Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 29, 2015.

Sydney Airways[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. Just to clarify, since I was initially confused too, the companies were merged; a merge of their articles never took place. (Sydney Airways does not appear to have ever had its own article.) --BDD (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This apparently was the name of a minor airline company which was merged with the target (which I have yet to verify if it is true), but the current target is not helpful. - TheChampionMan1234 23:48, 29 April 2015 (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.

Boeing Airlines[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 7#Boeing Airlines

Scottish problems[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 as borderline attack page and irrelevant redirect anyway. --Alison (Crazytales) (talk; edits) 20:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this was intended as irony or humour, but it doesn't seem like a very helpful redirect. In fact, it's not a very likely search term at all; I don't think there's anywhere useful it could link to, so it should probably just be deleted, and the link removed from the sole article that points to it. Robofish (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought when seeing this was West Lothian question, so perhaps retarget it there? Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - West Lothian Question is only a name for an issue that isn't any more a Scottish problem than it is a problem of Wales, Northern Ireland and England. At different times, Scotland may have different problems or no problems -- and it may present different problems or no problems. So the right target can never be fixed. Since the only mainspace article it links to that links to it is National Association for the Vindication of Scottish Rights, which really doesn't need to wikilink this phrase at all, it's probably better deleted. --Stfg (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. There are a lot of problems that they can encounter.--Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or even speedy delete as something close to an attack. JZCL 19:49, 30 April 2015 (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.

Carlos Perez (baseball, born 1991)[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. Just Chilling (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Player was released by the Braves so the target is no longer valid... suggest deletion as the player is not notable enough for his own article. Spanneraol (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete He was released by the Braves organization so the redirect can't be kept. It doesn't look like he was picked up by anyone else, so a retarget to a different organization is out of the question. He doesn't pass WP:NBASEBALL so creating an article on him isn't an option. Therefore, the only option we do have is deletion. Tavix | Talk  20:26, 30 April 2015 (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.

Marcus Dyrus Hill[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 because badly formatted and risk of technical issues --Alison (Crazytales) (talk; edits) 20:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect's title contains wiki markup. Due to the technical issues caused by wiki markup in article titles, title with two consecutive apostrophes are restricted from creation by the title blacklist. In effect, this redirect should be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to potential technical bugs because of the markups --Lenticel (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2015 (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.

Gareth Morgan (athlete)[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 Change target to Seattle Mariners minor league players#Gareth Morgan --Alison (Crazytales) (talk; edits) 20:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improper dab.. proper redirect exists at Gareth Morgan (baseball). No need for this one Spanneraol (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2015 (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.

Robert L. Gordon IV[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 restore and send to AfD. --BDD (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirects to America's Promise, but there is no mention of Robert L. Gordon IV in the article on America's Promise. Either provide information about Robert Gordon or delete the redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there was anything about him in his (presumably) father's article Robert L. Gordon III I'd retarget it there as an {{R from relative}}, but there is no mention of any offspring, let alone by name. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Redirect and send to AfD the article was converted to a redirect with "not independently notable". Perhaps it's better off to send this to Afd for discussion. --Lenticel (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article and send to AfD. Discussions about whether or not he is "independently notable" is better suited for that forum. Tavix | Talk  20:31, 30 April 2015 (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.

Shriya Pilgaonkar[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 7#Shriya Pilgaonkar

Scandals shaking the Swedish Social Democratic government[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) 16:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been a newspaper article. JZCL 17:18, 29 April 2015 (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.

Additional time[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 Overtime (sports). --BDD (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does not only apply to association football, there are a whole host of sports to which this is applicable. Delete to encourage article creation, or dabify. JZCL 14:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2015 (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.

After extra time[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 Overtime (sports). --BDD (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does not only apply to association football, there are a whole host of sports to which this is applicable. Delete to encourage article creation, or dabify. JZCL 14:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2015 (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.

Injury time[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 Overtime (sports). --BDD (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does not only apply to association football, there are a whole host of sports to which this is applicable. Delete to encourage article creation, or dabify. JZCL 14:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2015 (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.

Stoppage time[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 Overtime (sports). --BDD (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does not only apply to association football, there are a whole host of sports to which this is applicable. Delete to encourage article creation, or dabify. JZCL 14:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2015 (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.

Pundle[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete both. JohnCD (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see two dictionary definitions here and here that describe "Pundle" as a "short and fat woman" and one as "a dirty slovenly girl" but nothing to describe a cat's behaviour. I'm aware of cat kneading (as are the myriad of T-shirts filled with holes I have owned), but this isn't a name I'm aware of. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added Pundling as verb form of non-existent verb. (Pundle is listed in the OED as a noun, but not with the feline meaning, and there's no verb. Pundling isn't listed separately either. Neither form is found in Merriam-Webster at all.) --Stfg (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. I have been entirely unable to verify that either word has any relation to cats, or any other encyclopaedia topic for that matter. wikt:pundle only has an imported entry from the 1913 Webster's dictionary and that marks it as an oboslete term for a "short and fat woman", it doesn't have an entry for "pundling". Even Urban Dictionary, the very definition of an unreliable source, has only one definition and that relates to duct tape. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I apparently created pundle awhile back as housekeeping after a pagemove from pundling to kneading. The original version of that article is so bad that if it weren't for having heard this term used 'in the wild' I'd suspect it was WP:BOLLOCKS. Nevertheless, I am completely unable to find any written evidence that this meaning exists outside the brains of one editor from 2005 and one slightly dotty fellow animal shelter volunteer. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: from the oldest version of the page, "the origin of the word is from the BBC Radio 4 program 'word of mouth', which deals with matters concerning the finer points of the english language. It was suggested by a guest in the absence of a word which specifically names this activity". In other words, a protologism that never caught on. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an obscure and unrelated term. --Lenticel (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2015 (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.

Redirects created by Danny: Class A (i.e. of the form: First name(s), surname, first half of senior title, all junior titles, second half of senior title)[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. JohnCD (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I do not think so. They were created in a space of two months. After the first one or two, the creator would have noticed his bot′s exploits, disabled it and asked for the pages′ immediate deletion. These have been around for 10 years.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - misleading; these are all wrong. Ivanvector (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as implausible synonyms. --Lenticel (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2015 (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.

Redirects created by Danny: Class B (i.e. of the form: First name(s), all titles, surname)[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. JohnCD (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this is too long to be actually helpful. ANNOUNCEMENT I went to look up this user's page creations from the time this one was created to see if there is another one or two like this, in order to bring them here. What I found was a little more and it is coming. These are all of them (at least I hope I did not by-pass any). The Theosophist (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as harmful: That's not the way someone writes someone's style, with their title put between their forename and surname. Si Trew (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Si Trew. Ivanvector (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Si Trew. --Lenticel (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Delete. This is kinda what we used to call informally "Army English" (working in the defence industry) in that the British Army quartermaster's store always listed things as "Boots, black, 11 size, two, marching for the use of", i.e. a kinda reverse Polish notation which is very easy to parody but not useful to an encylopaedia. Si Trew (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all per Si Trew. Updated my vote since it seems that there are a lot more of these faulty redirects lying about. --Lenticel (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Si Trew. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Si Trew. May have been bad form to add so many redirects to this nom after there were already comments on it, but rationale is the same. I'm striking and re-!voting just to confirm I support deletion of all of these, not just the one, in case anyone asks. Ivanvector (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2015 (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.

Redirects created by Danny: Class C (i.e. implausible typo)[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) 10:48, 6 May 2015 (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/2015_April_29&oldid=1145349776"