Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 6, 2016.

List of Scandinavian hardcore punk bands[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) 13:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The target article is not clear on which "hardcore punk bands" are Scandinavian. (This redirect was previously an article.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does every category need to have a list? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:01, 7 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.

Arrow cresting[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 move article to Arrow cresting over redirect to repurpose and expand the scope of the article. Delete "arrowcresting". Deryck C. 17:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix) not sure. I've tagged a lot of variants (arrow-cresting machine and such) as keepers but this, without "machine" or just "crester" seems a bit too far to me, it would seem to kinda be the agent noun or art of arrow cresting but not the machine itself? Might be OK though Si Trew (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - [arrow[-]]cresting is a thing, but there's nothing about it at any of the related topics, like arrow or bow and arrow, so if someone is looking for information on it, this target is where they'll find it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would moving the target article over one of these make sense?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete arrowcresting - no evidence that this is a real word. The article could probably be made into one about arrow cresting. Peter James (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse the redirect per BDD's suggestion: article should be at arrow cresting. Cresting was done for probably the entire history of archery. Machines are only a minor aspect of it; nearly all the sources I can find about cresting machines focus on WP:HOWTO stuff that isn't suitable for expanding the article. Delete arrowcresting per Peter James. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:04, 12 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.

Maryam, mother of Isa[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. Deryck C. 16:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing links to it and I don't imagine anyone doing so in the future. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 07:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or maybe retarget to Mary in Islam. Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. That is not a sufficient condition. Please do not use it as the only reason to delete a redirect. I fail to see how this meets any of the WP:R#DELETE criteria. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Mary in Islam. Title is in that context. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC) update 01:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I'm the redirect's creator.) IMO it's "r from alternate name" and/or "r from foreign name". If Mary, mother of Jesus is the interreligious page on Mary (which it certainly is), the Arabic name (which is in most common use in Islam, but also in Arabic-speaking Christianity) should redirect there, not to Mary in Islam. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:55, 6 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.

Mariam/Maryann (given name)[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 03:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute WP:XY. There's really no way of knowing whether a reader searching for this term wants Mariam or Mary Ann (where Maryann redirects). With the (given name), it's a near certainty that they're looking for a page about a name, and not about Mary in Islam. BDD (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Implausible search term that only confuses people. Miriam (given name) and Maryann (given name) work fine in themselves AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This spreads confusion and isn't helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Confusing. Steel1943 (talk) 04:05, 9 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.

Maryam (mother of Isa)[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. Deryck C. 16:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no reason to have this redirect as nothing currently links to it and I don't see someone linking to it for any good reason. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 07:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is WP:RFOREIGN but I don't know what language it is. Gtrans just detects it as English I guess because of the "mother of". Either that or it is an extremely unlikely series of typos. (And it could well detect it as English exactly because we have this redirect as I believe Gtrans uses Wikipedia as part of its corpus, but that is purely a guess because it's a trade secret but I have often had kinda my exact own words as written at Wikipedia thrown back at me for the more obscure subjects). Delete. Si Trew (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Mary in Islam. A general Google search brings up this topic over the other names for Mary. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I'm the redirect's creator.) IMO it's "r from alternate name" and/or "r from foreign name". If Mary, mother of Jesus is the interreligious page on Mary (which it certainly is), the Arabic name (which is in most common use in Islam, but also in Arabic-speaking Christianity) should redirect there, not to Mary in Islam. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, per an IP user in the discussion for the redirect Mary, mother of Isa: "Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. That is not a sufficient condition. Please do not use it as the only reason to delete a redirect. I fail to see how this meets any of the WP:R#DELETE criteria."
Nope, the expert calls it that it's a transliteration, mark as {{R from other language|ar}} and speedily keep withdrawn by nominator. As I say, I language check for me did not come up with Arabic but I can see that it would be. My Arabic is very rusty, shucran for calling it. It's still rather WP:RFOREIGN but if it's at all useful it stays. Si Trew (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:53, 6 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.

Climaxing[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. --BDD (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) the target is a DAB at which my suggestion Climax (sexual) is listed. Isn't that really the primary meaning of the term and we can take it round the DAB. If someonw were searching for climaxing I doubt they would be looking for anything but this. Why they should be searching is another question where there are plenty of good Haynes Manuals out there to explain the basics Si Trew (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Climax (narrative) is a less likely but still probable target, so not a good idea to retarget. So keep or delete. Uanfala (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Common word that does not need linking. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Climax" is more than sufficient here. –Davey2010Talk 15:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Patar knight. -- Tavix (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no primary target. I'm going to opine a bit here: We honestly need to start thinking about what is relevant as far as redirs go. There's too much "it's just a different particle of speech, so we should keep it" rationales. Encyclopedias are not dictionaries, etymological or otherwise, and thus should not have every grammatical or syntactical instance of a word linked to a possibly pertinent article. Unfortunately, we are starting to do that here, because it seems to be more trouble to delete something somebody created than to think about its actual utility to the encyclopedia. The problem with "teh Interwebz" is that somebody might conceivably search for anything, but that's not a rationale to make sure they find it. MSJapan (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a plausible title for an article, not just a related word. Peter James (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep can refer to more than one of the definitions; I don't think a separate disambiguation page is needed. Peter James (talk) 22:10, 7 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.

Kølle[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 convert to WP:SIA. Deryck C. 16:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:PTM because there are two people I can find with this last name, and Kølle is not limited to this series. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy dabify, technically convert to set index. Surnames aren't partial-title matches, because individuals can commonly be referred to by their surname alone. I've drafted the page below the redirect. --BDD (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On the dab page, you might want to mention how it is a Norwegian name, otherwise it would be merged into Kolle which covers the German names. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Already done! --BDD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:48, 8 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.

Brown-aid[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) 13:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Per the redirect's history and some research I performed via search engines, this subject of the redirect seems to be an unofficial term for mixing either several flavors of Kool-Aid together or Kool-Aid and brown sugar to turn the drink brown. So, delete per probably this information and WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 20:13, 6 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.

Great bluedini[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 13#Great bluedini

Great-[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 03:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect could be seen as misleading since not all pages that start with "Great-" on Wikipedia refer to grandparents. Steel1943 (talk) 19:47, 6 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.

Spaceport Malaysia[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, G7, author requested deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Target page does not talk about a spaceport. — JFG talk 16:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the relevant content was removed from the target in Special:Diff/528300089 in December 2012. Third-party coverage of the spaceport is minimal (4 hits in Google News, all from 2013). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support*** – I did not do any current research but accept JFG's research. With no current sources indicating existence of a "live" spaceport proposal/project, I agree with the OP logic of redirect deletion. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:24, 6 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.

Recent history of the District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department[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 03:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Recent" is a subjective and ambiguous adjective. Steel1943 (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not a plausible candidate for R to section. The article already covers the Department with over 90% of the article about 21st century or recent operations. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that the word "recent" is subjective and ambiguous. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:58, 8 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.

Spaceport Curaçao[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, G7, author requested deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dead project: no developments since 2010 announcement + XCOR Lynx vehicle now shelved + their own web site caribbeanspaceport.com now a domain for sale. — JFG talk 15:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support deletion*** – I did not do any current research but accept JFG's research. With no current sources indicating existence of a "live" spaceport proposal/project, I agree with the OP logic of redirect deletion, especially based on no current project of Lynx spaceplane, after years of development effort. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:26, 6 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.

कल्की केकलां[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. Discussion over inclusion of scripts should be done on the talk page of the target article.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. Redirect from Hindi language, but the Hindi doesn't appear in the article, nor do I fathom why someone would search in Hindi on en-wiki and not on the Hindi wiki. There are 510000 GHits for her name in English, even in Indian sources. MSJapan (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as creator, she's a Bollywood actress, Hindi is the language she speaks in her films. Siuenti (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RFOREIGN, has affinity for the Hindi language via her work in Bollywood films. -- Tavix (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she does Hindi cinema work so I think it's proper to use that search term --Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is her Hindi name not listed in the article then? You have to keep that in there so that the redirect makes sense. Otherwise there is no value in retaining this when it is not an identifying name for her primary career. Otherwise remove the redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can we add it to other parts of the article aside from the lede then? --Lenticel (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it to the infobox under "other names", I didn't want to call it a "native name" as she's not a native speaker of Hindi. Siuenti (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some kind of equivalent of {{Infobox Korean name}} that can be added there as with Psy? That would help the other_names issue. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also the Wikiproject needs to decide whether Hindi redirects should be created in general. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For example, today's FA Sonam_Kapoor has no Hindi whatsoever in the article, only in the wikidata links. MSJapan (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've also notified the Wikiproject on their talkpage- I've seen XfDs in the past (after the fact) where procedures set up in my main WP have been changed/reversed in discussions without input from (or notification to) anyone in the project, and I think we need that input here. We may be doing something by trying to keep this that we shouldn't be for a reason of which we aren't aware. MSJapan (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the Hindi form of her name is relevant. Now, if the India wikiproject eventually winds up being as averse to Indic-scripts redirects as it is to Indic scripts in the lead, and if they come with a policy against such redirects, then deletion will probably have to be applied to all of them (including the two hundred or so Hindi ones). This will be a decision that's independent of this discussion here, and well beyond its lifespan. Uanfala (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this name has been removed from the target. Pinging the removing editor User:The Masked Man of Mega Might to get his opinion on this RFD. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:07, 12 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.

List of swing bridges[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. This was not a list that was redirected, but rather a redirect created as "List of swing bridges." There is already an article called swing bridge and this adds nothing but an added level of complexity to searching for the topic. MSJapan (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as creator. If you are looking for a list of swing bridges this takes you directly to one. Siuenti (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - which you can also find by going to the article in the first place; as I said, "unnecessary complexity in search". MSJapan (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So people looking for a list of X should always go first to article X and scroll down to see if it has a list in it? Siuenti (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems reasonable. It can always be split out later if someone would like to develop a full article. shoy (reactions) 16:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - It's already in the main article in its entirety - why would we fork the content? MSJapan (talk) 20:24, 9 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.

List of American singers[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) 13:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Not mentioned in article. SSTflyer 14:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This redirect formerly targeted Category:American singers, which was the redirect's target during the previous RfD nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Category:American singers. This target was what the redirect targeted prior to it being retargeted in 2012. This seemed to happen with several redirects referenced in the aforementioned RFD discussion in 2010. I'm "weak" because I'm not a fan of WP:XNRs, but this target is better than the current one. Steel1943 (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm more strongly against XNR - if I want a list, I want a list, not a cat, not an article, and not an article subsection. If I wanted to search for "American singer", I would search for it (and probably get the cat as a search result). If we don't have it, we shouldn't have it as a search term. I'm starting to feel that we are trying to do everything for everyone by retargeting any potential usage of a word or title to something, when it's not really going to improve the utility of the encyclopedia. Some things need to stay, but some really do need to go. MSJapan (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MSJapan. Also note no List of American bands. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:17, 9 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.

Shawn Kurulak[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 07:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pointless redirect Joeykai (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Well it is pointless, but the more nuanced reasoning would be WP:XY. No one searching for that name would expect to go to a single hockey tournament he played in versus any of a number of team pages for teams he was on. And there is no actual data on that page that is really about him. -DJSasso (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'd agree with XY. While he meets no notability standards, I'd imagine it would be far more likely (to the degree that anything-greater-than-zero is "more likely" than "not a chance in hell") for someone using the search term based around his four years playing for the University of Denver, or him having been an assistant coach at Army, or the successful RPI collegiate program, etc. Ravenswing 13:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per a previous discussion (or multiple discussions) we had about redirects from obscure minor league players created by the creator of this redirect who was creating them to camp on page creations, and is now was banned for six months (which has now expired) from doing so. This one was created prior to the ban, however. See the ANI discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:13, 10 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.

Tumbly[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 03:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix) Ha, I thought this was going to be an adverb form of tumble. It's still a WP:PTM for the target article, and there's one other article that uses the word(?): Winnie the Pooh's Rumbly Tumbly Adventure. I think search results might be better here. -- Tavix (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't find a good match for this term. Most hits, even in Google, would be partial title matches --Lenticel (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notable person who goes exclusively by this name. Could psych out someone typing in a search for tumblr. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:19, 9 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.

Misoneism[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. Deryck C. 17:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"the hatred of change" isn't exclusive to Luddites. Not mentioned at the target. Similar to neophobia perhaps?—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm not sure that there is a proper target for this that wouldn't be a WP:SURPRISE of some strong fashion. Seems best to just delete it. I wouldn't object to a soft retarget over to the Wiktionary page, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered whether this term had any particular legs in terms of usage by reliable sources, but there seems to be some reasonable enough mentioning of the term in print. Even if I guess I'm still down for deleting this, going over to Wiktionary does seem to also make sense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Neophobia and mention there. If these aren't synonyms, they're still quite close. --BDD (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The problem is that this is an English word derived from relatively modern Italian (see Cesare Lombroso). There's very little usage other than in dictionaries, and the citation for Pynchon in Wiktionary pretty much makes this a WP:NEOLOGISM (and references Lombroso anyway). Every GHit is a WP:DICDEF, so we don't need to keep it either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSJapan (talk • contribs) 20:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mind deletion. This seems rather obscure. --BDD (talk) 12:56, 13 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.

Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2016[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 03:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is a misleading use of presidential campaign articles. Romney announced well before they began that he would not run in 2016, thus he was never actually a candidate and so never really had a campaign. 173.3.77.136 (talk) 00:07, 6 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_6&oldid=1088109222"