Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 25, 2015.

Female privilege[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. --BDD (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Delete as an ill-defined redirect. The sub-section it links to does not really discuss or explain "female privilege" at all. The section at Men's rights movement#Female privilege merely references the term, and doesn't really explain what it means: the concept of "female privilege" as defined by the men's right movement is markedly different to that of the feminist perspective. If Wikipedia isn't going to host an article about this controversial term then it should simply be deleted. Betty Logan (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Due to the below discussion, I am now neutral. At this point, the only way I will have an opinion either way is if a valid, verifiable case to "delete per WP:REDLINK" is made, and I currently do not see one. Steel1943 (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC) (Actually, WP:REDLINK seems to be the nominator's rationale, so I'll just sit this one out since I am a bit unclear about the redirect's subject as a distinct subject for an article, and probably will continue to be unclear.) Steel1943 (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - That a socio-political concept exists by that name is clear. How to define it and what exactly it means isn't clear, but that's not the same thing as notability or being helpful by its inclusion. Aquatic ape theory is a bunch of pseudo-scientific nonsense advocated most prominently by some feminists (not, of course, all or even most feminists) but it has its own article and related sections. One can go on: Creationism, Space opera in Scientology doctrine, Mormon cosmology, etc are not scientifically valid but exist as articles due to having notable ideological proponents. Also, whether or not something is approved or not approved by "the feminist perspective" is hardly relevant-- we have articles on free-market capitalism, classical liberalism, limited government, and all kinds of concepts that many feminists are opposed to and condemn if they happen to be of the Marxist-Leninist feminist/eco-feminist/radical-feminist/etc variety. Looking at "the male perspective" doesn't matter either; no two men off the street would define a broad concept like 'creationism' exactly the same either, what matters being what sources say.
The section as it stands in the 'men's rights' article now is incomplete, but that's a problem in terms of needing more content. What gets cited as being examples of 'female privilege'-- transwomen that seek to fully transition get more of a backlash than women that are just non-binary, men and not women are covered by the draft, men have trouble receiving needed depression and anti-suicide treatment, gay and bisexual men receive more violent and constant homophobic attacks when compared to lesbians and bisexual women, etc-- are of course controversial (and I only agree somewhat myself), but they have been made and are notable. Yes, an article on on 'Female privilege' just by itself would be better, then it could talk about the nature of overlapping prejudices and intersectionality (dealing with problems such as the hatred expressed by some cis-gendered white female feminists against transgender people, lower class people, and racial minorities) and it would be helpful. Until then, the redirect seems okay as a midpoint. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"whether or not something is approved or not approved by "the feminist perspective" is hardly relevant" — how is it any less relevant than the mens' rights movement? Why does the perspective of one form of activism trump another? Either define the term neutrally or don't bother. This sort of bullshit is why women don't bother with Wikipedia. Since the mens rights movement takes a particular stance on "female privilege" then you can't have a neutral treament of the topic within the context of mens' rights; nor would I expect it to. If it is retained it should really be redirected to sexism, like gender bias and gender discrimination are, but I honestly don't see the point since no article utilises the redirect anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1)If you actually read other people's comments before replying, you'd see that I pointed out that the "X perspective" doesn't matter in terms of whether or not articles exist or not and what content is included or not, period. That applies to whatever "X perspective" we're talking about here. From "the Christian perspective", it could be taken as a matter of faith that evolution is false and Islam is a degenerate religion. From "the Marxist perspective", it could be taken as a matter of faith that capitalism is evil. From "the feminist perspective", it could be a matter of faith that increased government censorship is needed to restrict on individuals free expression. Wikipedia is a neutral, unbiased encyclopedia (at least that's what it should be), and if a large number of people are concerned about a certain 'Y topic' than the 'Y topic' article (or subsection within a greater article) will be created. Whatever the viewpoint of the "X perspective" is, the 'Y topic' article/section needs to be written in a fair-minded and objective way rather than just used as a soapbox.
2)The concepts of class discrimination, homophobia, cis-female privileges, and so on, are very well things that deserve their own article, one can argue that. However, just because the concept exists more generally doesn't mean that you can't have also mentioned on a Wikipedia article on a related topic, any more than an article about feminism generally will describe specifically black feminism and other ethnic minority feminist efforts. That a men's rights movement article exists does it, by itself, make the article inherently some kind of 'no-go' area for anyone that's not a member. For the love of God, how is that true with just about any Wikipedia article in general? I'm neither a Saudi nor an anti-terrorist expert, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't work on Response of Saudi Arabia to ISIL. Wikipedia articles are not battlegrounds that are meant to be guarded by a small clique against anybody else venturing into that territory. Wikipedia articles are repositories of information. Just like how any topic with controversy and debate about it existing doesn't have to be scrubbed or censored just because it's controversial-- we have articles such as Abortion in the United States, Tea party movement, Criticism of Christianity, and a plethora of other such things.
3)Finally, speaking as a transperson myself, I find it frankly hilarious that you A)ignorantly and stupidly assume that I'm male, B)ignorantly and stupidly assume that my belief on the role of Wikipedia (which come from Wikipedia guidelines) are somehow an outgrowth of being male, and C)ignorantly and stupidly assume that what's happening is some kind of sign about Wikipedia in general. If anything, the fact that there's this open discussion is going on in which someone like me is speaking to you on even ground is a step forward. It was only mere months ago that I wasn't even able to legally get married in my state. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have always been legally permitted to get married in your state but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, like most of your polemic. The feminist perspective is relevant to covering the term. The male rights movement is also relevant to covering the term too. In fact you will hardly ever see the phrase used outside of these two spheres of activism, so to say one or the other or both are not relevant is simply nonsense. The issue here is that female privilege is not synonymous with the male rights movement! Equating female privilege with male rights is as absurd as equating male privilege with feminism. You haven't made an argument for retaining the redirect based on notability or usage, so most of what you have said actually has little bearing on whether the redirect is kept or not. All you have succeeded in doing is making the discussion rather boring to read through. Betty Logan (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:NPA. I didn't know User:CoffeeWithMarkets was a transperson and it doesn't matter that I now do: all I know is that CoffeeWith is a well-informed contributor to WP:RfD, even when I disagree with him or her (my own foible, I refuse to use "they"/"them" as singular: and if someone wishes to call himself or herself a transperson then I will jump through hoops to respect that if they respect my love of English as she is spoke). Si Trew (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. A woman's privilege is to go through doors first, for a man to give up his seat (i.e. him being a gentleman), and to change her mind (although that is more a woman's prerogative). That is not a female privilege, but a woman's privilege: the same gentlemen's rules do not extend to girls (female human children), for example. These customs of manners are of course are constantly changing and I am too old-fashioned to change mine; why should a man take off his hat when he goes into a room but a woman not, for example? Etiquette covers it broadly, but all I've suggested would be WP:SURPRISEing, I think. Not only humans are female, anyway. It's a female "privilege" to be a Queen ant or Queen bee, for example. The word "privilege" is not WP:RNEUTRAL. Si Trew (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is relevant to its target, and redirects are not always required to be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubbish computer (talk • contribs) 11:42, 26 August 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am not influenced by this topic in making this decision, I simply feel it is a plausible search term, regardless of whether or not female privilege actually exists. Rubbish computer 11:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whether or not female privilege exists in the real world is irrelevant here, what matters is that it exists as a term and that we have encyclopaedic content related to the term. The redirect currently points to the best information we have about it, so that people looking for information can find it. That the information we have could be better than it is is not relevant to the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is not a synonym for women's rights, it is a bullshit phrase used by men's rights activists to attack the women's rights movement. It points to exactly where it should. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it directs to the only place it is currently mentioned in the encyclopedia, and that appears to be how the phrase is used. Rights isn't synonymous with privilege.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:26, 31 August 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.

4,500,000,000 B.C.[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) 14:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a nonsense year. Gregorian calendar years only correlate on a human scale. Any older than that and you'd have to use the geologic time scale. For example, you would say that the Age of the Earth is 4.57 Ga, but it'd be nonsense to use the year 4,500,000,000 B.C. The article doesn't use this terminology so I don't see why the redirect would. (One other minor point on why this redirect is incorrect: years don't use commas.) The redirect is also unhelpful because it assumes someone using it would have to already know approximately the age of the earth. Other things have also happened around that time period, so it's potentially ambiguous (although I would assume the formation of the Earth to be the most notable thing to happen around that "year".)-- Tavix (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as it seems plausible that this could be associated with it. Rubbish computer 20:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: Somebody could recall the year and forget the event, but it appears this is implausible. Rubbish computer 11:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. This is a nonsense year, as undue accuracy? The age of the earth anyway is as any fule kno, 4004 BC at 3pm in the afternoon, according to the Usher Chronology. There is an old joke that the brontosaur in the atrium of the London Natural History Museum was dated as "12 million years and three weeks old" (to cut the joke short, and spoil it), and when asked by the patron how he could date it so, said "it was twelve million years old when I started here, and..." Si Trew (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unlikely to be searched for in this manner using the Anno Domini year numbering system especially incorrectly using commas.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correctly using commas in English, that is WP:ENGVAR orWP:DIFFPUNC. Dots would be more likely in a European system to separate thousands, but I see no thousands unsepareted here. The Systeme Internationale mandates spaces between thousands (103), which nobody uses. Trust me, I'm an engineer. Ask User:Jimp who is the master of Template:Convert and has been for as long as I have been here. Si Trew (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, the comma part has been striken.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tu quoquo, striking mine saying it is Engvar, cos it's not. I am used to having commas as decimal points ( → decimal mark) and dots to separate thousands. That article refers in a hatnote to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Decimal points. Si Trew (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as appears implausible. Rubbish computer 11:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this figure does get a lot of use in many and varying sources, according to google. The redirect also gets traffic, which oddly seems to go in bursts, very little in August or the second half of July, but a busy start to that month and over a hundred hits in some months. The redirect is harmless and the target correct, so I'm struggling to find any benefits to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Thryduulf, because I can't think that it could possibly refer to anything else, even though it's not accurate by any calendar. If the age of the earth (according to our article) is 4.54B years and we drop 2015 years (since the birth of Jesus) and there is no year zero, then ... does this account for leap years? ... actually screw it: even within the precision given, it should be 4,540,000,000 B.C., which this redirect is off of by forty million years. Although that is within the 50-million-year confidence interval, so I guess it's close enough? Maybe it's a plausible misspelling? Anyway I don't see the harm in keeping it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: So let me get this straight: you want to keep a horribly inaccurate redirect because it's "close enough"? Yes, that's harmful. There isn't such thing as a year like this. At least with most {{R from incorrect name}}, that incorrect name is at least mentioned or described... -- Tavix (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: Close! What I'm saying is it's inaccurate but not horribly so. If it pointed to, say, Fall of the Western Roman Empire, then it would be horribly incorrect. However, on reconsidering this, if we assume it's meant as a search for a thing that happened 4.5 billion years ago, then there are a large number of possible targets since this is the approximate age of the solar system, and many things happened within a few million years of this date. Formation and evolution of the Solar System might be an ok target, but given the confusion and the nonstandard format, may be best to delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for the clarification. That makes more sense to me now. -- Tavix (talk) 17:14, 26 August 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.

Walter James Palmer(Dentist)[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) 14:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an implausible search term for three reasons: 1) there isn't a space between the actual title and the disambiguator and there should be, 2) "dentist" isn't a proper noun and shouldn't be capitalized, 3) Walter Palmer doesn't go by his middle name, so the average reader wouldn't know what it is. -- Tavix (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom: with one or two of these it could be a plausible search term, but not with all three. Rubbish computer 20:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. But where does Walter Palmer go? It goes to a DAB which does mention him as it last entry to the entry at Cecil (lion). This says something about how we hate people more than furry animals a long way away (you would not like one in your back yard).
But never trust a Palmer (surname) (or a Palmist). I seem to remember Dr. Palmer a serial murderer in the first decade of the twentieth century, I think defended by Edward Marshall-Hall who is now obliterated from my search from some idiot having a potshot at a cat. This is WP:NOTNEWS, I repeat. The spacing is odd, the caps in the parens is not. Walter Palmer (dentist) and Walter Palmer (Dentist) are red. When I hear the word "revolver" I reach for my culture. Si Trew (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. I don't actually see the nominator's reason 2 as meriting deletion and were that the only one given I'd !vote to keep. Reason 3 on it's own is borderline. Reason 1 however is a reason to delete in most cases, and combined with the other two means this is not a good redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I'm saying is that all three issues combined makes this implausible. -- Tavix (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As is stated above, the fellow generally goes by "Walter Palmer". As well, it's rather odd to see the capitalized term 'Dentist' used as if its an inherited title or something ('Dark Lord Sauron', 'Sith Lord Vader', 'Emperor Palpatine', and 'Dentist Walter Palmer'?) too. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - regardless of the other issues and how it is disambiguated, the spacing is incorrect.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:20, 31 August 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.

M word[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) 14:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target (nor in any caps or hyphenated variation). No links except from this discussion and one in user space; stats are at about one hit a month (stats for target are around 1600 a day). Si Trew (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just threw it out as a suggestion. Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment this is an example of Euphemism#Phonetic modification and so that might be a good target, but only "F word", "S word" and "B word" are given as examples there, and I'm not seeing much use of "M world" ("T word" gets far more use for example). Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I went through all of these "<letter> word" redirects a couple weeks ago, and now I can't remember why I didn't nominate this one. My search results give many more results for motherhood versus marriage, but I don't think either one makes a useful redirect, and can't think of any others. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:38, 26 August 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.

Physible[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 2#Physible

Imagine (song)[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 Imagine#Songs. While there isn't really consensus here, consensus at the RM was that "Imagine (song)" is ambiguous. Since this should've happened as a result of the RM, I consider it the status quo which must remain absent consensus to change it. --BDD (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the move of the John Lennon song to Imagine (John Lennon song), this redirect should target the disambiguation page at Imagine per WP:INCDAB. I considered just changing the target per WP:BOLD, but with the issues that the various Beatles songs have had in relation to WP:PRIMARY, I figured it was best to start this discussion. (Note: there were only four incoming article links to Imagine (song), which have been retargeted to Imagine (John Lennon song)) -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 05:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to dab, per nom WP:PRECISE ambiguous disambiguation is a bad idea. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Imagine. This threw me, somehow the wrong existing target got listed here (i.e. jut Imagine); @Niceguyedc: I hope you don't mind my amending this listing. It's been at that target pretty much since creation, except for a few hours on 2 September 2014 (diff here) and before that with a move discussion around the end of August. It hasn't changed since this discussion started. Si Trew (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SimonTrew: Not a problem. I listed this like a move discussion, where you list what you are proposing instead of the current situation. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 11:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assumed you used Twinkle or something to list it, which confused me more: I guess you did it manually. No problem here either, thanks for making WP better. Si Trew (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to dab. I notice I made this change after performing the move last year but was reverted the same day. Jenks24 (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jenks24: I noticed that too (the August 2014 change). but it didn't actually sit at Imagine except for a few hours on 2 September, with this edit. . Si Trew (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Err, didn't it? Jenks24 (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At 13.17 on 20 August 2014 the title Imagine (John Lennon song) became a redirect as a result of your quite valid move, after discussion. At 13.23, you redirected it to Imagine#Songs. At 22:49 that day, User:Rlendog retargeted it to Imagine (John Lennon song). I said above "and before that with a move discussion around the end of August". I just considered that a three-point turn as part of a page move and not worth going into the details, my fault. Si Trew (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to dab per above. --Rubbish computer 14:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PRIMARY, which is a recognized exception within WP:PRECISE. There is only one other song titled "Imagine" that has an article, and that song has infinitely less notability than John Lennon's. Rlendog (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rlendog. Personally, I think the song should be at the title Imagine (song), but I don't care enough to fight the status quo. -- Tavix (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rlendog. I'm positive I typed this exact rationale yesterday, but it's not here or in the history. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:25, 26 August 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.

Lhati[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 Lahti. (non-admin closure) —Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED; word from a language that I currently cannot identify that seems to not be used in English context. However, it is close in spelling to Lahti. Steel1943 (talk) 04:22, 25 August 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.

Food library[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) 14:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, and from what I am finding via search engines, this is probably a WP:NOTWIKIA violation. This was apparently a made-up phrase used in the series Metalocalypse to represent the equivalent of a grocery. Other than that, I am not finding any evidence of the phrase's use. Steel1943 (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 02:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a synonym or subtopic; Wikipedia is not a glossary for fictional terms -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. If a grocery is a food library, when and how does the food get returned? Si Trew (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...In their deposit box; however, what they call a "deposit box", most people call a "toilet". Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, they WP:PIPE it. Si Trew (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This redirect isn't helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Seed libraries do exist. Not a good retargeting option, however, since what you're "checking out" is indeed seeds and not actual food (I doubt seed libraries "lend" things like ready-to-eat sunflower seeds). As the article notes, with a seed library, a patron could grow a plant and return seeds. I really don't want to think what that would look like at a "food library". --BDD (talk) 20:12, 29 August 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.

Pearl Bowling Center[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) 14:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Most search engine results I receive are about either a business in Budapest or a business in Manila. Steel1943 (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as there appears to be no suitable target. Rubbish computer 02:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This seems like directing 'Steve's Fishing Business' to 'Fishing' or something like that. The redirect isn't helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as possible WP:PROMO violation --Lenticel (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:REDLINK if it is prominent enough it should be an article, if not, it should not exist, as it is not a proper subtopic of the target article -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The one in Budapest is actually "Perl Harbor Bowling Center" (odd name really) and is in no way notable AFAICT from pearlharbor.hu/bowling(in Hungarian)... I've been past it a few times recently when looking for houses. Si Trew (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When I said "odd name really" I wasn't thinking of the WP:ENGVAR just knocking out the whole lot in one strike... a bit odd a name for it, but that's how it is... Si Trew (talk) 22:03, 25 August 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.

Gutter cleaning[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 1#Gutter cleaning

Big Brother 2 (2015)[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) 14:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No indication in the target article Big Brother 17 (U.S.), that this referred to as Big Brother 2 (2015) Whpq (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, as there appears to be no suitable target. Rubbish computer 02:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete Nowhere on the target is the title "Big Brother 2" mentioned. --Tzvi_Katowitz (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Big Brother Angola (season 2). This is the only season 2 of a show called Big Brother to happen in 2015, Big Brother 2 notes that many season 2s are referred to as "Big Brother 2". A hatnote can optionally be provided to HaAh HaGadol VIP 2 (Hebrew: האח הגדול VIP 2; lit. The Big Brother VIP 2), the only other Big Brother season 2 of any sort to happen in 2015, but it doesn't go by this name in English it seems. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice find. However, I see a huge WP:ASTONISH-ment issue for the majority of English-speaking readers if the nominated redirect is retargeted there... Steel1943 (talk) 17:18, 25 August 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_August_25&oldid=1037880273"