Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 6, 2016.

Infobox:User[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) 21:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CNR to non-reader content. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anyone has even a remote argument why anyone would ever search for these with the expectation of finding an article, this is a deletion nomination which seems to be somewhat lacking in WP:COMMONSENSE. TimothyJosephWood 23:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious keep: violates XNR on the face of it, but going by TimothyJosephWood's reasoning, no reasonable person would search in the Infobox space for an article. Mihirpmehta (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is not an Infobox namespace, according to Wikipedia:Namespace. This is just in the article namespace, isn't it? Si Trew (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, these are pseudo-namespace redirects, but not one listed at Wikipedia:Shortcut#List of prefixes and as there is no other general precedent regarding "Infobox:" redirects I am aware of they need to be judged against on their individual merits. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 7 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.

Pros and Cons of the U.S. Electoral College[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. Fortunately, we don't need to hand this over to Congress to make a final decision. --BDD (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOAPBOX biased name. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as I can't see why anybody would search for this instead of just searching "U.S. electoral college". Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 00:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not see how it falls afoul of SOAPBOX to assert that something has pros and cons. It would be another matter if the page was simply "Pros of ..." or "Cons of ..." Mihirpmehta (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete implausible search term. Neutralitytalk 05:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and refine to section Electoral_College_(United_States)#Contemporary issues, which has subsections "Criticism" and "Support". That being said there are no internal links and hits are a little less than 1 a day, including the spike caused by this listing. Si Trew (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. unlikely search term DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine section per Si Trew. If a user wants to look up pros and cons of the Electoral College, that section is what they're looking for. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Provided that we refine what section that we go to, I guess I can see the argument for keeping this redirect. I don't feel that strongly about it, though, and deletion would be somewhat alright with me as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article doesn't contain a pro and con list, nor should it. The "pros and cons" of the system are relative, and are not constrained to present times. Moreover, "Con" shouldn't be capitalized.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do see it as a plausible search term, and/or an inappropriate content fork that somebody might very well try to create as a new standalone article if it wasn't already directing people to an existing topic — in point of fact, the edit history reveals that somebody did once try to create a POV fork essay, debating the pros and cons of the electoral college system, at this very title. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bearcat and Si Trew. I'm neutral regarding refining to the section that Si suggests. Thryduulf (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Godsy. The target does not contain a Pro and Con list. -- Tavix (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to Electoral_College_(United_States)#Contemporary issues per Si Trew where the pros and cons of the system are discussed. IT's a plausible search term.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:08, 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.

United States of the United States[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 21:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Makes zero sense. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:30, 6 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.

Spane[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) 21:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:spane this is actually a word so it may be unhelpful. Maybe soft redirect to that entry. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabify. Draft available below redirect. I'm not sure if a link should be included to wean, which is the primary meaning of the old dialectal word "spane". – Uanfala (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Uanfala. Add Spain as a "not to be confused" or a "see also" link. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Uanfala. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:44, 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.

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

I can't imagine someone searching this to find the book article. Propose retargeting to Sorrell Booke or otherwise dabify if there are other notable individuals with this surname. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:25, 6 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.

Redirects containing "Cheif"[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 13#Redirects containing "Cheif"

Hillary Diane[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. A little over a year ago Wikipedians failed to arrive at a consensus regarding this redirect. After multiple relistings this time there is still no consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

WP:XY and WP:PTM. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:CHEAP until there is ambiguity regarding this redirect.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. More first and middle name usage that is supposed by the redirect creator rather than actual news sources or self-referencing. No regular usage of this as with Lisa Marie. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, her middle name is rarely used and I would see no practical reason to search this term. MB298 (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my stance to Keep after reading the previous discussion. MB298 (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • How do you know that is what the reader is looking for, her common name is the name of the article, and I can't imagine why anyone will search for just this. Barack Hussein does not exist (my bad, nominated that one, didn't do WP:BEFORE). It is harmful in the way that it encourages creation of similar redirects such as Donald John etc. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PTM. Secretary Clinton is not known as "Hillary Diane". -- Tavix (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This could be setting a precedent for "first + middle names only", so I think we'd be wise to see more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Hillary Diane Clinton was born Hillary Diane Rodham" on biography.com as example we see this is the common element of both her birth and current names. Redirects are cheap and it is a waste of time to talk about deleting this as it enhances searching and does no harm. If we locate anyone else notable with the forename pairing we could expand it into a disambiguation. Ranze (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nowhere near a common use. "I've never heard it used" isn't particularly helpful with the subject of your average Wikipedia biography, but Hillary Rodham Clinton's been in the US news almost constantly for a quarter century, and the total absence of its use in my experience is significant, unless my experience is drastically atypical; if you can show that it is, I'll withdraw this vote. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is no reason to have an article based on her middle name. If you want to have Hillary Diane Clinton, ok. But not Hillary Diane. Hillary Diane is a real person, not related to the Clinton or Rodham families. Kellymoat (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're still getting new input, so it doesn't hurt to keep this open another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 18:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it keeps getting re-listed and new input added every time, but the deletes are out voting the keeps 2-to-1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellymoat (talk • contribs) 20:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. We've had this since 2007, it's never pointed to anyone else, and there don't seem to be any other notable uses even if it is a partial match. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Copied from previous discussion because nothing has changed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't really see a plausible reason why anybody looking for Hillary Clinton would type this to get there. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 11 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 Citizenship[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, retarget to Citizenship of the United States, and keep, respectively. --BDD (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which target is better. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:00, 6 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.

Krionérion, Greece[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 17#Krionérion, Greece

Airline destinations[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) 21:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Well, the section exists and is what you'd expect but.... this is a bit WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before 2009 (with this edit) it targeted Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Airline destination lists, which I'd oppose retargeting back as that jumps from reader-facing space into editor space (does it? WikiProjects somewhat straddle those two spaces). But I'm not opposed to retargeting it to the category, since categories are in reader-facing space. Wikipedia:Cross-namespace_redirects#Arguments_for_keeping_CNRs #8 may be relevant, i.e. because of the history (I realise that page is just an essay). But Weak delete as it's hardly used (spike to 30 hits on 20 November for some reason; no links in mainspace) and is a near-WP:PTM for lots of articles that include "Airline destinations" (which Special:Search?search=Airline+destinations happily finds for the top search results). Si Trew (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. Every flight has a destination ... at least that's the plan upon takeoff. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:53, 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.

Kubbestol[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 and retarget to Ekaterina Sedia, respectively. --BDD (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to these languages. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:30, 6 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.

Warehouse party[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) 21:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this to Rave instead, because that would probably be a better target. In the alternative, just delete it. The connection between source and target is totally unclear as it stands.Jehochman Talk 02:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't see the use of this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the connection is not clear.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Rave, which uses the term "warehouse" 22 times to indicate a common venue, and "warehouse party" and "warehouse parties" outright in a couple of places. Si Trew (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not convinced that "warehouse party" is synonymous with "rave." Jehochman and SimonTrew, have you found sources that treat these terms as synonyms? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:57, 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.

Natalie Imbruglia (band)[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) 20:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading disambiguator, not a band. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete misleading. Devopam (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rob Zombie has famously said that yes he is a person, but when he is on stage he is in a band that happens to share the same name, and he would like people to distinguish between the two identities. And Alice Cooper has often done interviews and had to ask the interviewer which Alice he was asking. So, while the Natalie Imbriglia band page redirects to the personal page, there are people who will want info on the band and not the person. Without the redirect, they may be on the hunt for, or willing to create, a band page. Kellymoat (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There isn't even the need for any disambiguator in this case, let alone an incorrect one, people will get what they are looking for as the article covers multiple identities. We do not have other similar redirects like this for it may be too POV-pushing. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I certainly don't want separate articles, but I see nothing wrong with keeping the redirect alive. However, I would point out that Alice Cooper has 3 pages. The man (which includes his personal life and his music/band), the original band, and a personnel page for the solo act.Kellymoat (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is a separate issue not to be discussed at RFD. If you have any concerns please raise them on that article's talk page. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, no, I am not complaining. I actually prefer that some of these things have separate articles because they are separate entities that should have separate entries. I was just pointing out that it is not unheard of to have a band and personal page. In this case, Natalie Imbriglia, I voted to keep the redirect because they are separate entities even though it is not worth two separate articles. Afterall, isn't that why we use redirects. Kellymoat (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and scrutinize the contribs of the redirect's creator - they created several of these unnecessary (band) redirects. We have {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} but I don't see this as being a likely search at all. Might be useful in cases where a person's stage persona is notably separate from their individual persona, as is the case with Alice Cooper and Rob Zombie as noted above, even if we don't have separate articles, but there's no indication of that being the case with Natalie Imbruglia. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'll grant Alice Cooper as a case where there is an obvious context for "Alice Cooper the band" as a separate topic from "Alice Cooper né Vincent Furnier the person" — for one thing, "Alice Cooper" was originally the name of the band and not the name of the person; it became the name of the person only several albums later, after the band gave up on trying to correct people about "Alice Cooper means the band and not Vincent". But that's also a case where Alice Cooper and Alice Cooper (band) are actually already two separate standalone articles, and does not demonstrate the need for every musician who happens to be billed as a solo artist to have a redirect from "Name (band)" back to "Name" just because she's technically also the leader of an eponymous "band" of session musicians. If there were somehow legitimate grounds for "Natalie Imbruglia the band" to have a separate article from "Natalie Imbruglia the person", then this would be the correct title for that — but there's no need for it to exist as a redirect back to Natalie Imbruglia the person. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 11 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.

რუსული ენა[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Georgian. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:23, 6 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.

HighGerman[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 High German languages. --BDD (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On several occasions this has indeed targeted High German languages but there has never been a discussion. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:17, 6 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.

Moldavien[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 17#Moldavien

Молдовеняскэ language[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 21:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed language title, not a likely search term. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not just mixed languages, but mixed alphabets. IMO "not a likely search term" is an underestimate - I cannot see anyone, ever, searching for this. Narky Blert (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. We don't even have plain молдовеняскэ, a far more likely redirect. (I imagine someone will create it now, unnecessarily.) Si Trew (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it seems very unlikely that somebody would type one word in Moldovan and the next in English. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:07, 7 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.

Twttr[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smbdy hs brkn kybrd gn. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:11, 6 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.

Touiteur[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) 20:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure synonym, not plausible. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does if you think that redirects should generally follow [{WP:TITLE]] (with obvious exceptions for lots of specific categories). Si Trew (talk) 04:44, 7 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.

Telautomaton[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) 20:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure search term, misleading. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This term appears to have a clear-cut primary usage to refer to Tesla's 1898 concept of a radio controlled boat (see here). This seems to be a case of WP:REDLINK. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:14, 6 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.

Flying machine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 17#Flying machine

Alien sideboob[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 think we can all agree that "Alien sideboob" is not a synonym for the game itself, so the question becomes whether there will be information on the phrase at the target article. Given a comment on the talk page, its recent removal as noted here, and the fact that the target article is a GA, I judge that the article is considered stable without such information. Restoration of this redirect would be appropriate iff consensus could be built to include the information. --BDD (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Non-notable meme, not mentioned in target, unlikely search candidate Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:00, 6 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_6&oldid=1142587043"