Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 23, 2016.

Protein misfolders[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 2#Protein misfolders

Incorrectly folded proteins[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 (non-admin closure) Pppery 16:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect). Not marked as {{R to section}} but that's trivial, Delete all I just can't see that anyone, even a biochemist, would search for "incorrect protein folding". Several others like this but I am told off for listing too many at RfD. Si Trew (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep... ish: these are phrases I would search for and I'm not a biochemist (nor do I have a mad cow disease). Uanfala (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see now that these have all received effectively zero pageviews per day, so maybe I am the only who finds them useful (or, alternatively, I have the mad cow disease). Uanfala (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Incorrectly folded protein" and its plural form since I've seen that exact wording used by reliable sources (such as here), while I would scratch the other one. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Plausible searches since they're used in academic literature. "Incorrect folded protein" gets 146 Google Books hits, so I would keep that as well unlike CWM above. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:25, 27 September 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.

Sworn[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 Oath.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix redirect) The lede (first sentence) says that this organisation was formed by people including Helen Sworn, which as you see we do not have but is referenced at the target. If we don't have Helen Sworn, I swear we should not have Sworn poointing to this, it is just WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Si Trew (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shouldn't this redirect to Swear? Although the most likely intended meaning would be that at oath. Uanfala (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to oath, per Uanfala; it's more helpful than targeting to Swear, and it makes much more sense than going to this organisation. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to oath, per Uanfala. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as above. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:59, 26 September 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.

CameGube[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 14:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to see how this is a useful redirect. The1337gamer (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep unless someone can show that this is causing problems somehow. It's probably for a visual error, for those who misread the "G" as a "C", in the mode of Kim Jong Il being misread as Kim Jong II. Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete visual error is more for the Kim Jong Il case since he's a political leader, and many leader names have successors. But CameCube isn't strongly confused for that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, it's a typo of only one letter.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AngusWOOF & as WP:R#D8 obscure. Whether you want to call CameGube a "typo of one letter" or a "typo of two letters", intuitively readers are unlikely to accidentally switch two letters that far away from each other in a word. The stats back that up: no usage in the past 90 days except for on the day of this RfD. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an implausible typo per WP:R#D8. The word "Game" is central to the function of the product and is unlikely to be confused with renderings using similar letters. It's the equivalent of a redirect for "Crowth medium" ("Growth medium"). -Thibbs (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible misspelling per above. Also sounds like a bad pun --Lenticel (talk) 23:39, 27 September 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.

Living the Game[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 03:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be related to target article. The1337gamer (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The exact words "Living the Game" was a well-known commercial slogan related to Friendster, and it's there in the article's info-box. I'm not totally sure if this means that we should redirect over there, though. I suppose it's like having "Stronger Than Dirt" go to Ajax, which we don't do. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commemt - The only Living the Game I see for Wii is a bundle pack called Living the Game with Wii and Activision. However, I don't think that is the right target. I also don't see a game called Living for the Wii either. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the term is not mentioned at the current target. I am also pinging Scepia, who turned this into a redirect. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. If this is indeed a notable bundle pack then this might be better off targetted to somewhere with more appropriate content. --Lenticel (talk) 23:40, 27 September 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.

Race for first![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 14:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a generic phrase that is not closely related to target article. The1337gamer (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It looks like this generic combination of words has a lot of meanings in a lot of different contexts. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not discussed at current target, and I can't think of any other appropriate target for this term. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable catchphrase for this particular title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 23:40, 27 September 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.

Debits and credits (disambiguation)[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 14:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cuchullain redirected this dab page to its current target with the correct observation that only one of the listed entries is actually titled "Debits and Credits". However, the resulting redirect suffers from WP:XY: it could just as well refer to Credit. Debits and Credits (book) is properly handled already with a hatnote and parenthetical disambiguation, so I propose this redirect be deleted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. Oh, and I created it! How about that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All those observations make sense. The dab page can be recreated if another topic named "debits and credits" comes along.--Cúchullain t/c 13:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:29, 26 September 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.

Pat Duke[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Duke is a man with a number of voice acting and narration roles. He had a minor voice acting role in Halo: Reach. I don't think this redirect is useful as neither Pat Duke, nor the character he voices are mentioned in the article. The1337gamer (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page 169 of Call Me Anna: The Autobiography of Patty Duke, it seems like Patty Duke says that she was explicitly not called "Pat Duke". Nonetheless it might still be an appropriate redirect to Patty. --Prisencolin (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I disagree with the idea of bringing this over to Patty Duke. She's not commonly known (or even uncommonly known) by that name at all. I'd rather us just get rid of this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. If the voice actor is deemed notable in the future then having a red-link might be better than having this redirect around --Lenticel (talk) 23:42, 27 September 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.

New Halo Project[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currently redirects to Halo 3: ODST, a game released 7 years ago. The game is no longer new so this redirect is no longer accurate. The1337gamer (talk) 12:44, 23 September 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.

Bishop Paul Ing SJ[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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirects) Delete all. WP:TITLE forbids having honorifics like "SJ" and "Bishop" in their titles, but to make avery possible variation is nonsense, these do not help a search, and the fact that "Ing" actually is the European designation for an incorporated engineer is WP:RFD#D2 confusing that "Ing" is part of this person's name, sometimes it is, sometimes it's not, because of all the other qualificaions around it (Bishop, S.J. and so on). He is not an incorporated engineer but "Ing" seems to be part of his name. The target is bloody dubious to start with and has been marked as such (not by me). Just cut this crap. Si Trew (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Oh dear we have stacks of these with titles in them. Si Trew (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Too much redirect for a person. Don't really think someone could click of one of the redirects. NgYShung huh? 09:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I striked my vote for now per User:Prisencolin. NgYShung huh? 13:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Typing Bishop Paul Tan Chee Ing is good enough to get to the person's article. The person has a ton of pre and post scripts, and it would be ridiculous to retain combinations and variants of each of these. Other Wikipedia articles that refer to this one would not list S.J. all the time. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, his email at the diocese is Bishop Paul Tan and he goes by Bishop Emeritus Paul Tan. [1] When he writes articles, he adds a bunch of honorifics as Rt. Rev. Paul Tan Chee Ing, S.J [2]. So his common name would be Bishop Paul Tan. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, WP:CHEAP and there is still a plausible chance someone may type one of these in, and it appears that none of these are technically incorrect. As with the other RfC for this guy, WP:TITLE doesn't apply to redirects.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Prisencolin. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all This is seriously unnecessary. I also don't see the redirects being used. A much better solution is to simply mention the alternative name on the main article. Most people search the Wikipedia page on a search engine, instead of directly tying the Wikipedia URL itself. Search engines are sufficiently advanced enough to parse the main article and figure out the alternative name. More importantly, redirects are WP:COSTLY as every extra redirect increases the maintenance workload of volunteers due to a potential chance at vandalism. This is simply not worth the trouble. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Lemongirl942. The postnominals mean they are essentially useless for search reasons and unintuitive for URL navigation. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:31, 30 September 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.

Unnatural selecter[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 - all speedy-deleted WP:CSD#X1 by Tavix. JohnCD (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirects) Delete all: These are rather WP:POV that breeding animals is somehow "unnatural" even though Man has been doing it for quite a while, at least seven thousand years. The target Breeder is not particularly neutral either, but that's something to be discussed at the target; the redirects are very much POV with "artificial", "unnatural" and so forth.

I have a great entomological collection of insects in my house because I seem to be good at good at breeding maggots and ants and moths and spiders, I don't interfere with them but they seem just to spontaneously appear in my house. We rub along together quire fine.

I remember the slogan by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, against Nuclear power stations (which had little to do with nuclear weapons anyway, but they got a bit carried away), "The only safe fast breeder is a rabbit". As it stands these are nonsense because they are not artificial unless you want to define what "artificial" is, in that case roads, buses, grass, houses are artificial, and people born by artificial insemination are from conception artificial people? Grass, or rather wheat and barley and stuff like that, only exists because Man looks after it, well it is hardy stuff but for cultivation it would not exist if Me and the Farmer did not look after it. Si Trew (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - While most of these appear to be typical Neelix made-up terms, the artificial breeder and artificial breeders labels, while indeed examples of loaded language, come up in reliable sources. An example is this publication from Cambridge, which states: "[W]hy do females have these preferences for extreme and sometimes maladaptive traits in males? Darwin's response was that female animals had an aesthetic sense similar to that of the artificial breeder." CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:35, 24 September 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.

Ha Melekh[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 all speedy-deleted WP:CSD#X1 by Tavix. JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirects) I see no evidence at the target that these are, I presume, Yiddish or Semitic words for "King" or "Ruler or "Monarch", in the Jewish tradition. I can find no mention of any at the target, thus WP:RFD#D2 confusing. And WP:NOTDIC and not a translation dictionary. I will probably be banned a as a jew-basher or something, now. It would be nice if the target had an etymology on the word "Monarch" which I imagine does come via this way (well it comes from from Ancient Greek mono 'single', and Ancient Greek arch 'ruler'), but not all seven of them, and it does not have an etymology. No mention of any in the article. Si Trew (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can just see ahead I will be accused of antisemitism or something. It is not about that. It is about whether these make the encylopaedia better or worse. I have no idea if Neelix is presbytarian, Jewish, a fundamentalist islamist or an atheist – well I do from the conversations over Neelix directs know I think he is rather a devout Christian, not proper Christian C of E but some kind of Christian, and God forgive him his sins, and we can make amends. He would not make these to piss off any other faith; it just happens they are wrong. Si Trew (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all; we're not a translation dictionary. Si Trew, for your reference, "ha" is the definite article, i.e. "Ha-Mashiach" is "The Messiah", the specific person occupying this status, not merely the status itself. And "melekh" is Hebrew "מלך", i.e. "king"; see Ebed-Melech. Nyttend (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would expect these to redirect to something like Kingship in ancient Israel (in the same vein as Germanic kingship), but that doesn't exist (and that's surprising, given the sheer amount of literature published on the topic). Uanfala (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting point; thank you, Uanfala. Unfortunately, there's no single article about the subject under any other title I can find, as Kingdom of Israel discusses the united kingdom and all related articles discuss individual other periods in Israel's history, with nothing discussing the kings in general. Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 25 September 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.

Brush-tailed rat (octodontid)[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 14:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure. Neelix creation and not at target but there are plenty of other Brush-tailed rats around, and this really is a job for the experts at WP:WikiProject Biology or something to work out whether this is valid. THe disambiguator to me is a bit fishy or rather somewhat ratty and in fact I should think hinders a search as it did mine for other species whose WP:COMMONNAME is the brush-tailed rat. Not sure where the "octodontid" came from, presumably it has eight teeth, but no kinda reasonably explanation at the target for an eight-toothed brush-tailed rat. Si Trew (talk) Si Trew (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Implausible search term. "Octodontid" is technical jargony shorthand for the family this species belongs to (Octodontidae); the current target of "brush-tailed rat" could be called "brush-tailed rat (echimyid)". But nobody is going to use a search term that's a hybrid of a common name and the scientific name of the family; anybody who knows what an octodontid or echimyid is will likely be searching for a scientific name in the first place, and for the majority of people with no idea what an octodontid is, the disambiguatory term isn't helpful. Better to turn "brush-tailed rat" into a disambiguation page and link the scientific names (with enough description to help people find which brush-tailed rat they are interested in). I get twice as many Google hits for "Octodon+brush-tailed rat" as I do for "Isothrix+brush-tailed rat", which seems to be influenced by Octodon showing up in the pet trade; I don't see that Isothrix is ever sold as a pet, and it really doesn't seem to have a good claim for being the primary topic of "brush-tailed rat". Plantdrew (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Plantdrew:, always the expert in matters taxonomical. I did try to search etc but this kinda blocked it. You can count me in the majority who had no idea what an octodontid was, I merely translated it from the Greek as eight teeth. Delete, then. Si Trew (talk) 20:01, 23 September 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.

Dewu[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 Keep. Nomination Withdrawn Lenticel (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) Just another random collection of vocables. Not at target, checked. WP:RFD#D2 under Neelix concession. Si Trew (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (it's mentioned at target: dewü) and tag with {{R from alternative language|arn}}. Uanfala (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, speedily withdrawn by nom and I will tag it if User:Uanfala has not done so already. Si Trew (talk) 20:06, 23 September 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.

Dagu language[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/withdrawn.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect). I've been told taht everyone in Sudan speaks dago language, but they don't speak Dagu language. The target does not say that they do, so this is a kinda queer back-formation. Speedily delete, WP:RFD#D2 not at target. Si Trew (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • How about a speedy keep as it is (and has been for years) listed in the first sentence of the target. Sidenote: sometimes I do come across redirects for alt. language names that aren't mentioned in the target articles, sometimes I create these myself – if in doubt, always have a look at the alternative names given by ethnologue and glottolog, there are almost always links to these in the infobox. Uanfala (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm User:Uanfala you are right it is in the lede.... and I would go with you as speedy keep withdrawn by nominator on this one... but the nagging doubt is what the ISO code etc for this language is so that it can be used in infoboxes etc, I am pretty much 99% with you on a keep, but not a particularly speed keep, let me check this up. In good faith, if I have any doubt about these that is why I list them here, so am quite happy if the result is keep (I could have sent it myself to CSD with the Neelix concession) so was perhaps a bit hasty to say "speedily" delete. Si Trew (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a the List of ISO 639-1 codes for the language. This might go then as WP:RFOREIGN, or WP:MADEUP, I am not sure... just because something has been there for a while, unreferenced, does not mean it is good. The usual style is French language, English languge, Spanish language etc and the {{lang}} templates etc. rely on those in a rather back-handed way so that the infoboxes work and all kinds of other things work. This one won't work like that, it just cocks it up. Si Trew (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is listed as an alternative name by both ethnologue [3] and glottolog [4] (again, these links are very easily accessible from the infobox of any language article). Now, neither of these sources are completely free of error (there have been all sorts of cases, for example when the "alternative name" has turned out to be just the name of the village where the language is spoken), but what these sources testify to is the fact that the given name has been used, with or without good reason, as either a synonym for the language, or a variety (dialect etc.) of it. And that's all we need to keep a redirect, no? If there are doubts, of course it's always a good idea to follow through: the glottolog page for a given language usually contains quite a comprehensive bibliography of relevant sources and that's a good place to start. Uanfala (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily keep as withdrawn by nominator, me. In essence I agree with User:Uanfala (and thanks for the refs there), this is WP:NOTPERFECT but we'd be worse off without it. Si Trew (talk) 19:57, 23 September 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.

Paper Mario enemy and boss 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A list of unnotable enemies and bosses in Paper Mario that seem to not be mentioned on the article. Delete all per WP:NOTWIKIA. (Also, listed a couple of related "List of..." redirects whose information seems absent from the target article.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can weakly support the aforementioned retargeting option for Goomba King as a plausible reversal of the words, but not the "...retarget all others to respective species pages where applicable..." part since most, if not all, of the variations listed here are exclusive to the Paper Mario series and are not mentioned at the specific locations on the franchise article. Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff like retargeting "Dark Paratroopa" to Koopa Troopa where "Koopa Paratroopa"s are mentioned and "Hyper paragoomba" to Goomba where "Paragoomba"s are mentioned, seem fine. Cases where the redirect are just minor modifications of the species name (i.e. Dark Koopa, Hyper Goomba, etc.) also seem fine, as plausible search terms. Readers are better served by finding out what recurring enemy species the terms apply to then the page about the game. Just having plausible search terms as redirects doesn't seem to offend WP:GAMEGUIDE since the species in question do get encyclopedic coverage on Wikipedia. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:28, 29 September 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.

Super Mario RPG 2: The Return of the Stars[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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect's subject seems to be a fan-created game that has no connection to the target. The use of the phrase "The Return of the Stars" seems to return no search results for the Paper Mario. Steel1943 (talk) 01:57, 23 September 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 Other Power Rangers[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) 14:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what "Other" refers to. Steel1943 (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - We have clear-cut precedent to get rid of these kinds of redirects. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me where that precedent is? I am with you in principle to cut the crap etc, because that makes the search work better without needless clutter, but every redirect has to be taken case by case, with the notable exception of "Neelix redirects" which have a specific authorisation until a given time that they can be bulk listed. Which reminds me I should start on the Anomie list, probably a few left? Si Trew (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just in terms of the recent past, there were at least five redirects of this form proposed for deletion on the 15th, and all of them got trashed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, to my astonishment since I just threw that in as an example without even checking, we do have List of minor Power Rangers characters. Weak retarget to there, then. Si Trew (talk) 09:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be frank, I don't think that list article that you just mentioned would survive an AFD process. I'm not interested in nominating it myself, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I'm thinking whatever can be merged into the main character list from the minor list should be merged, and then the minor character list should be redirected. Steel1943 (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retarget to the minor PR characters list. As long as that exists, this is a good redirect there, and if that list gets deleted at AFD, this redirect will be a perfect G8 candidate. Nyttend (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have WP:BOLDly retargeted List of minor Power Rangers characters to List of Power Rangers characters. List of minor Power Rangers characters went through a couple of WP:AFD nominations 8–9 years ago, so deleting would probably not be an option. However, if all of the incoming character-based redirects to it were resolved or pointed to other more-related locations with the proper information, issues with redirects targeting that page would be resolved, so I went ahead and resolved such redirects by either retargeting them elsewhere and/or adding information to the most appropriate new target for the redirect. (For example, see Wild West Rangers, or even Alpha 6 (Power Rangers) where my resolution for that redirect was restoring the page.) With these changes, there no longer is an "Other" list to retarget the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Minor ≠ other. -- Tavix (talk) 20:27, 2 October 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 PR[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 withdrawn. Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already confused since the target article has nothing to do with Puerto Rico. Also, there doesn't seem to be any evidence in the target article that the redirect as-is is an alternate term for the target article's subject. Steel1943 (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it seems to be used as a term by certain political reform organizations like Electoral Reform Society [5], ACE Project [6], and Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance [7] . Not sure if it has caught on in mainstream media to be Wikipedia-level notable, but it also is used in a bunch of assorted books about voting: [8] [9] [10] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep as argued by AngusWOOF, and without prejudice I've marked as {{R from jargon}}. Si Trew (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as argued by AngusWOOF, but pad the redirect with enough commented characters that the proportion of total characters in the redirect may be deleted such that the proportion of delete !votes can be democratically represented. Make sure those characters get a nice pension, too. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AngusWOOF. A very established term in political science. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Awkward and confusing? Yes, I agree. Yet it's still a well-established term in political science. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:50, 24 September 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.

The Gossman Project[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, without prejudice against recreation if reliably sourced information on this is added. -- Tavix (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information regarding this subject seems absent from the target article. However, from some research, the subject of the redirect seems to have a connection to Pearl Jam, most likely some work that happened before the band officially formed. Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it looks like a demo tape. [11] But it'd be nice if one of those Pearl Jam biography books could verify the name and then it can be added to the article. The Spanish Wikipedia has an unsourced article that only lists the tracks on it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well, this is a tricky situation since the term does apply to an underground release related to the band, but it's hard to find a reliable source confirming that fact. I see brief bits of information at discogs.com and rateyourmusic.com as well as various blogs but nothing solid. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, redirects do not have to be WP:RS. Is it a likely search term? The stats are kinda what I would have said were at bot noise level, but I'm told without any evidence that the stats tool now removes bot hits so those would be real hits. Peaked at 5 on 21 July 2016, no editing activity on it then. (Thank your God, it seems someone at the stats tool has finally woken up to my grumble that not to combine the stats for a redirect with the stats for its target: they still have not got rid of those annoying "rising" bars on the barchart that are really slow on slow devices, JUST THE FACTS, MA'AM).
With all that said I will, for now, !vote reluctantly for Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, no information at target. But I have no doubt from Woof's and CWM's research this does exist, but is just a bit unencylopaedic at the moment to have it as it stands. Si Trew (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about straight up lying about bootleg / underground releases since it's a common thing that I've seen. However, it seems strongly likely that this project existed in some form... still, though, details beyond that (How many tracks were recorded? Were they any good? What were their titles? Who did the songwriting?) are unclear. It's an unhappy guessing game. I guess I have a reluctant delete vote at the end of the day as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I was hoping a book biography of the band would cover with such demo releases and early band names. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:57, 26 September 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 Pearl Jam songs covered by others[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete both.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No such information exists in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Sounds like a gateway to lots of original research and covers by non-notable bands. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. (And "covered" implies "others" anyway: what would a List of Pearl Jam songs covered by Pearl Jam be?) These redirects are the result of a merge, but that content must have been deleted from the target, because now it doesn't have anything on cover versions (unless I am my usual fumbling self and can't find it), so these are simply WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Si Trew (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This looks like an open-and-shut case. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:48, 24 September 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 Nintendo 64-exclusive titles[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete both. JohnCD (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information to help readers determine which video games on the target article are exclusive to the Nintendo 64 is not present in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 00:30, 23 September 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 SNES-exclusive titles[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete both. JohnCD (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information to help readers determine which video games on the target article are exclusive to the Super Nintendo Entertainment System is not present in the target article. (Also, a related category, Category:Super Nintendo Entertainment System-only games, exists. For the record, I oppose retargeting the nominated redirects there since they would then be WP:XNRs.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It implies there's an exclusive subsection which is not the case. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The redirects are deliberately misleading, and they should be trashed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:47, 24 September 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 SNES[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 14:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The target isn't a list of different types of Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES) but rather its games. That, and even if there is/were a list of different SNES's, the omission of the word "of" in the nominated redirect makes the redirect confusing and most likely not searched for, regardless of its target. Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - "List of _____" articles and redirects are often helpful, but this awkward "List _____" redirect isn't. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:28, 23 September 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_September_23&oldid=1088108335"