Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 29[edit]

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

Team Sarah[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) 21:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This term is not mentioned in the target article. Through search engines, the top result does relate to a topic with strong ties to the subject of this article (a group that seems to promote the subject of the target article ... yet their site requires a login and password to see anything) ... most of the rest of the results are for a music group from the Philipines that were on a show called The Voice. So, I'd say delete for probably being a WP:PROMO for a third party related to the target, and WP:REDLINK for the music group. Steel1943 (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Just for background info, the team is called as such because they are coached/led by singer/actress Sarah Geronimo. --Lenticel (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's not a helpful target. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's usually Team Palin. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 13:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obscure term that is not a likely search phrase. - MrX 21:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - other issues aside, simply Sarah is very vague.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:26, 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.

Palintology[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) 21:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not mentioned in the target article. All results show this to be some kind of meme or joke in regards to the subject of the target article. So ... delete for essentially being a WP:BLP violation as a redirect ... or very weak retarget to Paleontology as a misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 13:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a plausible misspelling. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Weak Retarget to Paleontology, torn about its plausibility, probably not likely (hence the super weak).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget. It wouldn't surprise me if "palintology" was a phonetic rendering of "palaeontology" in some accent (a southern US drawl perhaps) but I don't know that. Either way, the current target is not appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Considering that in US English it is "Palentology" ( → Paleontology) (and you have Noah Webster to blame for that) it is just a mere slip, twixt a cup or a leap (you have Shakespeare to blame for that? Macbeth III.iv I think, Mrs. Macbeth being a nagging wife like mine). WP:NOTDIC, [[WP>RFD#D2 confusing]]. Si Trew (talk) 07:12, 2 September 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.

逻辑[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 7#逻辑

College logic[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) 21:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Term not used in article. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete college course names should not redirect to topic articles -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 13:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as vague. There's a lot of subjects taught within college logic courses --Lenticel (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tried to look for Collegiate (a DAB to some schools, as if schools had any logic) and going around the fences the school of philosophy of Plato and Aristotle for example, who took a collegiate approach. Platonic logic is red, but even were it not, it would seem a far stretch, as Collegiate does? Aristotle, in the Metaphysics, generally boils down to a reductio ad absurdem argument, but then he didn't know how many teeth his wife had. Del it, then. Si Trew (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Simply not a helpful redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:43, 3 September 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.

Islamick[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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible misspelling. Islamic means "of or relating to Islam" and "ick" doesn't. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:09, 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.

Motor City (2014 film)[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 per WP:R#D2. Just Chilling (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:R#D2. The target contains no mentions of this film and Motor City (disambiguation) doesn't have any entries for films of this name. -- Tavix (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the redirect that mentions a year, weak keep for the other. IMDb lists a film of this name as "In Development" [1]. Since I don't have IMDbpro access, I can't see any details, but assuming good faith on the part of the creator, I assume the target is a reasonable one, and the film has simply been delayed. So, the redirect with a year is clearly invalid at this point, but either of WP:R#K3 (a stretch, but not impossible) or WP:R#K7 could apply to the other redirect. Xtifr tälk 09:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. You're just assuming a connection and we shouldn't do that. Unless there is sourced material in the article on that film, it'll be confusing and/or speculatory. Anyone looking for information on the film will be disappointed because nothing exists there and it's a WP:CRYSTAL violation. When/if this film starts production, it'd be super easy to write an article on the subject, so let's wait until then. See also: WP:REDLINK. -- Tavix (talk) 13:28, 30 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.

Ayy lmao[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) 22:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Know Your Meme confirms that this is an Internet meme, but it's probably not a notable one, and it's not discussed at the target article. BDD (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage article creation I personally consider Know Your Meme to be a reliable source, although Know Your Meme has had more coverage on more clearly notable memes than this one. It may be possible to find more coverage on other websites. So I favor deleting this redirect to encourage article creation since I think it might be notable. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Encouraging article creation is usually considered a reason to keep a redirect. (Note: that's not my !vote, merely part of my observation.) WP:R#K7: Anyone can edit a redirect; not everyone can create a new page. Xtifr tälk 09:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Xtifr: In this case it'd be an argument for deletion since the target contains no information on the subject. See WP:R#D10. -- Tavix (talk) 13:31, 30 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.

Challenge (internet)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 6#Challenge (internet)

Post-2009 Pacific hurricane seasons[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete all as uncontroversial housekeeping. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Delete all as outdated redirects that would now be confusing. The target doesn't contain a list of this sort, and it hasn't since the year listed. -- Tavix (talk) 18:49, 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.

On-line drama addiction[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) 13:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could say some trolls have this, but it's not a commonly used phrase; it doesn't appear at all at the target article. BDD (talk) 18:48, 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.

To anarchize[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 6#To anarchize

Alternative versions of Thor[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. Deryck C. 21:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a similar problem of unnecessary disambiguation to that below. Again, I think these should go to a title like Thor in popular culture, but lacking that, I'm not sure what to do with these. Neither Thor#Modern influence nor Norse mythology in popular culture seem like very good retargeting options. --BDD (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete WP:BIAS Wikipedia is not the Marvel Encyclopedia. Thor is not a Marvel invention. This is clearly prejudiced against non-Marvel topics -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 67. Rubbish computer 21:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per anon --Lenticel (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I indirectly created the redirect when I originally moved the page from Alternative versions of Thor to Alternative versions of Thor (Marvel Comics). However, the idea behind the page move is line with the rationales listed above. The title needed to be disambiguated to clearly define the scope of the article, the Marvel Comics Thor. I agree with @BDD: for the need of a Thor in popular culture article, to list the other incarnations of Thor.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I really like the idea of simply deleting these and leaving the target article titled as is. We typically shouldn't have titles like "Foo (bar)" if "Foo" is red. --BDD (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Thursday. Si Trew (talk) 09:31, 2 September 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.

Thor in other media[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 Norse mythology in popular culture. Deryck C. 21:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of category names, it's unusual to see disambiguators in child articles. In these cases, there's unnecessary disambiguation, which is especially problematic. I understand the logic here, though. We really could use a Thor in popular culture article, but for now, I recommend retargeting these to Norse mythology in popular culture or moving the longer title over the redirects and retargeting the second item there. I'm tempted to favor the moving, but retargeting probably makes more sense in the long run. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 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.

Women in law[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) 13:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIAS. Hat tip to This is Paul for drawing attention to this in a similar RfD. BDD (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lquilter, it was Lady lawyer (discussion). Still ongoing as of now. --BDD (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete WP:Systematic bias. This is not the US Wikipedia. Women exist outside the United States. Law exists outside the United States. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation --Lenticel (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete noticed this because it was mentioned at Lady lawyer. I was thinking the same thing as Rubbish computer above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would much prefer we have a "women in law" article that focuses generally and not just in the US. So delete without prejudice for creation of a new article. --Lquilter (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be WP:RNEUTRAL, contrary. Would you suggest we also have Men in law, then? Le alone that we have Mother in law, and Sister in law ridiculously redirexts to Sibling-in-law, for fucks sake, I am going to delete that, no RS. These were red when I started this discussion at RfD and if I find that another editor has been making them on the sly, their contributions are about as much use as a snake in an arse kickikng competition.
Mother-in-law I have marked to section.
Sister-in-law was red.
A DAB it if anything. Now, there is no point saying essentiall WP:FORRED unless you want WilyD up your tail for "no good reason has been presented for deletion" even when one has but you have not explicitly said so. I say DAB it. It could mean the historical role of women not having the vote, suffragette movement (haven't checked if that is R yet etc). Could be the whole thing about Wome's suffrage (again haven't checked yet, on purpose). Could be Fenűminism at which at a DAB I doubt we should branch into its various forms (AND STOP HITTING ME OUCH WIFE GET OFF ME)
In the alternative, who's gonna write the article, Cherie Booth? Probably me, cos I have a copy of The Female Eunuch on my bookshelf, and have the privilege of Germaine Greer completely ignoring me on Parker's Piece. Bloody hell, I bought her book. Si Trew (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK let's start.


I am sorry I didn't realise Wikipedia is probably also WP:SEXIST cos most editors are male. On the whole, they try to stop hunting wildebeest and edit intelligently. A woman trying to WP:PUSHPOV is not what I want to find, "LadyLawyer", aka {{ping|Lquitter]]. Now, with the gramps, the grandmother has two different places it could go, and the poor old grandpa has nothing to go to. Did I ever say this was simple? Si Trew (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add Women in Love to thart DAB. Many cultures do not have the English 'W' and pronounce it V. Si Trew (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With extreme prejudice I have to say that with this edit here at RfD, User:lquilter removed all my comments. Whether he or she likes them, they are for discussion. With extreme prejudice I think lquilter did wrong to remove them from the discussion. Si Trew (talk) 08:51, 2 September 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.

The Rock Poster Art of Todd Slater[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 WP:BOLD-ly restoring article. This is essentially a "wrong forum" close. TheLongTone (the editor who converted this article to a redirect), if you have an issue with the state of this content, I would recommend nominating it for WP:AFD. As it stands, due to lack of coverage at the targeting regards to identifying the redirect, the redirect could be seen as unhelpful. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I request that the redirect be deleted and the article it replaced be reinstated. The article was removed by user @TheLongTone without engaging in Talk first. Attempts at reasonable discussion via Talk page have been met with disrespectful attitude and no attempt to discuss. Ukebloke (talk) 16:27, 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.

Other Government Agency[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 7#Other Government Agency

Kobato[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. WP:TWODABS recommends against two-item disambiguation pages, and there was not consensus to create one here. I've added a hatnote at the target article. At some point, it will probably be appropriate to have a disambiguation page, such as if the anime and the manga are split into separate articles. "Kobato." may also be an inappropriate title per MOS:TM. A requested move might find consensus to move it to a title like Kobato (manga) and have the base title a disambiguation page after all. --BDD (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I convert this redirect page into a two-topic disambiguation page consisting of just Kobato. and Kobato Station? George Ho (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Huh. Do we know what the station was named after? --BDD (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are three topics, the anime, the manga, the station, and wiktionary wikt:鸊/wikt:鵻 (wikt:こばと/wikt:kobato); Two just happen to be covered by a single article, because of weird WPANIME conventions on not making articles, even though the rest of Wikipedia have separate articles for comics and TV cartoons. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - {Edit} While having a disambiguation page that separates out the anime, the manga, and the station... that seems right to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CoffeeWithMarkets, could you clarify? Do you want to keep the redirect as is and have a Kobato (disambiguation) created, or would you prefer to disambiguate the base title? --BDD (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would have Kobato (disambiguation) / Kobato, yes. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Rubbish computer 17:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move over R the article at Kobato. to Kobato as WP:PRIMARY (and then delete the R with the stop). I can't see that the trailing stop (be it in English or kana) is actually part of the name, and a gsearch for example brings up several results without it (Wikipedia here being the first, but that's no surprise). F'rexample kobato.wikia.com/wiki/Kobato_Hanato doesn't use the stop neither a kana stop nor English one. @Lenticel:, what do you think? Si Trew (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify to Kobato. and Kobato Station. Of course, it can also be resolved with a hatnote at Kobato.. --Lenticel (talk) 00:20, 5 September 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.

Administrative city[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 refine to Cities of South Korea#Administrative city, without prejudice against creation of set index page. Deryck C. 21:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generic term that is now redirected to Cities of South Korea. Rationale is unclear. Think it should be deleted. Savonneux (talk) 07:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and refine to Cities of South Korea#Administrative city, or disambiguate if there's any other topic in Wikipedia called "administrative city". Redirects don't need to be preemptively disambiguated if there's no other topic by the same name. This is the common and official translation of "행정시". 58.176.246.42 (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant that it is hopelessly vague and it doesn't seem to refer to anything on the page it redirects to. Of note also is that "administrative city" seems to refer specifically to capitals and the like, per Encyclopaedia Britannica, so it would be deleted as a WP:DICDEF on here pretty fast. Translation thing maybe?--Savonneux (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine. "Administrative city" is a specific type of subdivision in South Korea that is not apparently used elsewhere. Many places have an administrative capital that would make a good hatnote target if it wasn't a red link. This is comparable to Adminstrative region (a specific type of subdivision in Brazil) and Administration county (a former specific type of subdivision in the UK). Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to Cities of South Korea#Administrative city per above points. Rubbish computer 13:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh. Someone unfamiliar with South Korea's system of designating cities would probably be ASTONISHed at this, as I was. I guess I would expect something discussing the idea of a city as an established administrative unit, as opposed to just a bunch of people and buildings together. That said, this isn't a term I'd search for, and it seems implausible overall, so perhaps readers using this would indeed be looking for the South Korean concept. --BDD (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we have anything discussing that idea then I'd certainly consider linking to it either a dab or via a hatnote, but I haven't found anything. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak retarget to Capital city since that is where most political states' administration is located. (Seriously, very weak.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per BDD, this should not be a redirect, either it should be a stub article or a set index or something -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:34, 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.

Aaaaaa[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 Aaaaaaa, keep the other two. Jenks24 (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will take and add WP:PROMO Si Trew (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same as 'Aaaaaa'. Vincent60030 (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent60030 (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC) I think this redirect should be deleted since there is already the shortened form Aaaaa. So, this redirect should be 'merged' into the other redirect. Vincent60030 (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent60030 (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with nom. Aaaaa also goes there, and could perhaps be added to the nom. Si Trew (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, I think that Aaaaa redirect is also a possible search option since it is very close to Aaaaa! because ppl normally don't use exclamation marks to search for something. So, I think only this one will be deleted and further submissions will be declined leaving only 'Aaaaa!' and 'Aaaaa'. Vincent60030 (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We also have Aaaaaa and Aaaaaaa (but not Aaaaaaaaa). I limited my comments to when I thought it was useful to keep. We have not Aah! but Aah → DAB at AAH, for example. Aha also → AHA, a DAB, but of course is a completely different band from A-ha). Si Trew (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I knocked the two together. Hope that is OK. Added another, too. A bit WP:PROMO to have all these redirects to one book. Si Trew (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA for example. Needless DAB, promo. The plot thins. Si Trew (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aaaaaaa and keep the longer one (because redirecting from the title without punctuation is a common form of {{R from stylization}}) and Aaaaaa (because Steam, a major game retailer, uses six "A"s here so it would be {{R from alternate capitalization}}). --66.87.124.119 (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I won't !vote here because I'm WP:INVOLVED, but I agree with the IP above. We should only have redirects that are legitimate alternate capitalization/stylizing of names of the game that are documented in reliable sources (and I think Steam is okay since WP:COMMONNAME only talks about "reliable English-language sources" not independent sources). If I were to vote, I would vote to keep delete Aaaaaaa and keep the others. If we're not going on sources, we'd have to have redirects from all 20 varients ranging from Aaaaaa to Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 15:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the non-capitalized redirects; keep AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA as a legitimate alternate title. WP:PROMO doesn't apply here - if the redirect title were Greatest game ever then PROMO would apply, but titles are not promotional merely by existing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but these are not titles (are they?): if AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! is the title of the book and "a reckless disregard for gravity" is the subtitle, then the topic should be moved to reflect that: we don't generally list things with their subtitles (is this WP:COMMONNAME? I mean we do have Lines written a few miles above Tintern Abbey but not in all its possible variants of capitalization, and we don't have Lines written a few miles above Tintern Abbey while Revisiting the Banks of The Wye during a tour, 13 July 1798 even though it was originally published with that title.
Perhaps my reasoning is rather circular: the book is not called "Aaaaaaa" in any form of capitalisation, or anything like it. So the redirects to it, I argue, are promotional because they redirect to one book whose title is nothing like what the redirect says. Now, I am not claiming they are intentionally promotional, I am simply saying they have that effect. But I can see why you would say that PROMO don't apply and you are probably right: I'm quite happy to strike that part of my argument. If not, I still see WP:COMMONNAME comming into play. Si Trew (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, the video game (not book) is properly titled as it appears here, i.e. it is not a title-subtitle thing. The article also mentions in the lede that Aaaaa! (six letter A's total) is a proper shortened title. Based on that I think we can call Aaaaaa a {{R from alternate punctuation}}. I think we can keep AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA for the same reason; although the article doesn't call it a proper short title, it's a natural short title given the hyphen. The other redirects with numbers of letters A other than six should be deleted, unless a better target is available. My comment above is struck because I can't work out a change to it without disrupting the thread that follows, so I'll restate below. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I always wanted to be first in the dictionary, but I found it such Aardvark. (Someone had to do it.) Si Trew (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If one of the first two is a typical shortened name, that's obviously valid, and I don't expect readers to have perfect knowledge of how many repeated characters to include. The third, though a bit bizarre, doesn't seem ambiguous. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:33, 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.

Kenneth Peter Townend (1921–2001)[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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is from a title that wouldn't likely ever be accessed. It is simply clutter in the article graph. Kiwi128 (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:CHEAP -- the redirect is accurate, and a common way to write people out in the world at large is in this manner -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a harmless redirect, given that the "disambiguator" is the period of years which the subject was alive. Steel1943 (talk)|
  • Weak Keep - While this is of marginal use, redirects are cheap. I don't think keeping this hurts anything. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above reasons. Rubbish computer 11:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term. WilyD 07:07, 1 September 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.

IPad Pro[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) 13:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as an iPad Pro, as As11ley stated in the edit summary for revision 669499089. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:19, 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.

Dark Invasion[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 on the first redirect, since Captain Assassin! wrote an article on the book. Retarget the second redirect there since it covers the potential film. Consider this withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:R#D2. There is no mention of this film at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The book Dark Invasion is notable enough to have an article of its own. The film is just a project right now and falls under WP:CRYSTAL.
Making a note here that the above comment was added by me. Since there's now an article for the book, I'm fine with a Retarget. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both as I've added content in the book article and redirect the film article to that. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 02:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Captain Assassin! Rubbish computer 11:36, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_29&oldid=1050183045"