Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 4, 2014.

My Anaconda Don't[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. This one the most prominent line in the Minaj song, and is quite likely to be searched on. -- Beland (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems iffy. It's only part of a line from "Baby Got Back" (echoed in Nicki Minaj's "Anaconda", where this originally pointed). On its own, it doesn't seem to be very meaningful or a likely search term. BDD (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep tasteless yes, but it's mentioned in the article.--Lenticel (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, this is not a subject discussed on the target article, it is merely just-another-sentence in there. We generally don't need a redirect from pieces of sentences / lyrics, that's for the search engine to find it (and it does) and there is no need to use it as a link-sentence. - Nabla (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2014 (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.

Koeboluzioa[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 procedural close. I thought this sounded familiar. This redirect is already under discussion. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 8#Koeboluzioa, and comment there. --BDD (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect. There is no reason that we need a redirect from the Basque-language word for coevolution on the English Wikipedia. This is a general topic not specific to Basque-language areas. There's no logical connection between the idea of coevolution and the Basque community. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense. (WP:RFD#D5. Searching, I have no evidence this is Basque language at all; commons:Koeboluzioa.pdf would provide some substantiation were it not have to be deleted, I imagine for good reason. The nearest I get is:
  • http://www.elhuyar.org/edizioak/produktuak/atletismoko-espezialitateak.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
And since I can understand that a bit since Basque is a bit of a latinate language and a bit celtic, this bit infusing arabic makes the whole thing rather a pidgin that is patently not Basque language, but that is what My Favourite Search Engine brings up for me. So how helpful is this? R to Basque terrorism seems as likely Si Trew (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Through interwikis, I found eu:Koeboluzio, but it mostly uses "koeboluzioa". Inflection, perhaps? --BDD (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps; Basque language is no help here to me to say how nouns decline or adjectives agree. Reading through the document I give above (no idea where I got the idea of arabic infusion; it was late), "-oa" is used quite a few times ("ikasprozesuaren ebaluazioa", "zikloa", "materielia oinarrizkoa", "erabiltzeko modukoa", "dogmatikoa", chiefly as adjective with agreement to a noun ending in -a or -n, but sometimes as a noun itself. Should we ask at ikiWP:WikiProject Basque or something? Si Trew (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've invited user:Iñaki LL to this discussion. They are the first user I found in category:User eu-N who appears to be currently active on en.wp. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help here, I'm not sure what the targeted issue is, but here it goes: The word is "koeboluzio" as a dictionary entry, check out terminology dictionaries (Euskalterm). Dictionary entries in Basque are without absolutive case marker "a", just the root. Hope this helps, regards Iñaki LL (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary, this is English Wikipedia and the topic has no particular affinity for this language -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But it might have an affinity with language evolution, since Basque is as weird as Welsh in that regard; not sure yet. At least English is fairly simple, we get Romans to invade and the French to invade and then some Germans and try to shoehorn Latin grammar onto English which doesn't have any, and some Irishmen and Scots and others from people we once ruled and, er, that's it. Si Trew (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2014 (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.

Final Prophet[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 Last prophet. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A whole bunch of different people have been called "Final Prophet" including several that lived long after Muhammed. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguation per nomination. Whenever "a whole bunch of different" notable people/things have been called the same thing then a disambiguation page is the answer. Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • retarget per below (why did I not think to look for that?). Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find by User:KTo288. I didn't think of it either. Si Trew (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2014 (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.

Government payroll[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. Per comments, below, interpreting as a search term for government employment statistics. I added some links to the new target to more info on that for the US and UK. Further improvements sorely needed. -- Beland (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to delete this, because "government payroll" does not mean "payroll tax". Normally "government payroll" means the number of government employees and the amount of their salaries. It was used in that sense in the only article to link to it (Reform of the administrative divisions of China). But currently the target is Payroll tax, which is another thing entirely. I deleted the link from the China article. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to government operations. Our public finance articles are a bit of a mess; I didn't find a better target. Ivanvector (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are. Public sector and State ownership are essentially stubs but I assume a lot of warring over them to reduce them to the feebleness that I expect from anything I pay my taxes to. Neither has a section on employment. public funds redirects to government spending, which does say "federal civilian employees" in section government spending#Federal spending, but that is particular to the US anyway (I note that that article is not marked WP:WORLDWIDE, but I have tried repeatedly to make a list and redirect for Countries that are not the United States). Si Trew (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, I have no idea what this would mean. As a British person, I would take it to mean all rhose who are paid by the government, i.e. the public sector, which is a rather wasty article and I shall nhold a seance to get John Maynard Keynes back or something. The head articles on this are ridiculous "Boy's Annual of Economics 1957" (Keynes as the poster girl) knows more about it than Wikipedia does. And has better pictures. Si Trew (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I looked through quite a few of the articles to find a specific mention of payroll, but didn't. I assume that there is some economic indicator that is attached to this that would be a better retarget, but I don't know which off hand. In a business sense, payroll is typically an overhead or operational expense, and I assume the same is true of government budgets, thus my recommendation. Disclosure: I have spent no Crown funds on this report. Ivanvector (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Tax Freedom Day is possible, and I found some more sources for that (I am not sure I agree with the lede that it is a "US concept") e.g.
Si Trew (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Ivanvector, that would be better. Another possibility is Civil service. The United States section of that page has one paragraph on federal government employment. But it looks like we don't have an article on government payroll as such. Maybe I should write one. It could display a graph, like this FRED graph from the St. Louis Fed. Apparently the BLS also has data for local and state government employment, so add those to the graph, explain what the data is, and there's your article. Call it something like "Government employment in the United States". – Margin1522 (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea, happy to help create it any way I can. The chief difficulty in creating it, I imagine, would be WP:NEUTRAL to prevent any suggestion the "government spending is ipso facto bad". e.g P. J. O'Rourke's essays in Eat the Rich suggest so and are worth quoting (for example that he says that the US govt spends 40% on public-sector spending, about as much as Europe, but gets less for it and it would be better if you just didn't tax people so much and let them decide what to do with it), but it can be done, but that, I imagine, will be the chief hurdle. Si Trew (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Putting "government" next to another noun does not make the resulting compound noun a "thing", even if it sound like it could be one. I get the feeling that "government payroll" is not an agreed-upon "thing", and if this is the case, then redirecting readers to a thing is maybe not a good idea. If there isn't a reasonably clear and obvious target for a redirect, then it should exist as a DAB page, but even THAT requires distinct meanings that can parsed, and if a term is simply too broad then even a DAB page loses its usefulness. Examples of other equally vague subjects without articles, redirects, or DAB pages: Government remuneration, Government order, Government procedure, Government agitation, etc. etc. KDS4444Talk 13:47, 8 December 2014 (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.

Jenova Reunion Theory[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) 18:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not mentioned at its target (Characters of the Final Fantasy VII series#Jenova). Also, Wikipedia is WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete according to the ff wikia, this is merely one of the several plot points in the FF7 story. --Lenticel (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2014 (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.

Lucretia Valentine[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) 18:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After I targeted this to the only possible target which it could refer (Characters of the Final Fantasy VII series#Lucrecia Crescent), I then realized that ... the redirect's title is misleading since this character was never referred as the name stated in the redirect. For this reason, it should probably be deleted in the event that this name/phrase belongs to another existing or future notable topic. Steel1943 (talk) 07:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as "Lucretia Valentine" is not mentioned at the target page. I find it odd that there's a "Lucrecia Crescent" and a "Vincent Valentine" listed at the page. --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AmaryllisGardener, I thought the same, and considered just tagging the redirect with {{R from incorrect name}}, but I still thought confusion would exist for readers who are not familiar with the redirect's target. Steel1943 (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps I do too many cryptic crosswords but I was thinking of Lucrezia Borgia who was Valencian (but not Valentian). Lucretia Borgia redirects to her, but Lucrecia Borgia is an R to Lucrezia Borgia (1947 film). Si Trew (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear I have probably opened a can of worms (disambiguation) now. Si Trew (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...Until I decided to boldly retarget Lucrecia Borgia to Lucrezia Borgia; seemed rather uncontroversial, considering that its previous target had disambiguation in its title, and the new target doesn't. Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely synonym. I found some Lucretia Valentines in my google search but is unrelated to FF7. Based on the story stated in the FF wikia, it seems that there were some plot important interactions between Lucrecia Crescent and Vincent Valentine. My theory is that some fans were shipping the two with Lucrecia getting Vincent's surname in a fanbased wedding. --Lenticel (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2014 (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.

Blitz (Final Fantasy VI)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. This is a "special move" used by this character, but is not mentioned at the target, and is questionable in its encyclopaedic value. Steel1943 (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per nom, though it may be worth editing the target (#Sabin Figaro) to mention it; there's already an oblique reference to it ("his final martial technique"). --BDD (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I was looking over the character's quotes about Blitz but I'm not comfortable to use them as cites to justify its mention in the target article. --Lenticel (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2014 (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.

Light of Judgement[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) 18:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this could vaguely refer to a concept related Yu-Gi-Oh! or Kefka Palazzo, but neither one of them is notable or mentioned on either previously referenced article. Steel1943 (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there are oh so many different things this refers to. John 3:19 for example. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Not mentioned at Yu-Gi-Oh! (to which Yu-Gi-Oh redirects; not sure about the exclamation mark in the title there being a Good Idea). I note Judgement of the light and Judgement of the Light are red lights, so far. 67.70, you're silly, John was referring to contemplation and seeing sense: this is Wikipedia! Si Trew (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Judgement of the Light is a Booster pack, Light of Judgement is a card. They're two different things. --Lenticel (talk) 06:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's just a cool sounding attack for FF and a decent trap card for Yugioh. Both are not even that notable outside their respective universes. --Lenticel (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lenticel: there are uses beyond a video game. With, I take it you are a fan of this game, and it's difficult then to balance your expert opinion against what an idiot like me who has never heard of this game might expect to find. Could you confirm that you kinda know this game inside-out, that is useful expert knowledge but perhaps not for the rest of us. This probably sounds sarcastic written but is not meant to be. Si Trew (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @SimonTrew: Apologies for the late reply (typhoon issues). There a two games mentioned here. Yes, I've played Final Fantasy VI and this is indeed just a minor piece of lore within the game itself. As for the Yugioh card, it isn't even a deck staple. --Lenticel (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2014 (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.

Gastra[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 with hatnote. -- Beland (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to find any references via search engines that refer to this topic (Emperor Gestahl) by this spelling in any language. For this reason, this redirect may confuse readers since it could be confused with the commonly-used prefix "Gastro-". Steel1943 (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment retargetting to Gaastra is also acceptable to me -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is apparently an English rendering of his Japanese name. It's not in the translation we use at Music of Final Fantasy VI, but I believe I've seen the 13th song of the second disc labeled "The Empire 'Gastra'". Amazon shows it as "The Empire 'Ghastra'". So maybe that's what I'm thinking of. I remember being baffled by it as well, but it is in use. Man, I'm really letting my nerd flag fly here.
tl;dr: It's an obscure name, but absent some evidence of confusion, I don't see a problem. --BDD (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as a mispelling of Gaastra, Michigan. There are several google hits that I found where "Gaastra" was misspelled as "Gastra" --Lenticel (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's been around since 2005, when in August this edit changed it from redirecting to Emperor Gestahl (which also redirects there). For housekeeping I've added {{R to section}} at both those R's and a courtesy comment at the target per WP:SPECIFICLINK, but I hope that does not influence this discussion (otherwise I wouldn't have). Gaastra, Michigan should be hatnoted at that section, though.Si Trew (talk) 09:18, 5 December 2014 (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.

DQ anime[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 by nominator. Steel1943 (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"DQ" doesn't solely stand for "Dragon Quest", as shown on the disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment do other topics have japanimations? (anime?) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google searches make it absolutely clear that Dragon Quest is the only notable anime (indeed pretty much the only anime) referred to as "DQ". Excluding "Dragons Quest" from the search leaves typos and misspellings of the same target and various discussions, mainly on TV Tropes (an unreliable source), about the topic of drag queens in anime. Tag this as {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} and all will be well. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Typing "DQ" should lead you to the DAB page, but typing "DQ anime" should lead you to this topic. There's not that much difference if it were "DQ (anime)". Si Trew (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2014 (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.

Where is abu dhabi[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 deleted by Secret. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it's not a likely search term. --AmaryllisGardener talk 05:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, A10 to begin with. Sam Sing! 06:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A10 (along with all the other A series of speedy deletion criteria) does not apply to redirects, only the G and R series criteria do. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Where_is_abu_dhabi has been viewed 0 times in the last 90 days." Delete. Ivanvector (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2014 (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.

Bronze plan[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) 18:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seam as a useful redirect to me. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an ambiguous term and/or interwiki redirect, or weak retarget to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act#Change in insurance standards as the section of an article in the English Wikipedia which mentions the term as intended by the current redirect target. Steel1943 (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete highly ambiguous -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Steel1943. Indeed this does seem to be the primary search result for "bronze plan" on Google, either the Act itself or companies trying to shill services directly related to it. If there are other possibilities, perhaps disambiguation. Ivanvector (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when are we a vector for Google Search? Frequently, Wikipedia is top there (and I'll bet all Lombard-street to a China orange that it uses WP interwikis as a good corpus for its machine translation service, but it don't say so) and one has to look past that to find RS, or one may run in circles. I'm sure you didn't mean it, but WP's purpose is not to appear at the top of Google searches, that is irrelevant. Our job is to help people find information. If Google Search happens to find our information useful, that is up to them. Nothing to do with us. Si Trew (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • To put it plainly, if we decide to retarget or delete this redirect, or make an article, Google Search will follow. It is a Master/slave (Yes, I checked Master-slave etc too). Si Trew (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • To put it more plainly WE ARE THE MASTERS HA HA HA HA HA HA AND YOU MUST DO OUR BIDDING, OR MAYBE FORFEIGHT YOUR BATHPLUGS. Sorry, couldn't resist. Si Trew (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, not at all my meaning. I'm using Google results to gauge what real-world meanings are attached to this term, as an analogue for what people have in mind then they type this term into our search box. Wikipedia's ranking on Google doesn't matter because we're on top anyway, nyah nyah Ivanvector (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2014 (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.

Gold plan[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. Given this result, and the one above, I will be following TexasAndroid's suggestion and deleting Silver plan and Platinum plan as well. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seam as a useful redirect to me. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Lenticel: Interesting. This is what my own google search comes up with:
  • Gold Health Plans - Coverage from $49, Time's Limited‎ Adwww.government-health-insurance.com/‎ Enroll by 12/15/14, Coverage Jan 1. Recently Married?Obamacare Plans ExplainedNew Baby?Turning 26?
  • Search Results
  • Obamacare Gold Health Insurance Plans - Healthpocket www.healthpocket.com/individual-health-insurance/gold-health-plans Nov 25, 2014 - Gold plans have the same standard health benefits as the bronze & silver plans but have lower out-of-pocket expenses and higher premiums. Gold Health Plan | HealthCare.gov https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/gold-health-plan/
  • HealthCare.gov Gold Health Plan. Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print. See Health Plan Categories. Can we improve this page? Footer. How to choose a Marketplace plan | HealthCare.gov https://www.healthcare.gov/choose-a-plan/
  • HealthCare.gov Plan category: There are 5 categories of Marketplace insurance plans: Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum, and Catastrophic. Plans in these categories differ based ... Deductible - ‎Out-of-pocket maximum/limit - ‎What is Coinsurance? How are bronze, silver, gold and platinum plans different ... www.bcbsm.com/index/health-insurance-help/faqs/.../metal-tiers.html
  • To make shopping for health insurance easier, plans you purchase for you and your family are divided into metal tiers: bronze, silver, gold and platinum. We all ... How To Choose Between Bronze, Silver, Gold And Platinum ... www.forbes.com/.../how-to-choose-between-bronze-silver-gold-a...Forbes Oct 1, 2013 - Plans in the Marketplace are separated into four levels – Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum – based on how you and the plan can expect to ...
  • +MORE Ottawahitech (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ottawahitech: Search results in are based on your computer's/devices' geographic location. If anything, the above statement seems like deletion rationale based on WP:WORLDWIDE. Steel1943 (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Steel1943. Less clearly than "bronze plan", but still a frequent result is either the Act itself or companies trying to shill services directly related to it. Other results are various companies selling their top-of-the-line product or service as a "gold plan" but none are particularly notable here. Ivanvector (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SOAPBOX. A Gold Card or Gold Plan is not worth the plastic it is embossed on. Si Trew (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2014 (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/2014_December_4&oldid=1138579538"