Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 1, 2018.

Coroner of Monmouth County, New Jersey[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. The consensus is delete regardless, but worth pointing out that there is some backstory here ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Not a notable topic 2. There is no discussion of the topic at the redirect target. Rusf10 (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is there in article, does not have to be notable for a redirect. --RAN (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was NOT there, you just added it now. And the two sentences you added give undue weight to a non-notable topic.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, your argument makes no sense. Please cite a Wikipedia policy page. If a person's name was mentioned, we would redirect that name to the article, "undue weight" does not apply to redirects. Undue is about having too much information in an article, and your argument for deletion is that there is too little. If you want to create an anti-undue policy, create it and I will support it. --RAN (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The redirect is a perfectly reasonable one and the associated content is in the article. I'm not sure why UNDUE would be even brought up here, but the county article is the place where countywide officials are, and should be, discussed. Alansohn (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coroners and examiners aren't on the same section level as Education or Demographics. Needs to be reorganized. This is one of those WP:BUTITEXISTS situations. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AngusWOOF and WP:COSTLY. If this redirect is kept, then there's precedence to keep other such redirects. However, maintaining such redirects can get quite WP:COSTLY in the event the position or the individual holding the position ever gets notable enough for its own article; if the position ever becomes notable enough for its own article, it's better to create such redirects then rather than beforehand. Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what's next? "Ice cream truck driver of Monmouth County, New Jersey"? Lepricavark (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2018 (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.

BestVPN[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 speedily deleted by Cyp (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) --NYKevin 17:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find a suitable redirect target for BestVPN. It isn't mentioned at its current target, Virtual private network. As of this writing, the BestVPN website is cited in four articles, but it is not defined or treated as a subtopic anywhere in the encyclopedia. Redirecting from BestVPN to Virtual private network is a bit like redirecting from CNET to Software. At present, no articles link to BestVPN. —Ringbang (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2018 (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.

? (XXXTentacion 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 Speedy closed because the AfD was opened an hour earlier. NAC. NYKevin 07:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redirect exists for no reason, album's existence is debatable. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • List the album at XXXTentacion discography, with sources, then retarget to that article. If sources do not exist, cannot be found, or the page creator fails to identify them before this discussion closes, delete as WP:CRYSTAL. --NYKevin 07:07, 2 February 2018 (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.

Cyrus Bervick Durand[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. I, like the !voters below, remain unconvinced such (soft) redirects are useful to readers. That plus related discussions plus WP:REDLINK equals delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete soft redirects to Wikidata pursuant to the outcome of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 24#W. Homer Axford for the first such page I nominated for deletion. Largoplazo (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the other deletion was a specific wikidata redirect template used as a demonstration at an open RFC. An RFC still running will determine globally how to best link to Wikidata, and these are being used in that discussion as examples. --RAN (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no indication among the delete !votes in that discussion that that particular circumstance figured into the rationale of any of the !voters. Nobody even mentioned it. Largoplazo (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment also has things backwards. The deletion discussion concluded that soft redirects to Wikidata are inappropriate. That being the case, the RFC is moot, because there is no value to a template whose purpose is to create soft redirects to Wikidata that the deletion discussion already found not to be appropriate. Largoplazo (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That will be determined at the outcome of an open RFC. If you delete the demonstration project used in an open RFC you are tainting the outcome. Is that why you are doing it? --RAN (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not at all. I'm doing it because I didn't see any merit to having soft redirects to arbitrary Wikidata records. And I'm kind of bewildered by the idea that before one submits a page for discussion, one is obliged first see whether someone has an RFC out for which that page is a demonstration. By the way, it isn't an RFC, it's a simple template discussion— at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 January 27#Template:Soft Wikidata redirect, for anyone who's interested. With five delete !votes when I found it, and no keep !votes other than yours after nearly two weeks. I hardly think this discussion is going to skew that one—which will likely be finished before this one is anyway, so any deletions carried out as a result of this discussion aren't going to have any effect on that discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per my comment in the previous discussion; WP:REDLINK is how article creation is traditionally promoted here. Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all- If only one thing is clear from the discussion, it would be that nobody (except RAN) wants these soft redirects to wikidata. If these were really created just for the purpose of a demonstration, then why not create only one of them?--Rusf10 (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are gaming the system when you delete an option in an open RFC. --RAN (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I already pointed out to you (a) that it isn't an RFC; (b) that any deletion under this discussion is going to happen after the template discussion is already over; and (c) that you have yet to have anybody !vote Keep in either the template discussion or the redirect deletion discussion before this discussion got underway. So now, when you persist in calling it an RFC, and then repeat the same debunked objection, you are being either oblivious or dishonest. It's just not credible that, after two weeks of attracting only Delete !votes, a cascade of Keep !votes is on the verge of rolling in at the Template discussion and that, if they don't, it will be the fault of this discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You already deleted W. Homer Axford, what are you talking about? We don't circumvent open RFCs, by discarding things people are openly discussing and !voting on. --RAN (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He's talking about this RFC [1], but that RFC is not dependent on the result here. Also, question for @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ):, why isn't creating all these redirects during the deletion discussion of the template gaming the system? It seems like it is to me.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, so that's the RFC. I must have typoed when searching for "wikidata" in my browser at WP:RFCA. RAN would have helped avoid confusion if he'd linked to it. But it doesn't matter anyway because that RFC is about links inside articles. This discussion is about redirects. Largoplazo (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2018 (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.

Carrot geyser[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is not mentioned at the target. In addition, third-party search engines are not providing any results for anything other than recipes using carrots. Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Sounds like WP:NEO as there are no news articles that discuss this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:30, 2 February 2018 (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.

Chrifsmas[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is not mentioned at the target. In addition, third-party search engines are not providing any results for anything other than Christmas as a misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Non-notable jargon. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I can imagine "Chriftmas" being plausible, the result of people misinterpreting a long s as an f, but replacing f with t is a good deal harder to do by accident, especially in combination with putting it in the wrong place in the word. Nyttend (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. I can't see any reason to keep this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2018 (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.

Pirates and global warming[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are misleading in their titles. The redirects target a section of Flying Spaghetti Monster in regards to global warming concepts as it relates to the perception of pirates in Pastafarian, which is not in line with the traditional definition of a pirate, making these redirects targeting where they do quite confusing. Steel1943 (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the title of the first redirect, Pirates and global warming looks to have WP:XY issues due to its formatting. Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They're targetting exactly what's advertised on the label. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: I just realized that the situation with these redirects reminds me of what happened with Other liqueurs at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 26#Other liqueurs: The redirects may just target a section header that matches its name without being itself a standalone, encyclopedic subject. This could very well be the case since the redirects were created in 2007 and 2010, respectively. (In my experiences with looking through redirects, I've noticed this happening from time-to-time with some edits done before I started actively editing in 2012, probably due to how Wikipedia standards were established at the time.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC) (Striking this out as I now see it as a distraction from the true point of this discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as discussed in article. This has some coverage from mainstream news sources [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] so those should be added to the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:38, 2 February 2018 (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.

Feesum[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. Probably should point to some investing calculator thing.. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The abbreviation for the target is "FSM", but I always m not able to find any references to the use of "Feesum" in any literature to refer to this subject. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not seen in any news articles to indicate pronunciation usage in the acronym. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 2 February 2018 (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.

Mario 1[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 8#Mario 1

User:Metiscus/Johann Gottfried Teske[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. See the note below. -- Tavix (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page in my user space but moved it to article space later. I would like the redirect out to be deleted because I don't believe there is a need to keep it. Metiscus (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Metiscus: Just to note for future reference, this is speedy deletable under both WP:G7 (since you created it) and WP:U1 (since it's in your userspace). There is no need to take redirects like these here, just tag them for speedy deletion. I'll take care of it this time. -- Tavix (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2018 (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.

Defense platform[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. Between Strategic defence, Weapons platform, and the various other uses, doesn't seem there's a good primary target (rimshot). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really vague term, that's all that needs to be said. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - From a bit of searching, besides various fictional space stations and the like I'm seeing this term being used as a synonym for 'Strategic defence'. I'm wary of us deleting a redirect if there's a close match for retargeting, but... the article that I found seems to need a lot of work. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In case anyone wants to discuss CoffeeWithMarket's comment. (no love for the platforms at La Défense Station?!)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2018 (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.

UNSC Marine Corps Troops[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could potentially be confused with United Nations Security Council troops without the added Halo disambiguation. Should just be deleted to avoid confusion. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The real world UNSC does not have troops and does not have a marine corps. The section also has a paragraph about how people in the real world have confused the two, which has links that would help anyone who is misinformed on the matter.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would think that would not be common knowledge to at least a large subset of people, making it confusing regardless of whether it exists or not.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • We shouldn't delete redirects to encyclopedic coverage of subjects merely because it can be confused with non-existent real world topics. If anything, anyone confused will actually learn something and be able correct their misconceptions. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would adding a hatnote to UMSC help here, in case someone was looking for USMC and that term popped up in their search? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hatnote with {{distinguish|United Nations peacekeeping}} or similar. --NYKevin 03:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The redirect here is pretty specific and appears worth keeping. I've no objection to adding something to the Halo-related page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2018 (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.

Species of Halo[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) feminist (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit history of this redirect says it "makes no sense" to refer to the target page, therefore it shouldn't actually exist. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as best target. Only page which breaks down all the species in Halo, and people can navigate to the main articles for each faction quite easily. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page does not "break down all the species in Halo", far from it. One would have to click through to Covenant (Halo) for most of the species, which leaves open the question of where exactly it would be a proper redirect to. Ultimately it's pointless to redirect it to anything because there is no article that describes all species in one place.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Humans and Forerunners are also species in the Halo universe, and clicking through to the Covenant page isn't difficult. This page describes all the factions with species that appear in the Halo series. Without creating an in-universe heavy page, this is the best target. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as helpful unless there's another article that talks about the different species, races, or whatever. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something should exist at this title since it is a viable search with relevant content. Keep unless someone proposes a better target. --NYKevin 03:32, 4 February 2018 (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.

Magnetic Acceleration Cannon[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 List of electromagnetic projectile devices in fiction#Halo, delete MACCannon. Those interested should participate in the AfD ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading when it could refer to the real life railgun but the name is not accurate enough to make it a redirect. The other ones are just not mentioned in the article at all.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anchor for Halo created. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:31, 2 February 2018 (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.

Blarg[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 8#Blarg

Lindsay Shepherd[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. While RfD is not the place to decide on the proper content in an article, it can (and often does) provide another angle for proper discussion. Right now, and for nearly a week, the name has not appeared in the article. There are two discussions on the target's talk page about this, but most of the feelings appear weakly-held. As the name is not there now and has not been for a while, I am deleting this. If the name reappears with consensus to remain, I will restore this. As a reminder, redirects are not articles, and WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E, and even WP:NPOV can be relaxed for useful redirects. You are all encouraged to engage with the target's talk page. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted; the subject is only notable for one incident so WP:BLP demands that we not include her name in the article and without her name this redirect makes no sense (and is itself a BLP problem). ElKevbo (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The policy only discourages mentioning a person's name which "has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed". That is obviously not the case here: in fact, the name is included in the headlines of both supporting citations. Smyth (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – WP:BLP1E suggests it is “usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.” WP:BLPNAME suggests omitting a name that has not been widely disseminated, which is not the case here. No need for us to be unnecessarily cryptic.--Trystan (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smyth's rationale. 85.94.100.119 (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments of Smyth and Trystan. Her name obviously belongs in the section discussing the incident: it has been widely reported in reliable sources, and she has spoken extensively about the incident from her own point of view. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and remove the controversy section from the university article. With everything else on the uni page, the controversy is given too much undue weight (Also keep in mind, WP:NOT#NEWS. We shouldn't be covering the controversy since it didn't seem to go anywhere, and thus the redirect is unnecessary. --Masem (t) 14:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can see a case for deleting the whole section: what I can't see is a case for keeping the section without the name. If the section is deleted then obviously the redirect goes with it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that yes, if the section is deemed appropriate, the name seems reasonable to both mention and keeping the redirect. But considering NOT#NEWS and the caution of BLP, I strongly recommend that the section can be stripped out of the article without any loss of encyclopedic content, making the discussion moot. --Masem (t) 19:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Masem. The redirect is appropriate for the current version of the page, but news reports are primary sources for historical events, making this whole section inappropriate: wait until this gets covered in reliable secondary sources, like a history of the university coming from a university press. Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being a direct violation of BLP1E, and a violation of common sense as well. The person does not merit any Wikipedia article title or redirect at this point, the redirect may be injurious and violative of Wikipedia policy, and the resultant article is not an excuse to produce links and redirects for every person mentioned in any source therein. This is not a "poll" it is a matter of actual clear non-negotiable Wikipedia policy. Collect (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Yes, if the artcle doesn't mention the name with BLP concerns then clearly there shouldn't be a redirect from the name. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – See here for further discussion on whether there are any BLP issues. 2A00:23C5:2318:2C00:A47B:BE55:80B0:76FC (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, without prejudice against recreation if and when there is consensus on the talk page to explicitly name this person in the article, with such sources as are required by WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Currently it appears that no such consensus exists, but the discussion is ongoing. --NYKevin 23:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Masem and remove from the Univ article as undue weight, especially in the history section. --Malerooster (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2018 (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.

Ero Manga Sensei - My Little Sister and the Locked Room[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 8#Ero Manga Sensei - My Little Sister and the Locked Room

Nooo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 9#Nooo

Hong Kong Internation Airport[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible misspelling, internation is not a word. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:23, 1 February 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_1&oldid=1037876367"