Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 2, 2015.

The Fat Kid from Stand By Me[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) 21:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anyone searching for this phrase. Plus, it seems to serve only to disparage Jerry O'Connell – Majora4 (leave a message) 20:11, 2 January 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.

Anelloni[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) 21:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone prodded this page, but prods don't apply to redirects, so it was declined on procedural grounds. The prod rationale was "Anelloni" is a distinct pasta style that was recently invented by the University of Warwick. It is no longer appropriate to redirect Anelloni to the Anellini article. I'm neutral, coming here just to help the ill-informed prodder. Nyttend (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment there's multiple different kinds of "anelloni", there's the recently invented pasta, but there's also another one similar to rigatoni. Suggest conversion to set index. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 02:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was going to create a {{polymer-stub}} article for the "recently invented" one, as it has several mentions in reliable sources. But they all boil down to quoting from this article in December's Physics World, which is essentially primary source (written by its inventors):
  • Michieletto, Davide; Turner, Matthew S. (December 2014). "A taste for anelloni" (PDF). Physics World. IOP. pp. 28–31. Retrieved 3 January 2015. So we decided to create our own "ring spaghetti" — or "anelloni" as we've decided to call it (anello in Italian meaning "ring").[non-primary source needed]
As for "another one", it seems to be this:
The quote there comes from this article:
  • Raisfeld, Robin; Patronite, Rob (31 January 2011). "Bowled Over". New York Magazine. The Underground Gourmet. Retrieved 3 January 2015. The pièce de résistance, though, is a dried tubular pasta called anelloni, a fashion-forward shape that dares to wear its sauce-clinging ridges on the inside of the loop instead of on the outside [...] pasta innovation at its finest.
Incidentally, according to the first, the name is from Italian anello 'ring'. Hope this helps. Si Trew (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've updated the Wiktionary entry at wikt:anelloni with the first and third quotations. Si Trew (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2, "The redirect might cause confusion", and "WP:RFD#D5, "The redirect makes no sense". Anelloni and anellini are patently not the same thing. Si Trew (talk) 10:46, 7 January 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.

Minister for Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (Australia)[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) 21:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an extremely implausible search term. This exact title doesn't appear on the redirected article, which makes it unnecessary. The fact that there is a disambiguator makes it even more unneeded. Tavix |  Talk  07:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion prior to nomination update
  • Comment: There seem to be a bunch of other similar redirects:
Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Australia)
Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations (Australia)
Minister for Industry and Innovation (Australia)
Minister for Education and Science (Australia)
Minister for Education, Science and Training (Australia)
Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth (Australia)
Minister for Youth (Australia)
Minister for Schools, Early Childhood and Youth (Australia)
Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources (Australia)
Minister for Resources and Energy (Australia)
Australia's Minister for Education

Tavix |  Talk  07:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Australia's Minister for Education. The name format is completely different from the rest; it should not be included in this nomination. Please withdraw it and open a new RFD. Nyttend (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the name format is different, so I struck it. However, I don't see the point of "opening a new RFD" for it... Tavix |  Talk  16:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all. Several of these are included on the page as former or lesser ministerial titles, and unnecessary disambiguation is never a reason to delete a redirect. The disambiguation is not always unnecessary either - for example Russia, Ukraine and Latvia also have ministries for Education and Science. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • An unnecessary disambiguation is a reason to delete when it's an implausible search term. In my opinion, there's no way someone is going to type in the full name of some of these and add (Australia) to the end of it. On the other hand, I could see someone using the full title without (Australia). There's a difference here. Therefore, having a redirect of the full title could be useful, but including the disambgiuator is not. Tavix |  Talk  21:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: full names are always likely search terms. If someone is looking for one of these and knows or suspects that the title is not unique and are familiar with Wikipedia's disambiguation style (i.e. potentially anyone who regularly reads Wikipedia) they will think to try these terms with the disambiguator so there is nothing implausible about them - doubly so for those where disambiguation is actually required. On top of all this, the redirects are not misleading or otherwise harmful meaning there is no benefit to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I agree with Thryduulf's reasoning. SJK (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - full titles are always plausible search terms. WilyD 10:32, 5 January 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.

¯\ (ツ) /¯[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 emoticons. --BDD (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should ASCII art be used as a redirect? Users are not likely to type in this exact title looking for Shrug. -24Talk 20:01, 2 January 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.

Yumiko Fukushima[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. (Non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be redirected, since Yumiko Fukushima is Ichiro Suzuki's spouse, and unlike Ichiro Yumiko is not a baseball player, and the current redirect page would trouble readers since the article Ichiro Suzuki has a link Yumiko Fukushima RekishiEJ (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (I'm assuming you meant "This redirect should be deleted") This is standard procedure for a spouse who isn't independently notable; we even have the {{R from spouse}} tag for such redirects. If there's a circular link at the target article, that's easily dealt with—just remove it. --BDD (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the circular redirect can easy be dealt with and there is no rule stating that a non notable spouse can't be redirected to the more notable spouse's article if they have a different profession, so the fact that she is not a baseball player is irrelevant.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. {{R from spouse}} exists for that purpose (and I've marked the R as such). Si Trew (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - discussed at target. WilyD 10:33, 5 January 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.

File talk:Bluebirds.jpg[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 blanked the page. Seems like a clear resolution, given the nominator's rationale. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing redirect. Commons has a file with this name, but the redirect points to the talk page of a different file which is hosted locally on Wikipedia. Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 2 January 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.

Pop no 1s[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) 20:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too generic a title to redirect to specific year of a specific chart. Pop songs and music charts go back decades and this redirect will not help anyone. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, too generic to be useful. --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of Billboard number-one singles, if that's the parent topic. If there's a topic that's yet more generic, retarget there. If it doesn't exist yet, we can just put together a simple new page, linking List of Billboard number-one singles and whatever other lists of #1 singles. Nyttend (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • But what about all the pop songs that went to number one in the United Kingdom, Australia or Germany. I think the most generic target would be pop music. --20:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk • contribs)
      • Then retarget it to the list that includes Billboard and the UK/Australian/German/etc #1s. Does it not exist? <copypaste>If it doesn't exist yet, we can just put together a simple new page, linking List of Billboard number-one singles and whatever other lists of #1 singles</copypast>. Nyttend (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's this: Lists of number-one songs. Still believe the redirects aren't even worth keeping. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you. This is to where I think we ought to redirect it. Why do you believe deletion better than retargeting them there? They're generic titles, and so is Lists of number-one songs. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Partially because pop music is a genre. Most primary no. 1 songs lists/charts cross all genres. Billboard specifically has its Pop Songs (Mainstream Top 40) chart and the Hot 100, two distinct charts. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too vague Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:RFD#1 "The redirect makes it unreasonably difficult to find similarly-titled articles", WP:RFD#D2, "The redirect may cause confusion" — especially since two that differ only by punctuation go to different targets — and WP:RFD#R5 "the redirect makes no sense" since they could go to any other year, or any other chart.
The following potential variants are all redlinks:
  1. Pop No 1
  2. Pop No 1's
  3. Pop no. 1's
  4. Pop Number 1
  5. Pop number 1
  6. Pop Number 1s
  7. Pop number 1s
  8. Pop Number 1's
  9. Pop number 1's
  10. Pop number one
  11. Pop number One
  12. Pop Number one
  13. Pop Number One
  14. Pop number ones
  15. Pop Number Ones
  16. Pop number one's
  17. Pop number One's
  18. Pop Number one's
  19. Pop Number One's
which leads me to conclude these R's aren't helpful, else the variants would have been made. Si Trew (talk) 10:09, 3 January 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.

Rights Alliance[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. WP:INVOLVED close given unanimous consensus after over a month of listing. --BDD (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

name of the organisation that is responsible for shutting down The Pirate Bay, shouldn't redirect to a page who's name is a mockery of it. Possible libel issues? Avono (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: There's no issue of libel here. The question is whether the Rights Alliance has independent notability or is only going to be known in its relation to the Pirate Bay. If the former, deletion per WP:REDLINK would be appropriate. If the latter, there's no problem.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Svenska antipiratbyrån, to which it is related, for now. I'm making a stub but hard to find RS. Si Trew (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have Property Rights Alliance ( → Americans_for_Tax_Reform#Property_Rights_Alliance), but that is not a satisfactory retarget (though the organization seems broadly supportive of Rights Alliance and could be mentioned in any article on R. A.). Si Trew (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a minor topic with connections to a few notable subjects, it just doesn't make sense to redirect to one of them, especially when it isn't mentioned anywhere. --BDD (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wot BDD said. I tried to find non-primary sources but couldn't, delete to encourage creation of the article (good luck!) Si Trew (talk) 14:07, 18 January 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.

1993 LPGA Corning Classic[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) 20:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most Non major championships in golf are not considered notable. The Corning Classic isn't an exception. ...William 18:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Are you saying that the LPGA Corning Classic is not notable, or just the 1993 edition of it?. If it is the former, then I suggest you take that up at WP:AFD and, if that deletion is approved there, this redirect should be taken care of as part of the tidy up. If it is the latter, then that would presumably be why we don't have an article on the 1993 LPGA Corning Classic. As stated in WP:RFDOUTCOMES, there is no notability requirement for redirects, so I'm not sure what there is to discuss. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's articles about yearly non major championships. What is there to discuss? How about the reason you created the redirect in the first place?...William 01:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That still doesn't make any sense - this redirect is not an article, and the target is not about the yearly events. If the championships as a whole are notable (and while I'm no expert they look to be) then redirects from the individual years to the target are good redirects to have. If you disagree the target is notable, then you are in the wrong place and need to nominate LPGA Corning Classic at AfD. If you think the individual year should have an article then you can just overwrite the redirect with that article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I have absolutely no recollection of creating that redirect nearly three years ago, so I cannot give a definitive answer to why. Unlike articles, I don't spend too much time pondering the creation of redirs; if it seems as if it might help a subsequent user I just do it. Like as not, I fell over a red link to 1993 LPGA Corning Classic in another article I was working on (or even just consulting), discovered that there was an article at LPGA Corning Classic that seemed pretty relevant to the link, and created the redir. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I'm adding two similar redirects to the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all per my comments above and the lack of any further explanation from the nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, single-use redirects better served by a pipe (or removing the year from the link).
Details: each is only used, once, in List of professional golfers who have hit an albatross#Others, and not even the full name of the competition. The article is unbalanced as no other competition listed in it has the year in the link, except these in the Others section. These other redirects were also created by User:Chris j wood on the same day as those nominated, 10 April 2012:
I am hesitant to add these to this nomination.
Whether it's notable that a professional golfer hits an albatross in a competition is better discussed at an article talk page. (The chances of a hole-in-one are not remote.[golf 1] But I find it hard to AGF that User:Chris j wood "fell over a redlink", when Chris added the redlinks in this sequence of edits to the article on the same day, 10 April 2012) The remedy there was to put the year outside of the link, or to pipe the links, not to create single-use redirects. Creating them in any expectation they might become separate articles would have been WP:CRYSTAL. Si Trew (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I note 2006 PGA Championship was also linked in the sequence of edits I have linked, but that did already exist (since July 2007) as a separate article. Si Trew (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well thank you for doing that piece of industrial archaeology, although to be honest I do not know why you are taking so much trouble over a redirect. I still don't recall these edits, but if you compare the article as it was before I edited it on 10 April 2012 and after, you can see that I was doing exactly what I said in my edit comment. Before there were a mixture of links to dated tournaments (eg. 2004 Women's British Open) and undated (1993 LPGA Corning Classic). This offended my sense of aesthetics, so I standardised the article so all the entries that had tournament details had dated tournament details, and where that changed a blue link to a red link, I fixed that up by creating a redirect. I see nothing wrong with that as a process, nor do I see anything wrong with single-use redirects; just to repeat there is no notablity requirement on redirects to cast doubt on that. Obviously List of professional golfers who have hit an albatross has moved on significantly in the last two-and-a-half years, and if you want to tidy it up in a different way to me, I have no problem with that. But I don't see any reason to do anything about the redirects, even if that means they end up as zero-use redirs; their existence harms no-one, and if a user were happen to search on them, or another editor add a link, they would still be useful. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, as per my previous comments, and because lack of notability (the headline proposed reason for deletion) is immaterial for redirects. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we didn't take "so much trouble over a redirect" we might as well just shut down RfD altogether. As for their existence causing no harm, I would generally agree, but I feel that the absence of redirects for other years means it's a WP:SURPRISE that these sparse few exist – (from there: "Ensure that redirects and hatnotes that are likely to be useful are in place") and that does not help a search or other editors adding links. Si Trew (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it is slightly surprising that only these years exist, but if these are kept then that is easily fixed. I wont create them now though as this is (surprisingly to me) not a snow keep discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I'm changing my !vote to abstain. That clause in WP:SURPRISE (which assumes we can foretell the likely usefulness of R's) makes our WP:CRYSTAL not clear cut. Si Trew (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Goodley, Simon (29 April 2011). "Tales of betting's winners, losers and fraudsters". The Guardian. Retrieved 3 January 2014.
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.

Shittsburgh[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 9#Shittsburgh

Rebirthing (Breathwork) old[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, delete, delete,(!) and keep, respectively. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appear to be a series of redirects left over from botched moves. The ones with extra words after the disambiguator and should be deleted, but "Rebirthing Breathwork" may be an alternative name for this fringe therapy and should be kept. Note that I recently moved the target to Rebirthing (breathwork) and if any of these are kept they should be retargeted if the bot hasn't got to them already. Ivanvector (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I keep getting edit conflicts when trying to add the Rfd templates to the new redirects I've listed, so I've stopped. The redirects are not tagged. Ivanvector (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw you doing that and thought you'd take care of the rest. Just left a note here just in case. Thanks. Ivanvector (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Understood; I would have done the same. Steel1943 (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rebirthing Breathwork as a plausible search term for the article due to essentially matching the title and current disambiguator. Delete the rest as highly unlikely search terms with malformed disambiguators that were created as a result of botched title moves. Steel1943 (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rebirthing Breathwork, delete the rest. Si Trew (talk) 11:25, 3 January 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 Cheek to Cheek Tour[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 Cheek to Cheek Tour. Si Trew's right on this one—if the article on the tour is deleted, this will be as well. If it's not, then this is a helpful redirect. --BDD (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Originally redirected to prevent further WP:SYNTH violations, but this should be deleted as there has been no official announcement. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheek to Cheek Tour, which was essentially the same fabricated article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:00, 2 January 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.

Snowball clause[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) 20:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading reditrect. The term "snowball clause" does not appear in the target article, whose topic is something entirely distinct from WP:Snowball clause. — Keφr 14:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D5 "The redirect makes no sense".
There are some RS for it to describe contractual terms, but probably better suited to Wiktionary:
This one suggests it's a clause used in a "snowball floater", a certain kind of financial derivative:
and this might suggest it means a reserved powers clause:
but it also seems to be used to mean some kind of terminal symbol in linguistics (or probably more accurately a right-recursive clause exhibiting right recursion, which oddly we don't have although we have left recursion), e.g.
But there's no good target on WP. Si Trew (talk) 11:58, 3 January 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 21st Century[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 21st century. --BDD (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect makes no sense. If this page is meant to refer to the 1967-1970 TV series (hosted by Walter Cronkite), well it redirects to one about the Mike Wallace-hosted 1990s-2000s remake of the preceding 1960-67 series also hosted by Walter Cronkite. Unless and until someone creates an article about the 1967-1970 TV series, this redirect should be deleted. SJK (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the redirect target seems to be a clone of 20th Century with Mike Wallace, which is arguably a better title. The current title is easily confused with Twentieth Century (TV series), or 20th century. SJK (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE There's a VERY BIG PROBLEM with the current target article. From 2004 until 2014, it was about the Walter Cronkite TV show [1] And included information about a TV show called "The 21st Century". The Mike Wallace show overwrote the older article. This should not happen. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 22:45, 5 January 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.

2014 Iranian Airstrikes on ISIL in Eastern Iraq[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) 20:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating remaining not-yet-deleted entries created by indefinitely-blocked editor, as are listed here, in accordance with consensus not to lend legitimacy to ISIS. Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as an unconfirmed event, highly unlikely as a useful redirect. Legacypac (talk) 11:43, 2 January 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.

National Flag Anthem[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. This is actually a move request to move National Flag Anthem (disambiguation) to National Flag Anthem. Please utilize the WP:RM process for this request. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

deletion, so that National Flag Anthem (disambiguation) can move here. Mistakefinder (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; I note the current target is at the DAB already. Si Trew (talk) 02:32, 2 January 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 Flag 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

deletion: useless redirect. One already exists at Flag Song. Mistakefinder (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or retarget to whatever National Flag Anthem targets (it's a double redirect; see #National Flag Anthem). Si Trew (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the nominator has provided rationale to keep in their nomination statement as "Flag Song" is a very similarly-titled redirect, so deleting could be harmful. (However, if Flag Song was bundled with this nomination, my vote would actually be (Part of statement crossed out due to no longer being valid for the current nomination.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Delete both due to being overly ambiguous to a point to where they are not helpful to readers. Steel1943 (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was mistaken, I thought the target was National Flag Anthem. We'll just have to await the outcome of the RM (which is why I refrained from suggesting it). Si Trew (talk) 02:49, 2 January 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.

Harry's Mom[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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of people are the mothers of people named Harry, such as Princess Diana. These could potentially be confusing, and since more clear variants like Harry Potter's Mom exist, they can safely be deleted. --BDD (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Since none is {{R to section}}, I had to search to find they mean Lily Potter (which is an {{R to section}}): so they are hardly an aid to searching. "Mom" does not exist in the target article at all, and "mum" only once ("In a Mother's Day article Molly was also voted the third greatest celebrity mum by The Flowers and Plants association"). Harry's Mum, Harrys Mum and Mum of Harry are red. The Harry Potter article only mentions "mother" twice ("mom" and "mum" not at all), and never names her. Perhaps I am odd but I have never read a Harry Potter book nor seen a film, so I come genuinely ignorant to this one. Si Trew (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Harry Potter is clearly not the only notable Harry and I see no evidence that someone typing any of these redirects would be looking for this character's mother specifically.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some's been reading too much Harry Potter. Legacypac (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Si Trew. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. There are a lot of Harry's in the world--Lenticel (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually the first was an R to anchor "Lily Evans" which I've fixed, the others to anchor "Lily Potter". I've marked them all as {{R to anchor}}, though this seems to be WP:SNOWBALLing. Si Trew (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Harry's mother is Princess Diana -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We're not discussing Harry's mother. Si Trew (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah we are, in all the various renderings that exist in the nomination -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 22:47, 5 January 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_January_2&oldid=1136448171"