Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 6[edit]

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

T:X11[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 keep. Deryck C. 21:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unnecessary cross-namespace redirect to a sandbox template Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom: also practically no page views until it was listed here. --Rubbish computer 19:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:PNS This is a valid pseduonamespace redirect ; accessing the sandbox through a pseudonamespace redirect shouldn't be a problem, with the redirect properly tagged as unprintworthy. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I know it's a pseudonamespace. That's not a reason to keep it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - why is this the only T: pseudonamespace redirect that appears in search results? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CNR and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 10#T:N. -- Tavix (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • the T:N decision doesn't directly apply, since the target is exactly "X11" and the WP:PNS redir is for "X11", whereas the "T:N" the target is not called "N" -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You cannot properly transclude this onto a page. - TheChampionMan1234 (Soon to be Champion) 00:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not why PNS aliases exist though, since they exist for other namespaces which you do not transclude either. And as it is a sandbox, you can transclude it, since that's its use, to test transclusions. The instructions are wrapped in a noinclude so do not cause problems. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a harmless and apparently useful pseudo-namespace shortcut to enable people to reach the Template:X11 page to view or edit it. The lack of transclusion is irrelevant here as that is not the redirect's purpose. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I doubt deletion would cause much harm, but for many users, I think "pseudo-namespace redirect" simply isn't a thing. I'd need to see evidence of harm before supporting deletion of this one. --BDD (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a while back there was a page that turned up here which had a "Wikipedia:___" title, but due to a bug was actually located in article space according to the database, rather than project space. I don't remember the discussion, unfortunately. Is this another instance of that bug? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it's not the bug; WP:PNS -- pseudonamespace redirects; really do exist in mainspace, but they are redirects which are not printworthy, and exists with the forms outlined at WP:PNS. Redirects to templates use "T:"; redirects to portals use "P:"; redirects to the manual of style use "MOS:" (ie. MOS:TM is a mainspace redirect) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 23:47, 7 October 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.

DemRep[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 13#DemRep

Charlie Alpha[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) 14:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 6#November Yankee and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 18#Mike Delta. -- Tavix (talk) 22:00, 6 October 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.

Yahooom[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) 14:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an implausible misspelling. -- Tavix (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no M sound in the word Yahoo and the M and O keys are very far apart meaning that it is is not a plausible typo.--67.68.29.107 (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete As an uncommon typo of Yahoo.com. crh23 (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points. --Rubbish computer 16:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per crh23. If it's supposed to be a typo of Yahoo.com then it's two characters off, and we usually delete redirects that have more than one typo, to discourage the obvious combinatorial explosion. (Alternatively I thought it might be some sort of awful ya-who ya-whom pun, which is equally obscure enough to deserve deletion.) 210.6.254.106 (talk) 16:49, 7 October 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.

English, motherfucker, do you speak it?[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) 14:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, created by Bossanoven, a sockpuppet of TyrusThomas4lyf, and sockpuppets aren't welcome to make contributions. Creator aside, the quote isn't mentioned at the article, and is one of several potentially memorable quotes from that scene. Nowadays, it looks like it's being used more as a meme than Pulp Fiction specifically. Additionally, there could be a WP:COPYVIO issue along the same lines that we delete lyrics per WP:NOTLYRICS. -- Tavix (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete the first two, criterion WP:G5. I would tag them myself but Tavix already did and Y declined both. G5 clearly applies here: banned users' contributions are not welcome, and I personally don't give a crap how useful they might be. If these are worthwhile redirects then some non-banned user will recreate them. The other two aren't obviously sock creations, so although I don't think they're particularly necessary, a user typing this phrase is almost guaranteed to be looking for information on the film and not some other topic, so I think they're fine. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch on the last two, I forgot to check the author for them as I originally tagged for CSD a few weeks ago and I just now noticed that the speedy was declined (Bossanoven created several hundred junk redirects and I've been cleaning them up for months now). My apologies to the creator of those redirects, I don't want to imply that they are socks. -- Tavix (talk) 03:53, 7 October 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.

MSNBC conservative[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 as unopposed. Deryck C. 00:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to find reliable sources to support this term's inclusion at the target article as a variant, but was not successful. TV Tropes lists it as an alternative to Fox News Liberal, which is included at Democrat In Name Only but is also better attested generally. BDD (talk) 18:59, 6 October 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.

Neo-Mugwumps[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 14#Neo-Mugwumps

Windows Phone 10[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Phone stops at Windows Phone 8.1. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep as being a forum for disruption and close: Valid search term ({{R from alternate title}}), deletion reason is influenced by strict interpretation of Microsoft marketing. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - redirects users to the info they're likely looking for. FTR I don't understand ViperSnake151's comment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible search term. @ViperSnake151: your comment makes no sense. Geoffrey has a right to get discussion on the redirect, and that's not reason for you to demand it be speedily kept just because you disagree with it. He's nominated several redirects now, and from what I can recall, none of them have been "influenced by strict interpretation of Microsoft marketing." Please assume good faith. -- Tavix (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible search term. --Rubbish computer 17:42, 7 October 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.

Teaching guru[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, closing summary similar to below. Deryck C. 21:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to education via educationalist is pretty useless. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The nomination seems weak per WP:USELESS. I am developing content in this area and shall demonstrate its utility in the course of this work. Andrew D. (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew Davidson. --Rubbish computer 19:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to teacher -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism not discussed at the target article. Semantically, this is equivalent to something like Great teacher, which we wouldn't have. --BDD (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both BDD's rationales, and because we don't wait around for people to develop content someday-maybe. If Andrew D. or whoever actually writes the article, then it's not a RfD matter any more. But it would become a WP:RM matter, because "guru" in such a context is a WP:NPOV problem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Retarget to guru. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    Note Teacher would be an acceptable target, but guru is more specific. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
This is not a bad idea, actually. I still advocate deletion first, since this seems to imply "a guru of teaching", which isn't covered, actual gurus are teachers. That still makes this a bit oddly redundant, like Sporting footballer or Warring soldier (cf. the absurdly named Ninja Assassin), but conceivably, a reader aware of the generalized meaning of "guru" could try something like this to find the classical sense. --BDD (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the term isn't mentioned anywhere, causing disappointment for someone wanting to know what the specific phrase means as opposed to a general article on teaching or education. -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 6 October 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.

Technology guru[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 general sentiment of the discussion is that the target isn't a perfect match for the redirect title. The redirect is largely harmless, but doesn't really redirect the reader to what they want, especially as the target makes no use of the word "guru". Deryck C. 21:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A guru and an evangelist are not the same by any stretch of the imagination. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The concepts are reasonably close. As and when we have more content, we might split the concepts but a redirect seems appropriate for now. Andrew D. (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew Davidson. --Rubbish computer 19:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to nerd or geek. - TheChampionMan1234 (Soon to be Champion) 00:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete This seems like a rough approximation of the idea of a "technology evangelist", which is pretty squishy anyway. A nerd or geek wouldn't necessarily be a "guru" or "evangelist" of technology—more likely just a fan. --BDD (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. The concepts are different and the redirect is currently confusing. I disagree with the earlier suggestion to retarget to nerd or geek, because that's stereotyping and the phrases don't mean the same thing anyway. Besides, which one would you pick? McLerristarr | Mclay1 20:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mclay1's rationales. Different topic, the one is not covered at the other. Additionally, "guru" is a WP:NPOV problem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew D, a better target would be nice. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per above and the fact that it's not mentioned anywhere. -- Tavix (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The term is not exactly a common one, and the line-up between concepts isn't clean at all. In terms of not particularly being helpful, I feel like this should just be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "technology guru" is more like someone who provides answers about all sorts of things, whereas an "technology evangelist" is a promoter who drives adoption of a specific technology; I agree with other commenters that they are not synonymous. In Google News I see "technology guru" used in the sense of Chief Technology Officer or help desk; I don't think retargeting to either of those is any more helpful. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not more notable than any other kind of "guru". Korny O'Near (talk) 14:56, 7 October 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.

Hamburger bun[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, with Hamburger bun retargeting to Hamburger, since no one supported the status quo. --BDD (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a bit WP:ASTONISH-ing that this title redirects to the generic Bun article when this subject is rather notable. In addition, I am currently unable to find a good section in Hamburger to retarget this redirect. So, I'd say that unless an article is created or an appropriate section is added to Hamburger (or even Bun), I believe this should be delete(d) per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget: retarget to hamburger. 333-blue 01:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose this option since a hamburger bun is not a hamburger, and as I stated above, the subject of "hamburger bun" is not adequately defined and identified in any existing section of Hamburger. Steel1943 (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage the creation of the article, or a section in Hamburger about buns perhaps. Not at target, and hamburger I agree would be the wrong target. What are the defining characteristics of a hamburger bun? My guess would be that they are about hamburger sized in diameter, and that the dough is knived crosswise before baking with a little water on the knife so that each bun can be easily split into two halves (that can be put better...) there does not seem a lot of RS on this or even recipe sites. We all know what a burger bun is, but it is hard to find RS for it.
Anyway, what is more WP:ASTONISHing is it being called a hamburger. Cow does all the work, pig gets all the credit. Fortunately Beefburger → Hamburger, but we don't have Beefburger bun, so how do we eat those?. Porkburger is also R to hamburger, but not Porkburger bun. So if you want to eat a porkburger or a beefburger presumably you have to have it sans bun. I suppose what I am arguing is that this is unbalanced as far as Rs go but this is not WP:Redirects for creation, alas. Fishburger also R's there, but not Fishburger bun. I have the temptation to say all or none, but I realise that does not hold water (the bun might though, if you wanted to use it to make a bread pudding). Si Trew (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)I am well aware of the etymology[reply]
I'm a liar, Fishburger does not R there, but Fish burger does (to section, I'll tag). Si Trew (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As Ovid said, add little to little and you have a great pile. Chickenburger is red but Chicken burger goes to the article Chicken sandwich. Turkeyburger is red but Turkey burger is a redirect to Hamburger. I guess the consensus is that these should have a space between the meat and the burger (perhaps a slice of cheese would suffice). Strangely, because deliberately I am not looking at the text at Hamburger, if I recall correctly the cheeseburger (not cheese burger, which redirects there) was "invented" before the hamburger. My reliable source there I think is Bill Bryson in [Made in America]].
Hamburger obviously comes from Hamburg, at least etymologically, and then has been burgered around with ever since, but the consensus seems to be that we put a space in between the thing and the burger. This has almost nothing to do with buns for them, though except that we should follow the spacing convention I assume established.
More importantly, Burger bun goes as R to Hamburger, I should have thought of that. This one goes elsewhere. So that is WP:RFD#D2 confusing, but I am not right now proposing a delete, I think it is a tricky one. To have Burger bun and Hamburger bun go to different targets is confusing, but I am not sure what the better target would be; but whatever we decide, both should go the same way. Si Trew (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added in Burger bun to the discussion, hope that is OK, I'll tidy up the subst at the R in a mo. Si Trew (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:REDLINK as there appears to be potential for an article here. --Rubbish computer 15:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hamburger with {{R from subtopic}}. The burger-specific components of a burger are obviously subtopics of the burger topic. Hamburger patty would also go there for the same reason, except that it's been split into a separate article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:30, 6 October 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.

Melty[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. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a redundant redirect, the page it currently goes to has no mention of "Melty" as the subject's nickname and previous redirect seems a bit tenuous. If this is a legit term for something, then let the article be created naturally. (I was actually looking to see if the online magazine Melty.com was notable enough for an article; which it doesn't seem to be...) Mabalu (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As my CSD request was declined, pinging our Friendly Neighborhood Administrator a.k.a. BDD, to perhaps expedite this process.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if we have consensus you can cut-and-paste your user page over the current version. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I'd prefer doing it in the manner I suggested above, it's more by the book for attribution reasons, and it also addresses Ivanvector's concerns. It's alright with me if we have to wait until the discussion closes normally, though sometimes the process can be sped up, which I believe is the case in this instance.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more inclined to let this play out, even if not for a full week. You're quite right that copying and pasting is not good practice (at best). --BDD (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It actually maintains the history of the redirect in this case, which is a good thing, and presumably maintaining the talkpage is good too. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • What Godsy said works for me. I stand by my original !vote - the redirect should be deleted per WP:BLP, but Godsy's suggestion takes care of it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:16, 7 October 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.

Priority Club[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 Loyalty program. --BDD (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other organisations have rewards programmes also called "Priority Club" (e.g. Kunming Airlines, Cotton Traders), while the InterCon's is called "Priority Club Rewards". Not sure whether this should be kept, disambiguated, retargeted to Loyalty program as a synonym for the type of program in general, or deleted. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to loyalty program makes sense to me. --Izno (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - would make a good dab page if we ever cover the various "Priority Club"s in enough detail (or we do now). Priority club should be a redirect to loyalty program, regardless.All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - This is a bit trickier than it first may seem. Given that we have reasonable publicity that multiple "Priority Club" things exist, maybe making a disambiguation page is the best bet. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:07, 6 October 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.

Un hee hee hee[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 deleted criterion WP:G1 by Sergecross73; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any connection between this title and the target, nor do I think it's helpful to retarget it somewhere like laughter (seeing as we don't have hee hee or heehee or Hee Hee either). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 06:55, 6 October 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.

Wikigroan[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 Reliability of Wikipedia#Susceptibility to bias. --BDD (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NEOLOGISM with no significant use and it's not mentioned in the article. -- Tavix (talk) 04:40, 6 October 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.

Chris Torek[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) 13:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that Chris Torek is synonymous with the C standard library. He's not even mentioned in the article. While it appears he served on an ANSI committee, it doesn't appear that the redirect is worthwhile. The Dissident Aggressor 02:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; does not appear to be covered in any way at the article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points. He might also have other projects aside from the C standard library --Lenticel (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or replace with article guy is somewhat prolific just need to find the correct sources. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:38, 10 October 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_October_6&oldid=1083555897"