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 there's clear consensus to delete these, but a few people had some significant concerns so I'm going to be careful with what I delete. Specifically:
Any links that may still exist will be fixed (see StAnselm's comment).
Any redirects whose corresponding corrected title should be created will instead be moved without leaving a redirect (see Uanfala's comment).
Any redirects with significant usage from the page view tool will be relisted for further assessment.
This may take some time as I'm going to do this manually, so please be patient. --Tavix(talk) 01:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects with incorrect titles, having spaces before closing parentheses and/or after the opening parentheses, some of them containing, in addition, other mistakes. No need to keep them, just pollutes the main namespace. --XXN, 22:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:COSTLY, but add rfd tags to all of the redirects listed first. Pppery 14:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged. --XXN, 15:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as housekeeping. I understand how these happened, as I'm technically the nominal "creator" of a few of them — in every case, because I moved an article from an incorrectly formatted title to a proper one. There's little substantive navigational need to keep any of them, however. Bearcat (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like I created at least one from moving, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all At least one of them is mine too, but all superfluous to requirements. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all' per the other people who created these by moving something to the correct title; these are entirely unnecessary at this point. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 12:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on there Of course, we don't need redirects with implausible punctuation oddities but as most of these redirects are probably typos (the editor who created them made a typo while typing the name), they strongly suggest that a redirect might be needed at the corresponding corrected title. For example, there's Ajoba ( film), but there isn't Ajoba (film) and that would need to be created. – Uanfala (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Deletion is not at all necessary. The thing is, who is going to fix all the redlinks that will be created? Does anyone know how many incoming article links there are to the redirects listed here? For example, Lapidarium ( Kerch ) is linked from Lapidarium. There could be hundreds of redlinks to fix. Unless we have a bot that can do this, we should keep the redirects. StAnselm (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Redirects are cheap. So cheap that it is rarely worth the effort to properly consider deleting them. Many of these particular redirects are from page moves - those redirect are useful even if the only person who uses them is the newbie who finds where we've moved their article. ϢereSpielChequers 09:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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. --Tavix(talk) 01:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of this abbreviation in the article - it appears that it was an old redirect to an article about the song Yeh Hum Aa Gaye Hain Kahan, but it didn't even appear in the final version of that article before the article was turned into a redirect (this version). PamD 21:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no mention of how that song has a common acronym in the article or whether it is even a notable charted song, only that it was a deleted song on one of the home media versions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 04:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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, but retarget to Marital status nonetheless. A plain "no consensus" result (i.e., no change) would please no one. And currently, Marital status does touch on the idea of "never married", as opposed to just not being currently married; perhaps there will someday be more to say on the subject. --BDD (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect is too narrow. There could be a vast number of reasons for not getting married which do not involve criticism of marriage, among them: premature death or never finding a partner. ☾Loriendrew☽☏(ring-ring) 21:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This redirect doesn't make any sense. Yintan 10:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. This isn't appropriate, and we should get rid of it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AngusWOOF, perfectly valid search term, and that is the correct target. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AngusWOOF. Nice find. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Unmarried is a term. Never married is simply two words put together, and unless a specific affinity can be shown, I'm not convinced this should be retained. Otherwise a whole slew of redirects e.g. not married could be created, and I don't think that's a good precedent to set. The retarget suggested above is much more appropriate than the current target. Are bachelors and bachelorettes exclusively are "never married"? I found this paper, which addresses that question, interesting. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Unmarried" is a marital status, "never married" is not. I don't think there's a good target for this redirect. --Tavix(talk) 01:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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. --Tavix(talk) 01:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely search term, implying a group name, when in fact the phrase is unattested outside of Wikipedia mirrors. And neither awareness nor acceptance are discussed at the target article. BDD (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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. --Tavix(talk) 01:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what these are supposed to mean. Nonexistent section. --BDD (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Emosexuality" is a joke term that gets used in terms of the musical genre and the related subculture. "Autosecret" appears to be just made up. Both should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
Pointless redirect, Some SPA has created this and has tried linking it everywhere, "YouPornGay" isn't mentioned anywhere at Youporn so the redirect is useless, I know redirects are cheap but IMHO this has no value at all, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no value to the reader and most likely created for promotional purposes. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
youporngay.com is mentioned on youporn.com in the text "If you were looking for gay porn, click here" at the footer. Also, YouPornGay is listed in the Porhhub NETWORK menu bar under Gay Porn. --Msrainbow (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me you're trolling ? ... No one can be this stupid surely ? ...., If you're not trolling then no whatever crap they display on their footer has no relevance here at all. –Davey2010Talk 01:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This doesn't contribute anything meaningful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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. --Tavix(talk) 01:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Often used in context of Clinton's remarks and the Trump campaign, would prefer to make this a disambiguation page. MB298 (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whatever conceptual article that we'd build would just be a dictionary definition with a bunch of trimmings added. I'd rather we just trash this redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the above editor, and would also add that this is likely to attract unwanted content if it's made into a disambiguation page. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 6:02 pm, Today (UTC−7)
Delete per CoffeeWithMarkets. It's a catchphrase for the campaign but difficult to find articles that discuss the nuances of the defintion of the word itself. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Soft Retarget to wiktionary entry at best. I'm also okay with a delete per abovementioned reasons --Lenticel(talk) 04:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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. --BDD (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom. I don't have any knowledge about this subject, but a quick review of relevant sources seems to suggest that Charles Watson-Wentworth is the primary "Lord Rockingham" (see, e.g. this book). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. THe first thing that sprang to my mind actually was Lord Rockingham's XI, but perhaps that's just me. Si Trew (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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. --Tavix(talk) 01:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
No particular connection to Vietnam. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not even mentioned in Brazil or Portgual article. It'd be different for French Vietnam. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Vietnamese term for Portugal; I could see situations in which the word could be used (e.g. Vietnamese person who doesn't know the English word "Portugal" typing this in the search box). MB298 (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTDIC, not a translation dictionary, not at target thus WP:RFD#D2 confusing. No affinity to Vietnamese language. I find it unlikely that a Vietnamese person who doesn't know the English word "Portugal" would want to find an English-language article about Portugal; they would more like search for vi:Bồ Đào Nha over at the Vietnamese Wikipedia. Similarly, the Vietnames article does not say what it is called in English, but it says what it is called in Portuguese (er, "Portugal") first words of lede), which happens to be the same thing: and the IW links usually provide a good clue of what something is called in another language. We should credit our readers with some competence. No internal links, and page stats are well below bot noise threshhold. Si Trew (talk) 10:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete, as nominated - Nabla (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
Non-notable Unreal Tournament gaming technique. Merged at VfD back in 2005, but I suppose we had different standards back then. Adam9007 (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This looks like a non-notable bit of trivia. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An obscure neologism that is not mentioned at the target. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not mentioned in Unreal Tournament, not a sensible redirect. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 07:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
Not sure what the encyclopaedic purpose of this redirect is. I mean, who would type that in the search box? Adam9007 (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even is somebody were to type this in, we would not be helping them for we don't have this mentioned at the target. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if wikipedia isn't censored, this redirect isn't helpful. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 03:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as confusing --Lenticel(talk) 04:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
