Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 10, 2019.

Four-year college[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 19#Four-year college

2-year college[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) 18:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These articles should redirect to the same place. Mstrojny (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: why should they redirect to the same place? Do you have better targets in mind? Why does it need to be discussed here? The existing targets appear to be good articles for people searching for those terms. Lithopsian (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 2-year college and Two-year college since these terms could also refer to Community college. No opinion on the "4-year" ones at this time. In addition, I disagree with the nominator that the "2-year" and "4-year" redirects should target the same place, but now that I'm aware of the "2-year" redirects, I believe that they should be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (Struck out parts that no longer apply to this nomination due to the nomination being split.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything at Junior college seems to indeed be two-year, though. That's not true of Community college, so this seems unwise. I'll also register my disagreement with the initial nomination that all four of these should point to the same place. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Junior college and community college are very nearly the same thing in the US, and generally 2-year colleges, but often very different elsewhere and not necessarily a 2-year college. One or the other still seems like the best target unless anyone comes up with something better. There is Community colleges in the United States - could that be what a majority of people are looking for when they type 2-year college? Lithopsian (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lithopsian, Steel1943, and BDD: Sorry about the nominations. I got confused. Is it OK if I partially withdraw the nomination by withdrawing the four year college redirects, but leave the two year college redirects up for discussion? Mstrojny (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, while you have the two "four-year college" redirects here, I think there is reason to discuss them. See below. --Bsherr (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the two "two-year college" redirects. The two "two-year college" redirects are best targeted to junior college, as that's generally an accurate synonym. --Bsherr (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Could anyone be so WP:BOLD as to split this nomination before it becomes even more of a potential WP:TRAINWRECK? Steel1943 (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I have not modified any of the above comments, since most touch on both the four-year and two-year redirects. Anyone should feel free to modify their own to suit the split nominations, though. This diff shows the single discussion pre-split. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2019 (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.

Repost[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 Reblogging and hatnote. There are clearly two relevant topics here, though one is an error whose plausibility can hinge on regional pronunciation. This will provide readers access to both topics. --BDD (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SURPRISE. When people search for "repost", they will be trying to find the term very commonly used in internet culture, not an obscure action in a sport. The word "repost" isn't even used in that article.  Nixinova  T  C  19:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The redirect makes no sense. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retarget: The redirect right now makes no sense, but this is a term that I can see people searching on Wikipedia. It should be retargeted to a more appropriate article. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...So, "delete" if there is no appropriate target to retarget this? Or how about wikt:repost if there is no appropriate target on Wikipedia, considering that this term may be looked up by others? Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Either that, or retarget to wikt:repost. Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft retarget to wikt:Repost as appears most suitable target. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support a retarget to wiktionary. If there is no encyclopedia article then there's no article: a user can search wikt his/herself. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a hatnote to Wiktionary and Reblogging or soft redirect. This is a very plausible misspelling of an uncommon term that many people looking for will not have seen written. I support a soft redirect as a second choice, as this is a term that is commonly searched for (318 hits in the first 11 months of last year) and while there isn't scope for an encyclopaedia article we should take users to the best alternative content, that at Wiktionary - remember many more people know about Wikipedia than know about Wiktionary. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not a surprise since repost and riposte sound the same. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to reblogging with a hatnote to riposte per Thryduulf's logic. I know it's not the same everywhere but in my part of the world "repost" and "riposte" are not homonyms. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 03:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as outlined by Thryduulf. --Bsherr (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Reblogging. It seems roughly capture the sense of the idea, albeit not perfectly. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:25, 19 January 2019 (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.

HMS Partridge (G30)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 18#HMS Partridge (G30)

"White" redirects to Ethnic stereotype[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) 22:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Due to lack of related content in the target article, these redirects seem like a bunch of WP:SURPRISEs with no good alternative targets. Steel1943 (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would any of these be suitable redirects to Whitewashing in film? White films and White movies, perhaps? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my opinion, I think that may be somewhat of a stretch since the terms could still be vague. Someone may look up these terms expecting to find something about white supremacy or something of the like. Steel1943 (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confusing redirects. A person searching for the terms isn't necessarily thinking of the word white in the demographic sense. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like there's a vague sense leaning toward delete, but I'm not convinced there's consensus here, especially given the age of these.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure what someone would have in mind when searching for "white agenda", but they aren't likely to find it at ethnic stereotype. Same with the others, delete all unless there's a more appropriate target that actually mentions the term. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Xezbeth. --Bsherr (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2019 (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.

Little Bang[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 21#Little Bang

Retail politics[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) 17:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "retail politics" (Wiktionary: "The political strategy of engaging with small groups of individuals in face-to-face interactions") is mentioned nowhere in the target, so someone who searches for this in search of a definition is left none the wiser. I can't find any particularly viable alternative targets. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as is not at target. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary. It is the sort of term that people will look up and in the absence of an article, linking to Wiktionary is better than nothing. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:35, 10 January 2019 (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.

Species in Inoceramus[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) 22:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
List of nominations
Species in Inoceramus (abritrary break)[edit]

Some of these, such as I. saskatchewanensis, are linked only from the target article, which contains no nontrivial information about any specific species, and others, such as I. walterdorfensis, are not mentioned at all. All should be deleted per WP:REDLINK. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the bulk nature of this, we could use some more discussion. ​Moreover, none of these redirects were tagged; I have now done so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • These types are tough. Redlinks in taxonomic articles are normal, and that certainly points to delete. But {{R to subtopic}} could be appropriate for a species that's never going to have its own article. Without any specific (pardon the pun) knowledge of these, I could easily see that being the case for a bunch of species of fossil bivalves, which points to keep. Those without mention sure feel like a delete, but maybe they should be mentioned, and maybe that just means listing them. (How "selected" are the "Selected species"?) I suppose I'm leaning delete, cautiously. Pinging Plantdrew, whose input on taxonomic discussions I always value. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. This is quite an unusual case. The accepted wisdom among editors working on taxonomic articles is that fossil species are usually best covered in an article about the genus, not separate articles for each species. However, I'm having trouble finding that position documented anywhere; it certainly comes up on talk pages frequently, but WikiProject Dinosaurs seems to have the only explicit mention of it (WikiProject Palaeontology takes a weaker stance against species articles). However, for most genera known from fossils, it's unusual to have more than 2-3 known species (which could be readily compared and contrasted in an article on the genus). Bivalves fossilize exceptionally well, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that there are fossil bivalve genera with dozens of species, but that's certainly not the norm for fossil genera overall.
"Selected species" on Wikipedia never means very much "selecting" was being done. More typically it means "here's all the species listed in whatever sources I had at hand, but I'm not sure if those sources are comprehensive". Both WoRMS and FossilWorks include some species not listed in the article, as well as species listed not listed in the other database (WoRMS doesn't aim to be comprehensive for fossil species; FossilWorks aims for comprehensiveness, but isn't there in practice).
I think it's quite unlikely that articles will be created for each species, so I'm not sure the logic of REDLINK applies here. Some of these species may end up placed in other genera; I. walterdorfensis is now Cremnoceramus walterdorfensis according to WoRMS. Having these redirects poses a maintenance burden (an article on Cremnoceramus needs to be written before I. waltderdorensis can be pointed to the right place). I'm not inclined to take the time to check each redirect for current taxonomic placement (let alone writing any missing genus articles); I feel like these redirects are really more of a headache than they are worth. However, it does appear that many of these have incoming links. I'm going with weak keep due to incoming links. If they are kept, {{R from species to genus}} (which is currently a redirect to {{R from subtopic}}) would be an appropriate tag. 19:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantdrew (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. I'm more of a lumper than a splitter, even with living organisms (see e.g. Floridobolus), and comprehensive context is key. There is no rule mandating every taxon MUST have an article, especially if the article says no more than "Inoceramus aequicostatus is a species of bivalve in the genus Inoceramus described by Voronetz in 1937" (lots of extant insect stubs consist of such pablum). That exact same information (species, genus, author and year of description) is present in the full scientific name, and placed in better context in the list at Inoceramus. I don't think it's worth deleting any redirects. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regardless of article content these are useful for fleshing out categories for taxa by year and author of description. Abyssal (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to genus - palaeontology project guidelines are clear about this. Prehistoric species articles should be covered at the genus level, and only split off if that article becomes too long, which is not the case here. Prehistoric species stubs should not be created in general. FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2019 (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.

Acute HIV Infection and Early Diseases Research Program[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 with no prejudice against recreation if mentioned somewhere. -- Tavix (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There does not seem to be any subject this WP:PRECISE in the target article, and I’m not finding one in other articles either. Steel1943 (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - inherently spammy; readers will not find any useful information on this topic at the target, only general information about what I assume is the program's research subject. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no suitable target. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • AIEDRP was a US research program to study acute HIV infection ("what happens when you first get infected", in plain English). If we had a proper article about Acute HIV infection, then it would be mentioned there; if NIAID (which already mentions HIV 14 times) were complete, it would be mentioned there. As it stands, however, the most relevant reason to keep this redirect is that it's 12 years old, and WP:RFD#KEEP says to keep "Links that have existed for a significant length of time". WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:11, 10 January 2019 (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.

MSNPC[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. Deryck C. 19:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to be a useful or likely redirect. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I have just removed the only mention of it in the article and went to nominate it for deletion – what a coincidence it has just been nommed two hours ago. wumbolo ^^^ 14:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Don't really see a reason too, Know your meme classifies MSNPC as a separate topic related to the NPC meme, so I don't really see why we shouldn't follow the suit and the nom failed to explain it in my opinion. Openlydialectic (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Know Your Meme is user generated content. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So? Redirects are here for other people to quickly find the content they are looking for. It's not a factual statement. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Potentially useful for those unfamiliar with the meme and/or MSNBC. Џ 04:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see an argument for keeping as a {{R to article without mention}} (useful search term, and usage is above noise level) and an argument for deleting (not mentioned in article, and difficult to source for a mention). A DuckDuckGo search showed no mention in usable sources, the KYM entry is only a submission thus it is unusable. Leaning delete as redirects to an article without a mention are generally discouraged. feminist (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another possible option would be to retarget to MSNBC as a typo. feminist (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There aren't many cases where keeping a redirect without mention is a good idea, and this isn't one of them. If you know the meme, it could be a fun little easter egg, but otherwise, it's just going to mislead readers. --BDD (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2019 (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.

Contractor combatant[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) 19:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These phrases may have interpretations other than "mercenary". Keep, retarget to Private military company, or delete as vague? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete "Contractor combatant" seems to have very little use outside Wikipedia. "Combat contractor" has some, but often in phrases like "combat contractor fraud", i.e., regarding general contractors, from consumer protection agencies. I'd be ok with a retarget to Private military company, though. --BDD (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2019 (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.

Security regulation[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) 18:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Security regulation" is not mentioned at the target article and has uses outside the subject of mercenaries. I suggest delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:10, 10 January 2019 (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.

French-speakers outside of Quebec[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 24#French-speakers outside of Quebec

RS:OPINION[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A cross-namespace redirect which has only been used four times since its creation (indicating that it's not an overwhelmingly common search term to merit its existence). feminist (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap. Is there a reason why you'd what to break those three archived discussions by making it impossible to know where they were pointing to? Diego (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cross namespace redirects are expensive. The archived discussions can be corrected. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@UnitedStatesian: Not challenging the !vote, just out of a desire to understand: in what sense are this kind of redirects "expensive"? Deleting it won't take less space in the database, nor is the link so heavily used that it will affect trafic. Diego (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The links in the archived discussions can be changed if necessary. --Bsherr (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2019 (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.

Hovno[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be Hungarian equivalent word, but isn't mentioned in the article - we don't need redirects from every language. PamD 13:43, 10 January 2019 (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.

Canadian stereotypes[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) 22:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in target article, nor at Canadians, about stereotypes - pointless redirect. Write the article, or section, first. PamD 13:36, 10 January 2019 (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.

Vela Sierra[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 retargeted to Project Vela. --BDD (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "Sierra" in target article, despite assertion of redirect-creator that "Vela Sierra was one of the three components of the Vela Program". Please add that content, with a source, to the target article to justify this redirect. PamD 13:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the creator of the redirect, I suggest a retarget to Project Vela. You're right that the article Vela (satellite) doesn't mention the Vela Sierra component of the program, which is a major omission. Since I don't have time to fix this, a more appropriate redirect is to Project Vela, which mentions all three components of the Vela program (Vela Hotel, Vela Sierra and Vela Uniform). --Mtu (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Mtu:: I've retargetted the redirect to the section which discusses it. PamD 15:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
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.

Political Synergy[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. Deryck C. 19:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Term not present in target article. Capital "S" suggests this refers to some specific work? political synergy is neither a redirect nor an article. No apparent reason for this redirect: not an obvious synonym. PamD 13:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unlikely search term, and unclear what it would refer to. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2019 (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.

Rogue (brand)[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. Note for myself as much as anyone else: Rogue is the disambiguation page in question. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of term in target article. Note that the entry was removed from the Rogue dab page. PamD 13:02, 10 January 2019 (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.

Individual One[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. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence in target page for this particular nickname/claim. PamD 12:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It is in the target, in the section Donald Trump#Associates: Cohen said that he had made the false statements on behalf of Trump, who was identified as "Individual-1" in the court documents. -- Tavix (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - I'd searched for "Individual One" but I can see "Individual-1" as a valid target for a redirect. PamD 15:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • RfD withdrawn, as above. PamD 15:12, 10 January 2019 (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.

Heat wheel[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 resolved. -- Tavix (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of term in target article. It may well be a synonym, but a sourced mention in the article should be added for this to be a useful redirect. PamD 11:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update Yes, it's a synonym, and I'm moving it to the more specific thermal wheel. Since when do we need WP:RS on each redirect? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley:. Thanks for retargetting it. We need the term, or something recognisably the same, to be mentioned in the target article; everything in that target article ought to be sourced. I wouldn't demand a source for "Heat wheel" to redirect to "thermal wheel", as they seem roughly synonyms. PamD 12:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
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.

Bacolod South Road[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 article created. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original author's request; I need this namespace for the correct article. hueman1 (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @HueMan1: you don't need to delete the redirect. If you already have a draft article, an admin can move it over this redirect when it is approved. Alternatively you can just overwrite the redirect with an article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2019 (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.

Throttle (musician)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 19#Throttle (musician)

Alight Solutions[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 24#Alight Solutions

Fuckload[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 soft redirect to Wiktionary. Deryck C. 19:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retargeting to Fuck or soft retargeting to wikt:Fuckload: current target seems unlikely to be related to search term. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 03:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to wikitionary. A fuckload is indeed an indefinitely large number. The redirect is appropriate. We could have one for truckload and boatload too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't really belong to the target article as it's not a number of any sort, just an indefinitely large quantity, usually not numeric - see here and the examples here. Now shedload and shitload are both included in the Oxford English Dictionary as "A large amount or number" (while "fuckload" doesn't get a mention): if this redirect is kept, there should perhaps be an addition to the target article to include all three of these terms. PamD 12:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I once calculated a metric unit equivalent of a fuckton, but can't find that notebook now and it wasn't published anyway. It's colloquial, unlikely to have a formal definition. Keep or retarget per Headbomb. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 03:53, 15 January 2019 (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.

Ivory 503[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing deletion. This redirect is from a shortened name of an insignificant suite in a residence hall. Bsherr (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2019 (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.

Mike, Lu Og[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is in a peculiar format that doesn't contain the "and" or any form of the word (&) in its name. It seems unnecessary to me. Paper Luigi T • C 01:23, 10 January 2019 (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/2019_January_10&oldid=1136447973"