Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 16, 2016.

Adumbration[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 30#Adumbration

Meghan Trainor filmography[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) 21:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No such list exists at the target. Readers looking for films which Meghan Trainor are going to find no information due to the lack of any information about the subject of the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete she also doesn't have any filmography credits (that I know of) to begin with, so implausible redirect Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:07, 18 March 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.

Romancing[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 Romance. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 00:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Return the redirect to point back to romance, not onwards another redirect to an obscure song mentioned on an EP. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:21, 16 March 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.

Sweet, Sweet Pie[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. (This should've been nominated two days earlier!) --BDD (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same rationale as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 16#Redirects to Meghan Trainor - unnotable song redirects but apparently, these redirects' titles are misspelled. Apparently, these titles represent a song by the name "Sweet, Sweetie Pie" on I'll Sing With You, but are obviously erroneous names. For these two, I recommend they be deleted without any retargeting alternative. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom In ictu oculi (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Totally implausible redirects, no other suitable targets. sst✈ 01:52, 18 March 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.

Redirects to Meghan Trainor - unnotable song redirects[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 Redirect to Meghan Trainor discography#Independent albums, with no prejudice against individual renomination or disambiguation if ambiguity can be demonstrated in any of the titles. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These {{R from song}} redirects are several titles of songs in WP:GNG/WP:NALBUMS-failing Meghan Trainor albums I'll Sing With You and Only 17. These songs are briefly named at Meghan Trainor discography#Independent albums, but they are only listed there as names of songs on the notability-failing albums. (These redirects are not mentioned at all in the Meghan Trainor article.) With that being said, I believe these should be deleted since confusion could exist that these songs redirect to a list of albums where their albums do not even have articles, or otherwise, weak retarget to Meghan Trainor discography#Independent albums. Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 16 March 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.

Singer Girl[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 30#Singer Girl

Juez judy[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) 21:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Judge Judy has no affinity for the Spanish language. -- Tavix (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The more appropriate action to help our Spanish-speaking users would be to create Judge Judy on the Spanish Wikipedia so that Spanish-speaking readers will have a full article to read in their language. Having this redirect on the English Wikipedia is misleading because it also sets the expectation that the English article is in Spanish on the English Wikipedia, which it is not. Steel1943 (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Now that it is created, there is no reason to delete it. Some people who speak Spanish can also speak enough English to get from the article the information that they need. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your statement is akin to assuming that all those fluent in Spanish also know English, which is far from true. Those Spanish speakers/readers who do not know English could look up this term and then arrive at the English Wikipedia to an article they are not able to read. (This is part of the basis of why WP:RFOREIGN exists: To promote the creation of articles in a reader's native language.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that supposed to be a convincing argument? Steel1943 rewrote the entire relevant part from the essay in a fairly sensible way, and you did not address that. "Just an essay" is an argument against using essays to supersede policy or using them as authority in the absence of policy, it does not mean "arguments based on essays are automatically worthless". Tigraan (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:RFOREIGN redirect in a language with which the subject has no affinity. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borrar (which is Español for delete) as this is the English Wikipedia. I would encourage a juez judy redirect on the spanish version. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BTW, shouldn't that be Jueza? --Lenticel (talk) 03:53, 18 March 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.

Aaj Shahzaib Khanzada Kay Sath (Official Page)[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 JohnCD per criterion G8 since its target page was deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading - no WP page is an "official page". PamD 18:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, it shows the user's purpose: he wants to create an official page for this individual on WP. The redirect target is up for speedy; hopefully that will take care of it. ubiquity (talk) 20:47, 16 March 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.

Compositorial[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 restored article. Since the merged content was removed from Composite number, the preferable action to declare the content in Compositorial unnecessary would be to nominate it for deletion as an article. That can be accomplished at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. For this reason, I believe that this speedy close is warranted. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The merge was completed as suggested by Kvng, but David Eppstein removed the section completely from the target article. 63.251.215.25 (talk) 17:43, 16 March 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.

Azadliq Statue[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) 21:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. The Statue of Liberty has no affinity with the German or Azerbaijani languages. -- Tavix (talk) 16:47, 16 March 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.

-cest[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) 21:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the validity of this redirect. I think I understand what the creator is doing, but I do not think it's encyclopedic-worthy of a redirect. Izno (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since this suffix doesn't directly represent the redirect's target ... that is, if it is even a real suffix used in the English language. I'm not finding any proof that this is even a suffix. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom In ictu oculi (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete other -cest topics are not covered at the target -- 70.51.46.39 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see a reason to think this is a valid suffix in the first place, let alone one with a solid meaning in all cases. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:12, 18 March 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.

Airbus Japan[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) 21:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article. sst✈ 09:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also exists, will be mentioned http://www.airbusjapan.com/contact-jp/ WhisperToMe (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's now mention of Airbus Japan at the target article. Is it enough?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:47, 16 March 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.

Billboard Korea[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 as there is little desire to keep the redirect and there is no consensus on an alternative target. Deryck C. 08:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article. Also per precedents at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 29#Airfrance.ae. sst✈ 04:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or redirect to Billboard K-Town. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:XY. Both of the alternatives proposed here look more like subtopics. --BDD (talk) 21:19, 30 March 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.

Billboard.biz[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. –Davey2010Talk 12:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article. Also per precedents at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 29#Airfrance.ae. sst✈ 04:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It was one of Billboard's official websites. It is linked from many articles because it was where you could search through many charts that weren't available on the main website (notable, the Japanese ones). Now the address redirects to http://www.billboard.com/biz. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most obvious target if someone happens to search for it by URL. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:24, 16 March 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.

Title (album)[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. The discussion below has shown that a reader searching for this title could reasonably be looking for either "title as applied to album", or "a specific album named 'title'", with an opinion split of Title (publishing) (1 !v) vs Title (Meghan Trainor album) (2 !v) vs Title (disambiguation) (3 !v). As closing admin I read this as strong evidence of title ambiguity, hence the existing target to a disambiguation page containing both possible meanings (among other things) is the appropriate redirect target per policy. Deryck C. 08:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Talk:Title (Meghan Trainor album)#Requested move, should this be retargeted to Title (publishing)? sst✈ 11:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Title (Meghan Trainor album) over the redirect, as primary topic and the only notable album named Title. A hatnote would still be appropriate. The more pertinent Album title already redirects to Title (publishing). --BDD (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose "Meghan Trainor" the topic of "title" in relation to the topic area of "album" is the title of an album (ie. album title) which is not a Meghan Trainor album, but the title of any album. In addition to that, there is legal title to an album (ie. ownership). This alternate proposal would use ambiguous disambiguation for the Trainor album making it a failure of WP:PRECISE; and as pointed out above, there's multiple albums named "Title" as well -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given the possible ambiguity, the current setup make sense. Also, moving Title (Meghan Trainor album) to Title (album) is problematic for two reasons: 1) The subject of the title of an album is explained at Title (publishing), so moving an article of an album with the name "Title" is the equivalent of expecting all readers to have an native understanding of Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and 2) "Title (album)" could also refer to Title (EP), a separate article from the Meghan Trainor album article (and even more confusing is that the EP is also a Meghan Trainor subject.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Title (Meghan Trainor album) and then rename that article to "Title (album)"; as BDD notes, it is the only notable album named "Title" and therefore the obvious primary topic, plus "Album title" redirects to "Title (Publishing)". Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:14, 21 March 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.

Parent, Ontario[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 5#Parent, Ontario

Statute of Liberty[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 Geoffrey Robertson. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A statue is not a statute. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also okay with NCFF's suggestion. -- Tavix (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable idea, definitely preferable to a keep.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or disambiguate it is a typo, and a likely one. However, other uses (ie. actual statutes) can turn this into a disambiguation page with a see also to Lady Liberty NYC -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per NCFF. Good catch! Tigraan (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per NCFF. --Lenticel (talk) 03:54, 18 March 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.

GradeAUnderA[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) 19:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not included in List of YouTubers, hence there isn't any information about the subject there. A local search yielded no results on the subject either. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not mentioned in article, readers looking for the topic would find nothing at the target. sst✈ 11:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom In ictu oculi (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect — I added him to the list alongside a source. Should be fine to redirect it now. Aria1561 (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per the talk page, the list is only for notable YouTubers, so the list should only include those who have articles. If GradeAUnderA is notable, there should be an article created on the subject (so delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation). If GradeAUnderA is not notable, they shouldn't be included in the list, so a redirect targeting there would not be helpful. I will also note that an article can be created at any time, so if Aria1561 or someone else wants to create an article, they can do so at any time and put this discussion to rest. -- Tavix (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Tavix. Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 20 March 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.

Bigy[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) 19:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could equally refer to Big Y (https://www.bigy.com) along with a few other things from a quick search. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:32, 16 March 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.

Russian propaganda[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 Reverted by someone else. [Additional comments.] –Davey2010Talk 12:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirects combining with mendacious interwiki from the Ukrainian segment. I propose deleting them В.Галушко (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep plausible search term. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure how this is mandacious; it looks like a valid search term to me. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful, can't see how this is problematic. sst✈ 12:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible variant --Lenticel (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I closed this, but undid it as I'd like for this discussion to stay open another week. At first glance, it's an obvious keep, but the target in the nomination was incorrect. It's not targeting "Propaganda in Russia" but actually pointing to "Propaganda#Russia," and that section doesn't currently exist. In fact there's zero information about modern Russia in the prose of the article. Because of this, I don't think it'd be helpful to keep it like it is. There's a few things we can do to mitigate that problem. The first option is to restore the previous article that existed at this title and clean it up. I'm assuming the former article is the "mendacious" thing the nom is referring to, but I think there's enough there to have a start-class article once the POV is removed/cleaned-up, but I'm not entirely sure. Another option is to retarget to Propaganda in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was fairly commonly referred to as "Russia" in a colloquial sense, so it's not completely crazy of an idea, especially with how detailed that article is. Lastly, of course, is a WP:REDLINK deletion to encourage a proper article to develop. Thoughts? -- Tavix (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 04:30, 16 March 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.

Polish electios[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) 19:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polish elections is reasonable, "Polish electios" isn't, assuming "electios" is not polish for "election". —Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If this was plausible, I would image that you'd find usage of it somewhere in the "wild." A Google search for "Polish electios" turned up exactly one result: this redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep {{R from typo}} typo by omission of a single letter, "n" -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just stops autocomplete working properly. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom In ictu oculi (talk) 21:28, 16 March 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.

Neurodiversiry and Panrthera[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 delere. --BDD (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 3#Mexicp. Qwerty keyboard location typos based on the letter "r" being directly to the left of the letter "t" (at least the first one). —Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:22, 16 March 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.

Rock Obama[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, but big thanks to Tavix for making me aware of The Rock Obama. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 3#Back Obama. Implausible. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:15, 16 March 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.

Tamagotchi Secret Characters[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. czar 20:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the word "secret" being vague, no such information exists at the target. Steel1943 (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd say the fact that the information in the redirect's title is not present in its target article is quite harmful since it misleads readers into thinking they will find information about this subject at the target article. Being old doesn't cancel out a redirect's misleading nature. Steel1943 (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading. Despite what the redirect says, you won't find any information on "secret characters" at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom , misleading In ictu oculi (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What secrets? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This seems to be better off covered by its dedicated wikia --Lenticel (talk) 03:58, 18 March 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_March_16&oldid=1138581124"