Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 6, 2015.

海亀[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D8; sea turtles don't have any special affinity to Japanese. -- Tavix (talk) 20:28, 6 July 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.

AKKK[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing any notable uses of this acronym. -- Tavix (talk) 20:21, 6 July 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.

Light blue touch paper[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a phrase, "light the blue touch paper" means "to kick things off" or "to get things started". (It looks like it is purely a British saying though.) Sure, it could mean fireworks, but I think it's confusing to target it there when it's not mentioned, especially when someone will probably want the meaning of the phrase. Blue touch paper redirects to His Master's Voice (radio series) but it might be a stretch to retarget there. -- Tavix (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well "light blue touch paper" doesn't have a Wiktionary entry, so I'd say no. -- Tavix (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this reflects my understanding of this idiom. However, because we do not have anywhere that explains its meaning then it should go rather than mislead the reader. Just Chilling (talk) 21:07, 9 July 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.

Sea of Magellan[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 as my concerns have been satisfied. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be better off at Strait of Magellan, but would like some discussion first. Is this even a necessary redirect to have? -- Tavix (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep »Sea of Magellan« and ​»(Great) South Sea« were historically common alternative names for the Pacific Ocean, as can be seen at a glance through some 17th-century maps or modern scholarly texts, e.g. in Mercedes Maroto Camino’s Producing the Pacific: Maps and Narratives of Spanish Exploration, p. 76:

Up to the eighteenth century, the three names, South Sea, Mare Magellanicum, and Pacific Ocean, alternated and shared the space we now know as the North and South Pacific.

The name also appears with this meaning in various texts of the era, e.g. in Thomas Hackett’s translation of André Thevet’s The new found vvorlde, or Antarctike wherin is contained woderful and strange things:

This straight hath ben long time desired and sought, more than two thousand, eight hundreth leagues, for to enter by this straight into the Sea of Magellan, to attayne to the Ilandes of Moluques.

Here the Moluccas are attested to be in the Sea of Magellan, further confirming that the term refers to the Pacific as a whole. It is »entered by« the strait, but it is not the strait itself. In general, anyone who comes across references like this in old texts might want to know what the term refers to, and hence a redirect seems useful. Vorziblix (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vorziblix: I appreciate that explanation, that actually helped a lot. My problem with this redirect is that "Sea of Magellan" isn't mentioned anywhere in the "Pacific Ocean" article. Readers who stumble upon the Pacific Ocean article from that redirect don't necessarily know they are synonyms without an explanation and could end up confused (like I was). I'm assuming it would be easy to mention with your source. Since you're the one with the source, would you be willing to add a little explanation of Sea of Magellan there? If so, I'll gladly withdraw. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks, Vorziblix (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Withdrawing now. -- Tavix (talk) 02:18, 7 July 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.

Fishes Taxonomy (Sharks)[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) 02:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an implausible search term. This isn't helping anyone find "Fishes Taxonomy" (if it existed). -- Tavix (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not currently useful; implausible search term. Way back in 2005 it looks like someone was working on a project to create taxonomy pages for many types of fish, and made this redirect to shark taxonomy, which at the time was a long list of many species of sharks. Later it was broken out into taxonomy pages by each order of shark (e.g. Shark taxonomy Order Carcharhiniformes, Shark taxonomy Order Lamniformes, Shark taxonomy Order Orectolobiformes, etc.) and the main taxonomy page was redirected to shark (and we all know what happens to double redirects). However, there don't seem to be any other "Fishes Taxonomy" pages of this form. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. We have nothing along the lines of Fish taxonomy or even Animal taxonomy. At first glance, I want to say delete the "Shark taxonomy Order" redirects, but they may be useful, particularly if the target articles have good taxonomic information. --BDD (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think those are at least left over {{R from page move}}ses, and might thus be useful. I didn't want to go to the bother of nominating and then merging all of them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:50, 6 July 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.

Hat Day[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a WP:SURPRISE. I'm assuming this is a play on the "Canada is America's Hat" joke. However, it's not mentioned at Canada Day and I haven't seen any serious uses of the term. There are a few articles that mention a form of a "hat day" but I'm not sure if any of them are notable enough for a retarget. Thoughts? -- Tavix (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - that is a surprise. There are many search results for various Hat Days and National Hat Days (even a couple International Hat Days) but none agree on a date, and they all seem to be promotional. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as possible article. I found different hat days on my google search. Some of these holidays might actually be notable. Perhaps it's best to delete this redirect to encourage article creation. --Lenticel (talk) 01:58, 7 July 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.

Template:Heart[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. When I checked just now, there were no mainspace transclusions. There was one in userspace, which I fixed. --BDD (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a follow up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 21#Template:Club. {{Heart}} was moved to {{Heart anatomy}} back in 2011. I would like to propose this retargeted to {{Hearts}} for the same reason that {{Club}} redirects to {{Clubs}} and {{Spade}} redirects to {{Spades}}. For one, it would be an {{R from modification}} and I would assume more people would want ♥ over a nav box. With {{heart anatomy}}, I feel like that nav box isn't going to get much bigger, so a shortcut isn't going to be as necessary. However, since it is an {{R from move}}, I figured it might be controversial so I thought it might be a good idea to get discussion about it first. -- Tavix (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom; seems reasonable. Check transclusions first, of course. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:39, 6 July 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.

Category:1959 establiishments in Iowa[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. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

unlikely to be searched for Tim! (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: The creator requested speedy deletion via G7. -- Tavix (talk) 18:13, 6 July 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.

Wikipedia:TOP100[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) 13:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SURPRISE. I'm confused as to what "Top 100" has to do with non-free content and specifically a section on unacceptable use of non-free text. I expected this was going to be a list of articles which are exceptional for some reason, or else an actual list of 100 of something, but it's neither of those things. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Oh I see, point 4 has to do with acceptability of recreating "top 100" lists on Wikipedia. I'm still not sure this is the best use for this shortcut. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: yes, I created this as a shortcut for these types of copyvio cases when clearing up a bunch of them last year, mostly just in edit summaries. Looks it's not getting much use on talk pages from inbound links, but one other editor has adopted it. (I realise in retrospect that my referring to something as a "WP:TOP100 article" in a talk thread further down was not a particularly great sentence, which seems to be what triggered this RfD.) --McGeddon (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I could definitely see it being useful and I can't think of a better target. I really wish I knew about that shortcut when I was putting together the rationale for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest European law firms (excluding UK) (2012) (I used "WP:COPYVIO" but some people disagreed with that). Anyway, we have WP:100, but it's not a "top 100" list. -- Tavix (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, then, absent better uses for this real estate. WP:RFD#KEEP #5 applies. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:32, 13 July 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.

Geisha cocktail[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've checked the relevant Wikibooks page. The content that has been transwiki'ed isn't really copyrightable, so we don't need to preserve the page history. Deryck C. 07:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This cocktail isn't mentioned in the target article; it seems only a few of the most prominent ones are. BDD (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - this was made a redirect after being transwikied to Wikibooks. Just Chilling (talk) 02:16, 14 July 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.

Indisposition[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 no consensus, default to delete since nobody argued to keep it as is. Deryck C. 10:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An indisposition currently redirects to disease. In the past, it has redirected to illness and sickness. Aside from arguments over whether other types of ill health (say, broken bones) can constitute indisposition, the term is also used to cover people who are unwilling to do something, which is a different kettle of fish altogether. I propose we replace the redirect with a disambig, an article, or a cross-wiki link to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/indisposition (which I note doesn't include my alternative definition). Dweller (talk) 09:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a Draft:Indisposition DAB, but in doing so, I'm weakly inclined to retarget this to the DAB at Sickness and add the meaning for "disposition away from" there. Si Trew (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(I've now added the sense of the word that SimonTrew mentions.) Equinox (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Equinox: where? I don't see it at Sickness, nor anything similar on your contributions for today. Si Trew (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Under "indisposition" at Wiktionary. Equinox (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, thanks. Si Trew (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate it can also be the state of being indisposed (including the meaning of using the W.C.) -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can it? The major dictionaries online (dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Oxford), don't define it thus (you mean unavailable bizarrely → Caller ID?), and even if they did, WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 06:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've often heard it used as a polite euphemism for people in the loo or bath etc. --Dweller (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What would be an impolite euphemism? That's either redundant or, in its negative, a contradiction in terms → Contradictio in terminis (Should be reversed, those two, per WP:USEENGLISH). (euphemism is Greek, not Latin, before some other mobile vulgus →Ochlocracy points that out. I only did metalwork at school.) And "I've often heard" is not RS. I do think it was a Victorian euphemism, and Punch (magazine) would probably be a good RS for that kind of thing, but without RS, we are nothing. Si Trew (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary. I'm reluctant to ever suggest this because of WP:NOTDIC (for that reason, I'd be fine with deleting), but I can't really picture a good disambiguation page for this term. --BDD (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the lack of a suitable target. -- Tavix (talk) 19:58, 17 July 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.

Vatn[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. Deryck C. 07:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED. Water isn't specific to Faroese, Icelandic, Norwegian, or Old Norse, thank God. As an acronym, it only seems to refer to "variable-area turbine nozzle", which is mentioned at Variable-geometry turbocharger#History and examples of use. I don't think that's a good retargeting option, though. BDD (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - if variable-area turbine nozzle had not been a redlink prior to this comment, I would suggest matching its target, but since it appears not to be a useful acronym, it's not a useful redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. Topic has little affinity for any language -- 06:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.32.20 (talk)
  • Retarget to Bessvatnet where the term is explained in context. Since we can avoid potentially breaking external links of established redirects whilst helping readers this seems a 'win-win'. Just Chilling (talk) 02:27, 14 July 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.

Water projects[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. From the discussion below, it seems unlikely that we'll find any retarget that's much better than the other alternatives. Deryck C. 07:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply redirecting this to Water seems unhelpful. My first thought was retarget to Hydrography, though perhaps Hydraulic engineering (Water engineering redirects there) would be better. Keeping and refining the target to Water#Human uses could also work. I don't think this is a good candidate for disambiguation, since "water projects" is a bit vague and an unlikely search term. BDD (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to hydraulic engineering. I did a search for "water project" and it seems like most water projects would fall under that category. I'd feel more comfortable about it if the phrase was mentioned there, but I don't think it's that big of a deal. I'm fine with deletion too, as I could see arguments for it being confusing. -- Tavix (talk) 17:51, 13 July 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.

Country Brand Index[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) 13:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article no longer mentions this index. This WP:TOP100 article was merged into Nation branding, but the only content about it in that article was a primary-sourced copyvio. Removing it left an empty redirect loop which I've just cut. FutureBrand do not seem to be a notable organisation. McGeddon (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm generally content to delete nominations without discussion after the full listing period (see WP:SILENCE and compare to WP:PROD). But since this was on TOP100, since a merge is involved, and since there's some significant history, I'm not ready to pull the trigger yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a redirect to nothing, since the copyvio was removed. I don't understand what "top 100" has to do with non-free content. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I confused TOP100 with TOPRED, and obviously didn't follow that link. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I get what you meant now. Well, still if there's nothing at the target then this redirect is not helping, and it should go back on TOPRED until someone decides to write an[other] article about it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:56, 6 July 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.

Pubic transportation[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 no consensus, leaning keep. Ultimately, this is just a single typo, if a potentially mischievous one. See WP:LIKELYVIOLATION, but please feel free to let me know, or use the usual channels, if this needs protection or anything. --BDD (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the reasoning at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008 December 13#Pubic goods→Public good; even if it's theoretically a plausible typo it's not being used at all, has a high risk of being the target of disruption, and is also misleading because the phrase obviously has no relation to the target. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a somewhat reasonable typo, but we don't need jokes about the transportation of the pubis. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the linked previous discussion. I'm inclined to think it's a plausible misspelling, but I tend to agree it would be better to delete this one. Ivanvector (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep {{R from typo}} -- quite plausible mispelling -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep surprisingly frequent misspelling - Pubic is one I've patrolled for years and fixed hundreds of typos in Wikipedia articles. I don't see having the redirect as being disruptive, and "high risk" implies moving from dealing with actual problems to theoretical ones. Of course as a typo it isn't being used as a redirect in articles, but it is being used by some of our readers as a search term, if we delete redirects because they are only of use to readers who misspell searches then we would waste much time, delete a shed load of redirects and do our readers a disservice for zero benefit. The reasoning at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008 December 13#Pubic goods→Public good does not apply here as this is a single typo rather than a double one, and there is only one plausible place for this typo to be redirected to. Fair enough delete implausible redirects and ones where there is no obvious target, both reasons applied to Pubic Goods, neither reason applies to Pubic transportation. ϢereSpielChequers 08:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right, but I wouldn't call "Public goods" a double typo. "Goods" wasn't a typo for "good", any more than "transportation" is for "transport". They're both valid alternative forms, with the true typo of "pubic" in both cases. --BDD (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - OK, I'm not very consistent this week, but I do see this as a plausible misspelling, and if it becomes a target for disruption it can be protected. Someone found it useful to create this at some point. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Food battle by smosh[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. Deryck C. 08:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unlikely search term, Smosh already has numerous redirects. 117Avenue (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Food Battle is mentioned at the target article, so users searching for information on it will be helped. Redirects aren't always synonyms, nor do they have to be. --BDD (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that it is mentioned there, but why would someone search for food battle by smosh? Is there any precedent for videos or games to be named with their author? 117Avenue (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't really need to be precedent. This definitely falls under the broad category I refer to as "RfD zen": it probably shouldn't've been created, but since it has, it shouldn't be deleted. That's kind of a quirk of RfD, because AfD definitely doesn't work that way. But generally to delete a redirect, there has to be consensus that it's misleading, harmful, or outright nonsensical. I always ask myself, "What's a reader hoping to find if they search for this, and will they be satisfied?" In this case, it's clear to me that any reader using this search term will be. --BDD (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to agree with you, it's not misleading or harmful, and a searcher would be satisfied. 117Avenue (talk) 03:44, 12 July 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.

Murine polyomavirus[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 moot. Good point, guys. Maybe instead of fussing about the correct procedure through which to encourage someone else to write the article, I should just write the damn article and be done with it. Redirect converted to stub; nothing to see here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination. Bervin61 opened an AfD for this, but it belongs here. This is a redirect from a species to its family. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bervin61 left this nomination rationale at the AfD: "This page is for a virus species, which is a member of the family it is redirected to. However, it is not the only species in that family, and so is not synonymous with it. It is common practice that whenever a genus contains only one species, or a family contains only one genus, that one page be redirected to the other, but that is not the case here. Additionally, there are several species in the same family that do not have pages and are not redirects to the family. Bervin61 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

  • Delete to encourage article creation. Of course, someone who is knowledgeable in these types of viruses can convert this redirect to an article. --Lenticel (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending article creation; any editor can write over the redirect. In the meantime the redirect from this species to the family it belongs to makes sense to me, and I don't think it matters at all that there are other species within the same family. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:42, 6 July 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_July_6&oldid=1142587180"