Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 12, 2016.

HAZ (disambiguation))[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed name, delete. (NB the correctly-named HAZ (disambiguation) exists.) Narky Blert (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Castro regime[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep and retarget, respectively. As the "Presidency" page was closed at AfD as merge into "Premiership", the outcome here is clear. Since the merge has not been carried out, and since the "Premiership" article remains at AfD, the matter is not completely settled, but at least these have been synced. --BDD (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is rather confusing. They both go to different places. --Nevé–selbert 00:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both. I can see no good in moving either; each target hatnotes the other. I suppose they are both rather WP:XY but no good would come of deleting them. SimonTrew as IP 84.3.187.196 (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But the way things currently stand is totally untenable, though. Many referring to the Castro regime could easily be referring to the post-1976 abuses, and since the word "administration" is used more often to describe presidencies than "government" (which in turn is more often used to describe premierships), I think a WP:DAB is a reasonable solution to this predicament. Moreover, since his brother Raul Castro is still running the place, who is to say that those searching for Castro regime aren't looking for Raul's regime? Or the government/administration that he is running, for that matter? As I say, the present state of affairs here is unsustainable.--Nevé–selbert 21:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental problem lies not with the redirects but the articles, and we're just rearranging the deckchairs if we retarget them. Initially I considered that deleting them wasn't a good idea, thus I defaulted to keep. But they're both relatively recently created, on 26 July 2016, by User:DadaNeem, and since creation they've had a negligible number of hits until this discussion (4 for government, 0 for regime). Castro Regime and Castro Government are red. There's just one link in article space: to Castro government in Neill W. Macaulay, Jr..
It seems pretty safe to delete both, then, as WP:RFD#D2 confusing per WP:XY. I'm not disagreeable to making a DAB and adjusting the hatnotes, but there doesn't really seem the need for it. In any case the hatnotes could be clearer and instead of just saying "See also" say e.g. "for Castro's leadership before/since 1976, see...". I might just boldly do that. Si Trew (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/retarget to Premiership of Fidel Castro. It's a bit of an IAR vote: it's nonsense to have these two point to different pages although each one is a reasonable search for either one of the targets. The Premiership article deals with events that come first chronologically (it's the start of the story, in a sense) and it deals with disambiguation pretty handily in the first paragraph. I don't think it would be unreasonable to merge the two articles, the resulting article would be about 75k (each now is about 40k but counting on 5k of duplicated cruft) which is not an unreasonable length. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A discussion of whether a merge should take place (as suggested by Ivanvector) can now take place at Talk:Premiership of Fidel Castro. Question: should we close/pause this Rfd in the meantime? Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 01:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a strong WP:PTOPIC issue there. I doubt most readers searching for the "Castro regime" are going to be looking for a small Papal vassal state that briefly existed nearly 500 years ago, and Raúl's presidency is really just an extension of Fidel's (the government consulted Fidel on any matter of importance, and Raúl had previously announced he's not going to run again). Let us not also forget Raúl Héctor Castro's regime in Arizona in the mid-1970s, also not a competing PTOPIC usage. All of these can be handled with hatnotes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Retargeting to section(s) at Fidel Castro would perhaps be the appropriate if the current targets are deleted (it appears to be leaning that way).— Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Both current targets are nominated for deletion, as the outcome of those discussions may impact opinions regarding this redirect it seems most prudent to let them conclude first.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Motherly[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 move Motherly (disambiguation) over redirect, which should satisfy most arguments made here (concerning this specific redirect). -- Tavix (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix redirect). The target hatnotes to Motherly (film), which I would generally move over because an article trumps a redirect. I'd need an RM to do that, anyway, since there have been two minor edits not long after it was created (to give a dicdef which was then undid). I don't mind doing the RM but seems sensible to get consensus here first, considering that any RM notice is not likely to get attention on a redirect. We do also have Motherly bond redirecting to Maternal bond. Si Trew (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep {{R from adverb}}. Looks fine to me. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a stretch. We have all of 21 "R from adverb"s. Page views are negligible, and I just removed the only overlink to this. Maternal bond would be better – I'd rather pull the hatnote to the obscure film off the Mother article; it would be better to hatnote from the film back to mother if you feel that's necessary. wbm1058 (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely because of the obscurity of the film, I wouldn't want it to occupy the base name. And of course, that's 21 pages tagged with the R from adverb template. I'm confident that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of other redirects from adverbs. --BDD (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK then, move Motherly (disambiguation) to the base name. At least then readers searching for an encyclopedic article about an everyday English word will at least find a definition. I didn't find any of the words warm, caring, nurturing, protective or loving in the mother article. In other words, that article doesn't discuss the subject motherly at all. wbm1058 (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about the parental topics disambiguation scheme
  • A general thought here. I don't know whether we need a woman's perspective here, or if this reflects another problem. But have you ever seen a hatnote with so many links?
See also: Mother (disambiguation), Mothers (disambiguation), Mom (disambiguation), Mommy (disambiguation), Mum (disambiguation), Mothering (disambiguation), Motherhood (disambiguation), Maternity (disambiguation), and Motherly (disambiguation)
That's nine links, count 'em. Usually when there's that many, we move them off the hatnote into a separate (disambiguation) page. Maybe these should all be merged into Mother (disambiguation), or the variants should be double disambiguations (WP:DDAB).
It's odd to use "see also" for disambiguation. Usually we put "see also" links in a section just before the references. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked Father to see whether it has the same issues.
"Dad", "Dads", "Fatherhood", and "Fathering" redirect here. For the journal, see Fathering (journal). For other uses, see Dad (disambiguation), Fatherhood (disambiguation), and Father (disambiguation).
That's not as bad, but by the logic of mother, why is Daddy ambiguous? Shouldn't father be the primary topic for that? Or maybe we should fix mommy to be more like daddy. wbm1058 (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting a sex-change operation lol wbm1058 (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uh oh, there's also Mummy (disambiguation) which is distinct, and Mum (disambiguation) is a distinct topic as well. But at least as far as Mother, Mothers and Mom are separate dab pages, I think that's overkill. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, growing up, I'd never have called my mom "mum"... that's unambiguously (primarily) a flower, unless you disambiguate with something like (UK). wbm1058 (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of the discussion above is unrelated to the redirect nominated here so there is no current consensus on what to do with it. How to structure the various disambiguation pages is a different issue and not one that is best suited to this venue.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Native black thorn[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. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These were "Neelix redirects" that User:Plantdrew marked as {{R from common name}} back in summer 2016. However, I'm not convinced it makes sense with "black thorn" as two words, and it's not used that way in the article (WP:RFD#D2 and WP:RFD#D5). Si Trew (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (at the very least the singular). To me, it doesn't make sense as one word. Black and thorn are separate words, so it makes sense to separate them with a space. -- Tavix (talk) 04:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It most definitely makes sense as one word. There's a ref and "datasheet" on it here at dpi.nsw.gov.au which I presume is reliable (but Plantdrew may have better references). When checking this, I had assumed that a common name for this species was the native blackthorn: that was marked as {{R from common name}} on creation by User:Plantdrew on 19 May this year. But neither the target nor its entry at blackthorn (disambiguation) actually calls it thus, so I will add that with the reference. Si Trew (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Forget it, it is in the Taxonomy section and all the common names come from reference 2. I am not sure how I missed that when checking: I probably search with the space, which is not used in any RS I could find. Si Trew (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really aware of good references for common names of Australian plants beyond APNI. APNI capitalizes common names in a way that Wikipedia frowns on; I was just creating the "native blackthorn" redirect as a counterpart to the already existing "Native Blackthorn". Plantdrew (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't realize they were Neelix's when I tagged them; I would have brought them here already if I had. There's also Australian black thorn and Australian black thorns, between them these 4 Neelix redirects had 12 pageviews in the last 90 days. Google turns up 2 real world uses of "native black thorn" relevant to the plant. It's an error at best, and not a likely search term. Plantdrew (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all singular, neutral on plural. It's a thorn which is black and grows in the place that it's from; redirect makes sense. I realize "blackthorn" is also a thing, but that doesn't make it so that "black thorn" is not, and it's a perfectly valid search. Plural redirects are useless when they point to the singular target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Non-experts have no way of known how "blackthorn" is spaced without actually having read the word, so these seem like plausible search terms. Not sure if I agree with Ivanvector on the utility of plural redirects. Surely this is just a slightly more complicated version of say Cats and Dogs? ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. As it turns out the point I was trying to make is actually not true, so never mind. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

1979 (number)[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) 16:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not listed on the page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep it's the proper article for this concept. If we have material, we can add it, if not, it's still ending up in the range, and the article talks about that range, so it is functioning properly. We can remove the section target. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since there's no mention of this number at the target article. Someone searching for information about this number would not be helped by this redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - doesn't seem useful, but also doesn't seem harmful. Pre-disambiguates from 1979 and 1979 (song), I guess, but that's disambiguation that's not currently needed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Comunity Portal[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. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely misspelling. However, it is linked on over 50 user talk pages, seemingly as a misspelling used in a Welcome template, but each of the welcome templates were placed in 2007. Steel1943 (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. This does get human uses, not many but there was a cluster shortly before the nomination, and misspelling "community" as "comunity" is not something I'd describe as "unlikely". Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Terrrorist watch list[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. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous deletion proposal was closed as speedy keep because no rationale was provided, but this is a misspelling of an unofficial term, so it should probably be deleted. Slashme (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "Watchlist" is a neologism and can be given as one or two words. See wikt:watch list. --BDD (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD, plausible search term. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The spelling in "terrorist" makes me think it's a step too far. @BDD and Champion: The misspelling is in "terrrorist", not in "watch list". Deryck C. 11:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, thanks. I still think "watch()list" is more likely to be the "unofficial term" referred to by the nominator, rather than "terr(r)orist", but I don't feel so strongly about this now. --BDD (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I could only downgrade this to a Weak keep as I do not consider this an implausible typo at all, I can imagine someone making it. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 19:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Obama regime[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) 16:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid name. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I've rarely seen this used by anyone, and when it is used it is as an empty, non-encyclopedic pejorative. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upon seeing the terminology used by respectable publications with significant reach, such as The Guardian, I'm changing my opinion on this to a keep. Nonsense chatter by mere blogs and the like are one thing, but the situation here appears to be different. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Any political leader can be associated with a regime or era, but there's no evidence this is the term for his presidency. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Bush regime, Clinton regime, and Carter regime also exist. Reagan regime is red along with all presidents preceding Carter seemingly. Taking a look across the pond, Thatcher regime and Cameron regime exist. Doing the same up for up north reveals that Harper regime exists. I didn't find anything of this nature in regard to our friends down in Australia or New Zealand. A quick news search shows that this has been used. If these are inappropriate, I'd like to see them all listed as a group. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Obama Regime" has been used to describe the presidency of Obama. In fact I got over 1,000 hits in Google Books for the term, which is impressive because he's still in office. -- Tavix (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. This isn't a referendum on whether or not regime (i.e. a government, especially an authoritarian one) is a valid (i.e. logically or factually sound) description of the Presidency of Barack Obama (taking the nominator's statement literally), but rather if it plausible (i.e. verifiably used and a likely search term) and points to the right place. Redirects do not have to be neutral. The statement that "there's no evidence this is [a] term for his presidency" is inaccurate.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. As shown above, it is a term that gets used by works on Google Books. Would almost guarantee that his most ardent detractors use this phrasing. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whilst I strongly disapprove of the label "regime" being used in place of a more suitable term such as "government", "rule" or "presidency" in the body of the article (see this edit for an example), I note that redirects do not need to reflect neutrality in the same manner as the articles. On this note, naturally one will not find many references to Obama regime in "reliable sources" for the fact that WP:RS is mostly mainstream media which is seen from the outside as favouring the western positions. The question of what makes one batch of sources reliable and another set unreliable (if talking media and scholars, not unknown writers) is that the "reliable" gang say nice things about one another whilst all attacking the "unreliable" publisher. This begs the question but from my perspective as an editor, I have no choice but to place myself at the mercy of these conventions. Now when you look at the hundreds of thousands of results for Obama regime, there can be no doubt that the term is in common parlance. The term is also found within some parts of reliable sources, such as the Guardian, so there should be no question of deletion. Obviously redirect it elsewhere if it is generally felt that the term here refers to something other than the presidency (such as to Obama himself), but I say we should not ignore terms that are widely used. --OJ (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Fidel-Castro[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. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphen has no affinity to target. Castro isn't double-barrelled with Fidel. --Nevé–selbert 00:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a harmless, very well-used redirect that has been around since 2005 and so is very likely to have links from external websites, bookmarks and/or offline sources that will be dunnecessarily broken by deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:COSTLY the search engine will ignore this nevertheless. Not a valid hyphenated name either. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is this costly? What about people who navigate by means other than the internal search engine (links (from within or without Wikipedia), bookmarks, offline sources, direct URL entry, etc, etc.)? The stats show that this is is getting used. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hyphenation not used anywhere notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Not everyone can make heads or tails of foreign names and it does strike me as plausible that someone could imagine Fidel to be the first component of a compound surname. – Uanfala (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Chang Hsueeh-Liang[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) 16:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects from incorrect Chinese romanization created by Eubot. Delete as usual. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all I've never seen a romanization of Chinese with "eeh". Wade–Giles romanization, the one that uses initial "hs", has "hsüeh". Largoplazo (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think I see what's happened - 'ü' has been expanded to 'ue' as if it were the German vowel. Narky Blert (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great catch! So these have always been a mistake perpetrated by a bot. Indeed, they are of no value. Largoplazo (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per Largoplazo. Also, delete any and all other similar nonsense. Narky Blert (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Spelling variant not commonly used in books either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Classic, Classical, and Classicism[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XYZ. Classic, Classical, and Classicism are three separate pages. -- Tavix (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. When this redirect was created in 2005 the target page did sort of cover all three terms, but those days are long gone and we don't have any content now that deals with all three. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Deletical, and Deleteism per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is certainly not helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Oldlinux[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) 16:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a likely search term due to the word combination, and Old Linux itself does not exist. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. Has it ever been an established term distinguishing and older Linux from a new generation, in the same way that "ASP Classic" distinguishes the original Active Server Pages from the ASP.NET generation, or was it just as generic as someone saying "old Windows" or "old Firefox"? Largoplazo (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - appears to refer to a project archiving pre-1.0 linux builds, see http://oldlinux.org/. Doesn't appear to be particularly noteworthy, and isn't mentioned at the target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Don't see any news articles that propagate this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This appears to be obscure at best. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

US Post Office (disambiguation)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted, G6. -- Tavix (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No such disambiguation page, target is not a dab. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Los Angeles TImes[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded, WP:COSTLY. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, The Los Angeles Times is frequently used with the definite article. I don't see how this is costly. -- Tavix (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Champion: You need to explain that in the rationale, otherwise I'm not going to know what you're referring to. -- Tavix (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The Los Angeles Times is very plausible, but this has a capital "I" in "Times" which significantly reduces its utility. Champion you really should be more explicit in your nominations - simply stating that a redirect is "Unneeded" and/or "WP:COSTLY" does not make it so, you must explain why you believe the redirect to be so. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf, and I concur that the nom statement could have been more specific. If I was the first one here I would have written exactly what Tavix said. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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/2016_December_12&oldid=1088110007"