly actually. Retargeting there implies that the Bundesliga is the only thing happening in German football that year, which is blatantly false. Other things like, 1974–75 DFB-Pokal and whatever the national team that year is also important. We shouldn't pigeon-hole our readers into one specific facet of German football, when there's more out there. -- Tavix (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation --Lenticel (talk) 00:32, 3 July 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.

Stop the Outrageous Abuse of Our Fellow Magical Creatures and Campaign for a Change in Their Legal Status[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one would ever search this Yellow Dingo (talk) 13:49, 29 June 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.

Wikipedia:MISS[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 6#Wikipedia:MISS

Dislexia (telenovela)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no telenovela mentioned at the target, and I'm not finding one by this name. -- Tavix (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. FWIW the redirect used to have some content claiming there was a Brazilian telenovela by this name, but searching for "dislexia" and the names of the actors mentioned doesn't find any support in WP:RS. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Revert and List at Afd I think this article turned redirect is better off deleted through the right channels. I don't want RFD to be a shortcut to deleting articles even if this case is obviously going for a delete--Lenticel (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that we should be careful about not using RFD for "backdoor deletions", but for an article in this state for which two editors tried and failed to find evidence of existence and which is obviously going for a delete, I think the appropriate path would be WP:PROD. (If the creator hadn't turned it into a redirect, that's probably what would have actually happened; ironically, that would mean even less attention & discussion than this RfD.) 210.6.254.106 (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite ironic actually. I'm fine with a PROD or CSD as well --Lenticel (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to the history Lidia Brondi had created the article, was the sole contributor, and then deleted it and redirected it. If such a telenovela comes up as notable it can be recreated from scratch. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the content is in a foreign language, so there's nothing to salvage unless someone wants to translate it. -- Tavix (talk) 16:21, 29 June 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.

AssCreed[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) 15:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since this doesn't seem like a referenced nickname for the series (the redirects' target), this is probably vandalism. Steel1943 (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Juvenile humor at best, intentional vandalism at worst. JohannSnow (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vandalism CSD may apply here. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is shortform that refers to the series as used by reliable industry sources ([3], [4], [5], [6] - in the URL as shorthand for the last one) and by regular gamers in an entirely non-puerile way [7]. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At first glance it looks like someone is having a laugh and a half, but I've seen this used unironically many times. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:50, 29 June 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.

Kid icarus wii[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) 20:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was never a new Kid Icarus title release on the Wii. The target was released on the Wii's Virtual Console, but readers looking up this term would probably be looking for a nonexistent game released "new" during the Wii's generation. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep being released on the Wii's Virtual Console is close enough for me, since there aren't other Kid Icarus titles on the Wii IIRC. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only mention of a Wii was a rumor. virtual console is not mentioned on the page either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: the virtual console is mentioned in the lede, the infobox, and several times in the reception section. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that works. Striking vote. This is the format of how Wii games are titled. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Eh, it's kind of misleading if you think about it, but it's better than deletion and a Virtual Console release could plausibly be argued to be "Wii". MelanieLamont (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Too misleading IMO. --BDD (talk) 15:48, 6 July 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.

Iron loss[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 Iron deficiency (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination, linked to the bundled AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Copper_loss. I suggest discussion takes place at the AfD page as the topics are smilar, but if folks from RfD disagree, I have no issue with un-bundling. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: Unbundling because of numerous incoming links to Iron loss. I think Transformer#Energy_losses is a better target, since the term exists only in the context of transformers, if anything. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:50, 29 June 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_June_29&oldid=1088282789"