Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 10, 2015.

Unconventional weapon[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 Dabify. Converted to dab page by BDD. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem to be the same thing according to this. Guardian article seems to describe it more like Unconventional warfare, but I am not sure. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there are many types of unconventional weapons, most of which are not WMDs (unless you use the very loose definition of WMD currently in the right-wing press, where something that kills 1 person and only ever could kill 2 people is somehow a WMD) IEDs are unconventional weapons, booby traps are unconventional weapons, punji pits are unconventional weapons, etc. If you use the definition of conventional explosives, most of these are still not WMDs -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete to encourage article creation. --Lenticel (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to conventional weapon as {{R from opposite}}. Ivanvector (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was wondering if there was a term to mean weapons designed for a very specific purpose, such as Hobart's Funnies. Can't find one though. Si Trew (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, perhaps retarget to improvised weapon. Si Trew (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could we say that all "unconventional" weapons are improvised? Ivanvector (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or removing the qualifier entirely, is everything that is improvised unconventional? Thesaurus.com doesn't seem to think so. Si Trew (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's my point, I think. Certainly an improvised weapon is unconventional. But other forms of weapon (e.g. booby traps, kamikaze attacks, biological weapons, sharks with frickin' lasers) are hardly improvised but usually considered unconventional. Ivanvector (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I see your point, and am coming around to your view of making an {{R from opposite}}, but reading that, there seem three groups: "conventional", "unconventional" and "adapted from something else" ("improvised") which overlap somewhat. Would you say a sawn-off shotgun (in the sense " illegal weapons that are created by cutting off the barrel of a standard shotgun" — from that article) was an improvised weapon? Si Trew (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We also have Biological Weapons Convention and Chemical Weapons Convention (among others) but presumably this is not the sense in which "conventional" is meant. Si Trew (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify It looks like there are multiple topics this phrase could legitimately refer to. Conventional weapon is the most tempting, but that would sort of leave it up to the reader to figure out what an unconventional weapon might look like. I've drafted a disambiguation page below the redirect. Take a look, Mr. Guye, Lenticel, Ivanvector, and Si. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think you could ping an IP. Can you? --BDD (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree I am in support of the new disambiguation plan. Seems like the best way to do it. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that's probably better. I'm not so sure about weapon of mass destruction being up there, since many are conventional weapons. But I guess that's a political debate for somewhere else. Ivanvector (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conventional weapon is admittedly not in good shape, but part of the problem here is that phrase is used to mean non-WMDs. I haven't really heard of WMDs explicitly referred to as "unconventional weapons", but it's a logical extension. --BDD (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support dabify. Although I found it a bit unconventional ;) --Lenticel (talk) 00:05, 20 February 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.

Nee xon[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) 18:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that this is plausible. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oddly, I was thinking along the same lines (never having heard of this character), and the hatnote at Xon links there. I've no idea if Vulcans have married names (and in many cultures the man may also change surname on marriage) but "Xon" would, in any case, presumably be the birth name not the married name, under which poor old Xon (who appears to have no love-interest) would now be entitled per WP:COMMONNAME. Si Trew (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is this some sort of phonetic representation of Vietnamese or Chinese pronunciation of Nixon? -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:28, 17 February 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.

Heir to Blair[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 Cameronism. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this redirect, in good faith, was created after the target said 'I am the heir to Blair'. Though when I searched it, I came up primarily with things related to motherhood and parenting. There is significant media coverage about him and this quote, it is just that the concept may not have originated with Cameron. I am an American with no knowledge of what this phrase means or what Cameron intended by saying it. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The quote was made by Cameron in 2005. This from Wikiquote says: "I am the heir to Blair. Remarks to newspaper executives (3 October 2005), as quoted in "Horror as Cameron brandishes the B-word" by Andrew Pierce, in The Times (5 October 2005), page 9." It is also mentioned here, and there are other sources for it. It was discussed at length before 2010 by various media, but much less so in recent years. I think what he was trying to say was that he would continue with the policies of Tony Blair (who was Prime Minister between 1997 and 2007), something he has done in part. Therefore I think it's relevant. This is Paul (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Cameronism, where the origin of the term is explained, with a ref to the Pierce article Paul gives above. Si Trew (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. I didn't realise we had that one, but it ties in nicely with the topic. This is Paul (talk) 13:49, 12 February 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 agenda[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) 18:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor created this page back in 2005 as an article with the only content being "Illuminati conspiracy's second name." A user named Weyes had seen this and boldly redirected it to the current target. The term "dark agenda" is not primarily used to refer to the Illuminati, as I have seen looking through Google results. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete dark agendas are not restricted to Illuminati -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:32, 11 February 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.

Jonathan Dillon[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, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, supposedly a watchmaker who fixed something of Lincoln's, but there is no mention of him in the article, so it's just confusing and harmful. AmaryllisGardener talk 14:47, 10 February 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.

Jake Huseman[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, G3. by User:Mojo_Hand Lenticel (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fairly new redirect, no mention of "Jake" on the target page, and harmful. AmaryllisGardener talk 14:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. WP:G3 "Pure vandalism and blatant hoax" Likely a bad joke. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:57, 10 February 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.

Tea boy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 17#Tea boy

Category:People from Salem[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 (non-admin closure). There is already a discussion on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 9#Category:People from Salem. Ivanvector (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time to delete this poorly named category, after I moved it. There are lots of Salems: Category:People from Salem, Massachusetts, Category:People from Salem, Oregon, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:54, 10 February 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.

WikiProject Cooperation[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. There appears to be no opposition. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A misleading redirect that looks like a cross-space link to a wikiproject but it actually leads to a mainspace article. The title refers to a WikiProject that does actually exist thus it is a WP:SURPRISE violation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What about the reader's expectation (per WP:SURPRISE) that clicking on a link that reads "WikiProject Cooperation" would cause the actual WikiProject's page to come up? Actually this raises a broader issue of the titling of mainspace articles about Wikipedia pages/structures/entities - perhaps we need explicit disambiguation between the WP page and the article about it? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't divert "readers" from mainspace into project space. Someone who wants to see a WikiProject page should know enough to stick "WP:" in front of it in the search box. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Remember Wikipedia content (which includes redirects) is not just for Wikipedia. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC).
  • Keep Mainspace should normally only link to mainspace. There are a few exceptions (eg: Citation needed now goes to Wikipedia:Citation needed due to the phrase's common currency), but they are very much in the minority. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:11, 10 February 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.

Talk:Oh No[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 close, as I have WP:BOLDly added the proper project banner. Tavix |  Talk  16:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While this is a fairly old redirect, it seems strange to me that the talk page of this disambiguation page should be a redirect. Eman235/talk 04:20, 10 February 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.

Flashygoodness[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) 21:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, term not mentioned in article, though it might have some ties to music. AmaryllisGardener talk 03:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if it's new. Appears to be a currently NN musician-composer. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC).
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.

Tomecide[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 book burning. (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, makes no sense. AmaryllisGardener talk 03:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to mean "The act of murdering or destroying a book" but it is obscure. This is where I found it [1]. --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm okay with the retarget arguments too. --Lenticel (talk) 00:05, 11 February 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.

Kill someone else[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. I find the delete arguments more convincing. This doesn't seem to be a likely search term, and it's too vague to parse with much certainty. Rich's interpretation is one possibility; Si Trew explores some others. Simply redirecting to homicide is unlikely to satisfy a reader, even if one did search for such a phrase. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um. . .I'm not sure if the definition of a word ought to redirect to that word. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, because I'm not sure what that should target. Also not a very likely search term. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Homicide more accurate target. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC).
  • Delete. I imagine this was used as an alternative to a pipe, once upon a time, but isn't now. Since "kill someone" is enough to mean "homicide", what does the "else" add? Perhaps:
  1. X intended to kill or harm Y, but killed Z instead. (manslaughter, second degree murder or mistaken identity)
  2. X killed Y, and also killed Z. (multiple murder → murder, or multiple homicide)
Yet Kill someone on its own is red. WP:RFD#D2, "the redirect may cause confusion". Si Trew (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Homicide Really it is like the exact definition, equivalent to "(a human being) killing another human being" as from the lede. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 08:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite: that definition is synonymous with "kill someone". The "else" in "Kill someone else" is thus either redundant, or means there is a third party, and each is as likely as the other in my opinion. Si Trew (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Kill someone else" is distinct from killing one's self. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC).
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.

Nick Synodis[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) 20:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, makes no sense. AmaryllisGardener talk 03:19, 10 February 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.

Cocaine hippo[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) 20:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, makes no sense, no mention of "cocaine hippo[s]" in the section, or in the whole article for that matter. AmaryllisGardener talk 03:17, 10 February 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.

True ancestor[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) 20:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section it was intended to go to was likely removed, leaving no purpose for it here. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:06, 10 February 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.

Colon Capital D :D[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) 20:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term, makes no sense. AmaryllisGardener talk 02:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Oh, now I get it. It seems that the colon is used frequently in emoticons. Still, too vague. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doubling up the same thing, and writing out the statement :D is not a proper use for a redirect. The redundancy here also makes its weird. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this has been a redirect for 9 years, and clearly meets the "neither new nor harmful" criteria. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC).
  • Delete Being 9 years old isn't a reason to keep. If it doesn't make sense, is implausible, and potentially misleading, it should definitely be deleted. Tavix |  Talk  17:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it possibly misleading? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC).
  • Delete per above. Confusing at best. --Lenticel (talk) 00:05, 12 February 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.

Colonoh[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) 20:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, makes no sense. Shares the name of the redirect's creator. AmaryllisGardener talk 02:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete makes no sense. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete writing out :O is not a proper use for the redirect. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this might be usable as a typo for colonel... -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Again an old and non-harmful redirect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC).
  • Delete Google has nothing about this term referring to emoticons, so it is completely implausible. Since age isn't a reason to keep, it should be deleted. (PS: I disagree about it being a typo for colonel. If so, I feel like there would be at least something on Google that shows that someone made that typo before, but I'm not seeing anything. When you factor in the pronunciation of the word, that just seems completely implausible as well.) Tavix |  Talk  18:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as a typo on a QWERTYish keyboard it's literally far-fetched: O and E, and L and H, are not close to each other. But in some pronunciations the "-el" almost completely disappears (in mine, for example, where it's pronounced lazily something like "kerno") and so I could see that phonetically it might cut the mustard. Si Trew (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Confusing at best. --Lenticel (talk) 00:04, 12 February 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.

Swift exit[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) 20:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? No sense. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:42, 10 February 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.

Ngentot[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) 20:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely the Indonesian word for "naked". Sex is not especially Indonesian. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - misleading. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC).
    With no prejudice to recreation as a redirect to Indonesian profanity once it exists. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC).
  • Delete - this is apparently the Indonesian equivalent of fuck, apparently considered one of the most offensive words in the language, according to UrbanDB (link might be NSFW if your employer is very sensitive) however as Mr. Guye points out our f-word is not particular to Indonesian. Ivanvector (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since sex is universal, in fact too universal. --Lenticel (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha! Si Trew (talk) 01:01, 12 February 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.

List of terms for avoiding sexual intercourse[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) 20:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SURPRISE Mr. Guye (talk) 02:35, 10 February 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.

Submission to God[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 and refine target to Islam#Etymology and meaning. --BDD (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not exclusive to Islam, or any two or three groups of religions. Apparently someone tried to link it to Christianity at the same time. There is likely a better target than either of these. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, I would think that we should have an article on the general concept at this title. bd2412 T 03:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: isn't "submission to God" the literal translation of Islam? Whether or not there is a more appropriate target, this would seem to have been the redirect's creator's intention. If kept, modify to redirect to section "Etymology and meaning". הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to monotheism or delete to submit to a singular God would be to become a monotheist -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or create an article (or dab) per BD2412. I have added "Redirect with possibilities" in case we are lazy. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC).
  • Retarget to Islam#Etymology and meaning per Hasirpad (this is the literal meaning of the word Islam) and add a hatnote at the target section if there are possibilities for other doctrines. Probably there is an opportunity for this to be a separate article. Ivanvector (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine Target to Islam#Etymology and meaning per Hasirpad --Lenticel (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2, confusing (though Islam#Etymology and meaning is a photo finish), as it could mean supplication or more generally prayer. Submission → deference do not mention those words' religious meanings. Si Trew (talk) 01:07, 12 February 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.

Qaeda of Jihad[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) 20:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either POV or just inaccurate. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not exactly POV, but doesn't really make much sense. --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to my search ISIS may be linked to organizations called alQaeda of Jihad. However, I think this term is an implausible misspelling. --Lenticel (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We generally omit "the" at the beginning of article names so it seems a fairly likely variant. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC).
  • But this is the omission of "al", not "the". Nobody, as far as I know, calls the organisation "Qaeda".
The omission of definite articles on foreign language words seems to follow a good deal of WP:COMMONSENSE, f'rexample Qaeda is an R to DAB at Qaida (of the two entries, one being Urdu and the other Arabic). Other examples such as Figaro, El Paso, Le Mans, Hoi Polloi (not Polloi) etc show rather a good dose of common in this regard (as well as WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME, etc), and WP:COMMONNAME specifically exemplifies Le Hague not 's-Gravenhage (which does in fact redirect there, as does Gravenhage and Den Haag, but not Haag, which is a DAB page). Si Trew (talk) 01:20, 12 February 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.

Haper[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. This could kind of go either way, though. --BDD (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "Stephen Haper" might be appropriate, but "Haper"? Harper isn't a rare surname. AmaryllisGardener talk 02:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Haper seems to be a Dutch word and also Norwegian word. Anyways, I can't find a good target for this term. --Lenticel (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does harm. Redirect is too vague to be helpful. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haper Lee has been R to Harper Lee since 2004 though, and is its obvious target. It might even get more hits, now, with her new book coming out this summer. I would probably cross-ref the DABs at Harper and Happer (and maybe at Harper (name)) in their "See also" sections, though. Si Trew (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Harper as best target and probably helpful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC).
  • Delete - I think it's too ambiguous what the intent of this misspelling is, so it's best deleted to prevent confusion. Ivanvector (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Harper as {{R from misspelling}}. I can't think of any other likely typos. Si Trew (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm also fine with a retarget suggestion. --Lenticel (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just as likely this is a misspelling of Happer. Are you sure retargeting is the best option? Ivanvector (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think a "see also" section as drafted by Si Trew is sufficient enough for that issue.--Lenticel (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've boldly tied together the above-mentioned DAB pages via their "See also"s; I don't think that prejudices this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, that seems a fine solution. Google gives me about 10,000x more hits for "Harper" versus "Happer", but I am searching from Canada. Ivanvector (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. There are some people that actually have the last name Haper per social networks results, but none of them are especially notable. On the other hand, mistaking Harper for Haper has been seen in more reliable sources. Xinhua ("... Haper, same as (David) Beckham's daughter") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hisashiyarouin (talk • contribs) 08:21, 12 February 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.

V.I.P (Jessie J 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 4 Times. --BDD (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe deletion is best, I tried to find the right album to re-redirect this to, but I can't find any place that mentions "V.I.P" as a Jessie J song. AmaryllisGardener talk 02:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does harm. I cannot find any place that mentions it as a Jessie J song either. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 4 Times, an album containing the song VIP by Koda Kumi, Toby Gad, Jessica Cornish (Jessie J) and T-Pain. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC).
  • Retarget per Rich Farmbrough, but I note a certain lack of precision: the caps on "Song" and the lack of punc after "P". None of the following exists:
The song is in fact twice spelled "V.I.P" and twice "V.I.P." at the suggested target. Si Trew (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum. In fact, these are also red, so the disambiguation is overly-specific (but might as well stet):
Si Trew (talk) 02:02, 12 February 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.

Communist government (disambiguation)[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) 20:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name implies redirection to a disambiguation page, this one does not. Surprise!. I mean, its category on the page says in black bold print: this template should only appear on a redirect page that has "(disambiguation)" in its title. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from 2008 to 2013, communist government was a disambiguation page -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this redirect does no harm, and in the event of Communist government becoming a dab page or article again, which it probably should, it serves a purpose. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC).
  • Delete as potentially harmful/confusing. Any redirect with a (disambiguation) qualifier should be redirected to a disambiguation. Tavix |  Talk  16:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - left over from WP:TWODABS page move. Should not have been left at the time. Communist government probably shouldn't redirect to Communism since in practice the two concepts are pretty far apart, but that's a different discussion. Ivanvector (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:G6, housekeeping. @Mr. Guye: It does "appear on a redirect page that has "(disambiguation)" in its title". It's just that the redirect doesn't target a DAB page. It doesn't say that it must do that. (But obviously it should.) Si Trew (talk) 03:31, 12 February 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.

Juan McCain[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. The delete arguments are stronger here, as the redirect is both a non-neutral reference to a living person and potentially confusing. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the possibility of a mishearing somewhere, this one might be a WP:SURPRISE for someone who might actually be looking for someone named Juan. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not plausible search term. --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A surprise is not a problem in this context. It says "we don't have that article". If you think we should have an article on Juan McCain, tag with {{Redirect with possibilities}}. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC).
  • Keep, as potentially useful. Tavix |  Talk  18:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it seems to be a nickname he gained regarding his stance on immigration. However, I'm not familiar enough with American politics to lean on either keep or redirect. --Lenticel (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:BLP, this sort of attack requires a source, and it is not discussed at all (referenced or otherwise) at the target. It would violate WP:NPOV to do so, probably. Ivanvector (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think it would violate WP:NPOV to say that he is called that in opinion pieces in RS, but since that content is not present, WP:RFD#D2, confusing. Si Trew (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be WP:UNDUE to write that, I'd say. Maybe if there was a Criticism of John McCain. Ivanvector (talk) 15:54, 12 February 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.

Bronco Bama[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) 20:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly some troll made this to make fun of how his name is read. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, smh, probably a troll. Actually not a troll, but either way this is POV garbage. --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, oops! @Mr. Guye and AmaryllisGardener: Please note that I had no intention of trolling or humor. The redirect was innocently (naively) created by me as a variation of the redirect Bronco Bamma (created by another user). I believe that redirect was tagged as a misspelling redirect, so I assumed it was a legitimate addition to the various misspelling redirects to President Obama. In that case, we'll want to nominate Bronco Bamma for deletion as well. Thanks, --Bananasoldier (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added Bronco Bamma per Bananasoldier and per my rationale below. Whatever is the consensus here should apply to both of these redirects since they are clearly related. Ivanvector (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while this is a plausible misspelling of a likely search target (see [2]) it would have to retarget to an article on the girl in the video, rather than to Barack Obama, and that article would violate WP:BLP1E. Targeting to the President's article is improper, so this should be deleted. Ivanvector (talk) 16:53, 10 February 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.

Authoritarian cultist[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 17#Authoritarian cultist

Bible beater[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 List of religious slurs#Christians. --BDD (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be POV, but I'm not entirely sure. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, seems to be another POV redirect. --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Retarget to List of religious slurs where other ahem "colorful" terms are recorded. --Lenticel (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Write Article/Stub Frankly, I do not remember any involvement or why this redirect was created, but looking at it, it is orphaned (no links other than that surrounding this discussion). I would not be surprised to find out that there are some citable source behind the concept of a "bible beater", and unless somebody wants to find them and write an article on it, I think the redirect should be deleted. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:03, 11 February 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.

Fictitous[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 Fictitious, as redressing a mistaken bot repair. (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note I revised this as on closing I retargeted it to Fiction by mistake, against the consensus established here. Sorry, my slip. Si Trew (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

**Sigh** another highly WP:POV redirect. This one is also WP:SURPRISE. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I retargeted it to the fiction page. It turns out that was the original target but was accidentally retargeted to the religion page by a bot when the fiction page was briefly redirected to the religion page in April 2010.--69.157.255.228 (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm okay with this retarget as well. --05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
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.

Magical thinking/Revised[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 Magical thinking. I'm tagging it with {{R with old history}}, which also categorizes it as unprintworthy. This isn't especially satisfying, but I think it's the simplest solution. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV again, also implausible. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It could possibly be redirected back to Magical Thinking. It was retargted by a bot to the current article after a vandal redirected Magical Thinking (they also redirected Priest to rapist and money manager to Jew so there is no question) to Religion.--69.157.255.228 (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. In that case, I guess just retarget to magical thinking and either leave it or take it to Mfd. Ivanvector (talk) 19:17, 23 February 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.

Magickal thinking[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 Magical thinking. --BDD (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Horribly POV. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:44, 10 February 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.

Evil-disposed[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 17#Evil-disposed

Evil purpose[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 Evil Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The target only talks about malice as a legal term. Unless evil purpose is a legal term that means the same thing or something related to Malice in law, then it has no business here. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:32, 10 February 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.

White female rapper[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) 20:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted, this is a general term that redirects to a specific person. --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AmaryllisGardener: I agree, and the evidence seems to be that we don't have articles on, categories for, or lists of, musicians based on their ethnicity or sex, such as white rapper or female wrapper or black rapper or male rapper. WP:BIO says "sexuality" not "sex" and I appreciate the difference, but even so we don't tend to say e.g. "George Smith is a male boxer" in the lede. We do have Plain Brown Wrapper, but that's another thing... Si Trew (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC) ce'd with example Si Trew (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no suitable target/ All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC).
  • Speedy delete as promotional for a particular performer -- however notable the performer may be. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 16 February 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.

Eolgi[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 R3 by User:Randykitty Tavix |  Talk  16:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No sense whatsoever. Redirect shares name with its creator. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, makes no sense. --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I can't find a good definition during my search. It's confusing at best.--Lenticel (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: created by a blocked sockpuppet, related to his/her odd obsession with the word (?) "eolgi" and vandalizing interstate-related pages. Probably qualifies for speedy deletion per criterion G5. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:11, 10 February 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_February_10&oldid=1136448188"