Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 29, 2018.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaa[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) 10:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely uncommon version of the title of the game whose article this page redirects to. The official abbreviation has 6 A letters, the game title has 25 A letters and this redirect has 14 A letters. This redirect doesn't even capitalize the letters where appropiate. TL22 (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not the only one. Ben5218 (talk) 14:06, 5 April 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.

Homer Sexual[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. Per Thegreatluigi and AngusWOOF ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a particularly notable gag. Certainly doesn't seem notable enough to warrant a redirect, at any rate. Thegreatluigi (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Redirects are pretty expensive. This one should not exist. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism from that episode that didn't catch on or get notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:37, 1 April 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.

Kwyji[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) 01:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept that the word Kwyjibo is a worthwhile redirect, but do we really need an unfinished version of it? That'd be like having a redirect for "Scrabb". Thegreatluigi (talk) 19:47, 29 March 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.

Independent oversight[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) 10:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase could potentially be considered vague, considering that Oversight is not exclusive to Regulation in regards to encyclopedic subjects. Steel1943 (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's more of a Wiktionary criterion, but this is what they'd call a "non-idiomatic phrase": that is, "independent oversight" is nothing more than "oversight" which is "independent". Oversight would be the best place to point this, but I'd be concerned a reader is looking for something specific that we don't have. --BDD (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. Actually, my first reaction to this is to think of some kind of criminal investigation or 'internal affairs' type effort instead of something business related (although, of course, these concepts can certainly overlap). Deletion seems like the right call, anyways. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Oversight - while BDD is probably right that any searcher is probably looking for something more specific than we have an article for, this will at least get readers looking in the right direction. MarginalCost (talk) 03:37, 5 April 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.

Rugulatory[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) 01:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This may have been a misspelling somewhere, but it doesn't seem common enough to warrant its existence. That, and per research, this spelling could potentially be related to the word "rugae", which pertains to physical wrinkles. Steel1943 (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not a likely typo like maybe Regulartory. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:08, 31 March 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.

Opulence[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 delete per X1. Hopefully I got the right discussion this time. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. All eligible for WP:X1. Steel1943 (talk) 18:37, 29 March 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.

How to get rich/How to make money[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 think we can let google handle these... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These WP:NOTHOWTO-defiant titles do not lead readers to an answer for these questions, and no such subject should exist on Wikipedia anyways per WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 18:28, 29 March 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.

Well to do[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) 10:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 18:25, 29 March 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.

Wellth[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) 01:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely misspelling. Also, results on third-party search engines for this term return results for a book written by a author who currently doesn't have an article, Jacob Wachob. Steel1943 (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rather implausible misspelling, and potentially a minor WP:SURPRISE. Thegreatluigi (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete searches lead to non-notable companies and products. Good choice for a name though. [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:11, 31 March 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.

Wealth and fame[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) 10:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per WP:XY. Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 29 March 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.

Idle rich[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 The Idle Rich. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Per third-party dictionaries, this term does not refer exclusively to the current target, and may even qualify for WP:REDLINK. But, then again, the term also looks like it may be WP:NEO. Steel1943 (talk) 18:18, 29 March 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.

Prospered[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 delete per X1, as long as we still have it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prosperity is a different article. Probably best to delete these since they are all eligible for WP:X1. Steel1943 (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete X1. Propering can be in many ways including health, in relationships etc. Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 29 March 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.

Use of Wealth[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) 01:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely and confusing search terms due to their formatting. Steel1943 (talk) 18:09, 29 March 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.

Financial freedom[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 Financial independence. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of the following seemingly bold edit: [2], these two redirects are not in sync. The redirection of Financial Freedom to Wealth seems to be the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Financial freedom since Financial freedom was made a redirect to Wealth as a result, but on the same token, Financial independence does seem like a viable target for both of these redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 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.

Day in the life of[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 A Day in the Life (disambiguation). AfD or not, this has been a redirect for years with the target at that name, so we're fine to discuss. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No appropriate target. Current target does not discuss it with a single reliable source (hint: they don't exist), and even if we go by that logic, the search results for this are just as useful as a "list" of the search results. Even then, this redirect is implausible. This should obviously foremost redirect to "A day in the life of", which doesn't exist. wumbolo ^^^ 17:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Huh, about this going on? It was the title of the list-article of novels and films which was renamed in 2014 to List of works set in a single day, itself under discussion now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of works set in a single day (which is heading toward "Keep" decision, or possible to "merge" to a later fork/duplicate). The list-article long started off "Day in the life of is a device often used in fiction, such as books films, plays and television series, showing the events that happen to the character over a day." and is a perfectly fine concept. The "Day in the life of" term should be restored back into that list-article. Keeping the redirect going to there is appropriate.
This is weird to see this up for deletion, which would destroy some record of the past edit contributions and the history of the topic, given that is my concern (and i hope others', too) about the stakes at the AFD. I will post mention of this CFD at the AFD, I guess. --Doncram (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a well-known photography book series published in the 1980s and 1990s called "A Day in the Life of" by David Elliot Cohen and Rick Smolan. An article could be created to deal with that series, although most of the titles are under Cohen's article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:39, 1 April 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.

Git (linux)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 6#Git (linux)

Ethos of prosperity[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) 10:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The word "ethos" is nowhere in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 17:03, 29 March 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.

Unused redirects for Al Ahly SC squad template[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. All created as part of a long renaming process, so I'm leaning delete here on the idea that none were very intentionally made. As they are unused and unwanted, defaulting to delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These four redirects are not used in any article and so they are useless. I propose deletion as i can't find any use for them. Ben5218 (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This nomination now contains five redirects; I merged two similar sections together as they were created by the same nominator for the same reason. Steel1943 (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was a bit confusing for me to add another redirect to this nomination, so i added it separately. Ben5218 (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the 2006-2007 version, since anyone trying to refer to that squad and getting today's is in for a major WP:SURPRISE. Keep the others, though, as plausible variant names. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, simply not needed. GiantSnowman 08:30, 1 April 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.

Template:Alb[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 6#Template:Alb

Warping spacetime[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 Spacetime curvature. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overly vague redirect that does not necessarily refer to time travel. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment spacetime curvature, maybe? Looks like the closest real article we have on the concept that prominently mentions warping (as opposed to higher-level articles like mass, gravity, or spacetime). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - However, I'd go to 'Alcubierre drive'. While it's scientifically true that spacetime gets affected by all kinds of things, distorting the fabric of the universe at least in some certain area, the exact term "warping" is usually associated specifically with travel (such as from one solar system to another). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:20, 29 March 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.

TES 1[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. Will add hatnote ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not strongly tied to the video game. Searches show part numbers, genes [5] [6] Templeton Fund TES1:GR [7] I can understand TES3 and sequels but don't see evidence of naming the original as such. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Redirect creator is currently blocked indefinitely for edit warring, although not for making this redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirects are pretty expensive. There's no need to keep this one. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Dab-Redirect, as long as there is no other item that could be described by this short version, it should go to TES Arena. Otherwise and dab page (or a redirect to TES) would be at hand. Lordtobi (✉) 09:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lordtobi, can you find some news articles that use this term in the video game world? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there is this. Yet, I think we should not regard the entirety of the acronym but the "TES" part appended by the "1" to specify that it is about the first entry in whatever "TES" is. Similarly, you would probably agree with me that "GTA4", "GTA 4", "GTAIV", "GTA IV" all refer to Grand Theft Auto IV without requiring a source for them. Lordtobi (✉) 17:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's the first game in a series referred to as TES, so I don't see a problem. Are there other uses on Wikipedia? --BDD (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, TechEdSat uses TES 1 [8] [9] [10] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not in the article, at least. Either way, dab page? Lordtobi (✉) 07:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is "TES-1", which is sufficient for me. Still might be better dealt with via hatnote. --BDD (talk) 19:29, 3 April 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.

Beckham David[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect was created in 2013 because it was apparently listed on WP:TOPRED (it's no longer on that page now), I've since created Beckham, David which is the common format for these sorts of redirects, "Beckham David" could also give the impression it's an actual name .... Also just to note now that "Beckham, David" exists "Beckham David" no longer shows up as a suggestion in the search bar, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note the redirect is linked at User:Rybec/failed-requests-list and User:Vedranf/LZMK-HOL/B2 however the former page was a 2014 creation and the latter a 2009 creation and I assume both pages were copied & pasted from TOPRED at some point, Both pages are full of redlinks and both are abandoned, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is not referred to with an Asian-ordered name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Absent evidence of confusion, I don't see any issue with this redirect. A steady stream of page views shows that it is well used. -- Tavix (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Absent evidence of confusion" - The only thing I'm confused about is your !vote right now!, What does "Beckham David" do that "Beckham, David" doesn't ?, As noted TOPRED is no longer used and this redirect is no longer on that page which means this redirect is not serving any sort of purpose, As for the page views - That's irrelevent as there's only been one search term until now, As I said the name with the comma is the common format. –Davey2010Talk 01:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who searches "Beckham David" will end up precisely where they want to end up, and I see no evidence that someone would be seeking a different topic. "Beckham David" and "Beckham, David" are different search terms, the fact that one exists or the other is irrelevant. The fact that WP:TOPRED is no longer updated is also irrelevant—at one point in time, the term "Beckham David" received a large amount of page views so a redirect was created to catch that use, and it continues to be used all this time later. -- Tavix (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily - I hate to paint everyone as complete idiots but I'd imagine not everyone would be looking for the footballer .... (As I said below there are different topics with "Beckham" in the front), I disagree the comma is entirely relevant as is the fact TOPRED is no longer used (If this redirect was still present on that page then we wouldn't be here now), Again as I said the whole reason it's being used is because it's the only one and so again usage is irrelevant, At present you nor Nyttend have presented any valid reasons for keeping. –Davey2010Talk 01:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that someone using "Beckham David" to search is not looking for Beckham County, Oklahoma, for example. I'm baffled by your TOPRED argument...if a redirect is created at a certain title, it is no longer a redlink, so it can't remain present on that page once the bot updated it the following week. The whole reason it's being used is because people are using this particular search term, so there is absolutely no reason to deny people from using it in the future. On the other hand, "people are using it" is WP:R#K5 for keeping a redirect and "it aids searching" is WP:R#K3 for keeping a redirect, so your assertion that no valid reasons for keeping have been advanced is absolutely mind-boggling. -- Tavix (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Look at the article, and you won't have any confusion over his actual name. And aside from that, there's no risk of confusion. Combine that with the usage, and there's no reason to delete. Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of things with Beckham in the front such as Beckham County, Oklahoma, Beckham law, Beckham bone so it could be easy to confuse this with something else (then again it may not!), Inregards to the usage as I said above the usage is only because this has been the only redirect thus far, and again as I said the comma is the common and most used format here so at present there's no real reason to keep this around. –Davey2010Talk 01:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguation A confused redirect. The other two aricle should be move to someone else. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhhhhkohhhhh: I'm really puzzled by your comment. How is this "a confused redirect"? What "other two aricle" (sic) are you talking about? You mentioned the possibility of a disambiguation, what would that look like? -- Tavix (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: I am so sorry, I didn't read these related page clearly at that time, so I think this redirect isn't a matter to me now, changing to Keep. Thank you for mentioning me. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. While it's not a massively useful redirect, there are quite a few people using it, and I can't imagine anyone typing in "Beckham David" could be looking for anything other than the David Beckham article. Since it's completely harmless, and redirects are cheap, I can't see any reason to delete it. Thegreatluigi (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given that 'Beckham, David' now exists as a redirect - no need for this. GiantSnowman 17:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag as an {{r from typo}}. It's absolutely harmless. - Eureka Lott 16:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is that a typo? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the missing comma. Wouldn't that count? - Eureka Lott 22:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AngusWOOF. This redirect is essentially a WP:FORRED violation without a comma to signify that it is a sort name. Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since 'Beckham, David' already exists as a redirect then i don't think that there is any need for this. Ben5218 (talk) 13:07, 4 April 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.

Reemma Pyetrovna Aldoneena[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) 10:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This spelling is not correct and not mentioned anywhere outside WP. Saqib (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete provided the original creator understands their work was moved, not deleted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:30, 29 March 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.

Fangirling[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. Normally I'd be inclined to remove a verb gerund whatever, but it is used explicitly in the article. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not Wiktionary. Saqib (talk) 11:48, 29 March 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.

Steamed hams[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 Steamed cheeseburger. Fine ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsons meme, which has occasionally been redirected to Hamburger. ONR (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The phrase is discussed in some depth in the article and no argument for deletion (or any other outcome) has been given. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what about Steamed cheeseburger? This seems to have a detailed section about The Simpsons episode as well. It's getting to be a bit of a content fork though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to steamed cheeseburger for now per AngusWOOF. That will do until someone writes some content about actual ham cooked by steaming, which would probably be the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT by long-term significance but unfortunately isn't described anywhere in Wikipedia right now. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:34, 4 April 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.

Architecture of North America[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 Outline of Architecture#Architecture of North America. Admittedly the template has more blue links and is nicer! That being said, it should be trivial to add most of them (all of them?) to the outline. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that this should go to a template, but not sure where else either. Thoughts, anyone? This is a "Redirects for DISCUSSION" rather than deletion, as it seems a reasonable topic on which to search. Or perhaps not, as wildly too broad to offer a useful topic! PamD 11:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK and as a WP:XNR. Steel1943 (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Outline of Architecture#Architecture of North America. I agree that this shouldn't go to the template, but it's a plausible search term and should go somewhere – ideally, to an article that provides the reader with a list of the "Architecture of x" articles for North American countries. I don't think the guidelines for disambiguation pages or set indices would allow for either of those to be created at this location, but the section of the outline page provides the reader with the same information. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:13, 31 March 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.

National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition[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 Unopposed delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No apparent mention of this term in target article: no evidence that this is a useful redirect. PamD 11:06, 29 March 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.

ZZTae[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 6#ZZTae

Tennessee, Tennessee[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. As with OKC, I remain convinced that this is would be a plausible usage, even if only for people outside the area. Plausibility is what's needed, not local usage. As with the below, it might've been easier to do all of these together; as such, I'm not opposed to DRV if someone thinks I'm out of order on these. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that Tennessee City is ever called just "Tennessee." This redirect has no history and no incoming links. See also the RFD discussion for "Oklahoma, Oklahoma", which was created by the same editor on the same day. I propose deletion as cleanup of an unlikely synonym. —Bkell (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems a plausible error for someone not familiar with the city, especially by way of analogy with New York City. --BDD (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if I was headed there from within the state I would omit the "City" because in context I'm obviously not talking about the state. Quebec, Quebec? Legacypac (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete needs RS that demonstrate it is being used like New York, New York. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 27 prior hits in two and a half years! It doesn't even appear in the drop down search list of options. So you have to know it to find it, so if you know it you already know its Tennessee City, Tennessee (a page that averages 6 hits per day over 2.5 years. As per AngusWOOF, this needs WP:RS to demonstrate it merits retention. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD. -- Tavix (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't even a notable city as with Oklahoma City to attract a decent number of misspelled searches. Are we expecting this to happen with every entry for List of U.S. cities named after their state AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is different from the ones that are associated with a large metro area of the same name as the state. That's where most of those are coming from. So keeping the Oklahoma City one can make sense. Quebec City is the same story (530 thousand). Also if the county or district is named the same as the state, that would be even more reason to retain to those areas. But Arkansas City, Arkansas is a small city with 366 people. Tennessee City is unincorporated and not a metro area. What about Indiana City, Indiana, should that attract a primary redirect to Indiana, Indiana when searchers are more likely to look for Indianapolis as polis implies city and the large metro area? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:08, 2 April 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.

Arkansas, Arkansas[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. As with OKC, I remain convinced that this is would be a plausible usage, even if only for people outside the area. Plausibility is what's needed, not local usage. As with the above, it might've been easier to do all of these together; as such, I'm not opposed to DRV if someone thinks I'm out of order on these. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that Arkansas City is ever called just "Arkansas." This redirect has no history. It had two incoming links that I just removed: one from Arkansas City Commercial District [11] and a redirection notice at the top of Arkansas City, Arkansas [12]. Again, this redirect was created by the same editor that created "Tennessee, Tennessee" and "Oklahoma, Oklahoma" (see above). I propose deletion as cleanup of an unlikely synonym. —Bkell (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems a plausible error for someone not familiar with the city, especially by way of analogy with New York City. --BDD (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quebec City is called Quebec, Quebec sometimes in Canada. We've had thst redirect since 2003. Legacypac (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete needs RS that demonstrate it is being used like New York, New York. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 60 hits in two and a half years. It doesn't even appear in the drop down search list of options. So you have to know it to find it, so if you know it you already know its Arkansas City. As per AngusWOOF, this needs WP:RS to demonstrate it merits retention. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD. -- Tavix (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These should have only been created for cities that are notable for having an associated notable district, county, or metro area of the same name as the state, as with Quebec City (530 thousand), I'll concede Oklahoma City for that reason as it is a notable metro area. But Arkansas City, Arkansas is a small town with 366 people in Desha County, so it should not have been created without some other media notability like with New York, New York. Searchers using the State, State format are going to be looking for those areas, not a small town. They would look for Indianapolis as Indiana City, not Indiana City, Indiana if they were typing in Indiana, Indiana. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:09, 2 April 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_March_29&oldid=1036305482"