Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 24, 2016.

African American -- U.S. Lexicon[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 unanimous delete. Deryck C. 21:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a nonsense phrase and an implausible search term. -- Tavix (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It seems to suggest a glossary of African American Vernacular English, which we don't have. --BDD (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first choice would be to delete and my second choice would be to refine the target to African Americans#Terminology, which discusses the history of the term "African Americans" in the United States. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I cannot see any possible target being anything other than a WP:SURPRISE. Steel1943 (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Leaving the punctuation aside, there's redundancy with "American" and "U. S." – at least if (as the target's lede states) the term "African American" applies only to the United States and not to e.g. Jamaica, Canada and other parts of the Americas (i.e. "U. S." is not a diambiguator here). Si Trew (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears non-helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2016 (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.

Vulgarisation[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 revert to Vulgarism. Deryck C. 17:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect which originally targeted vulgarism was later changed to "popular science." I don't believe either is an appropriate target and can't think any appropriate target. —teb728 t c 23:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Before anyone else checks, the Oxford spelling, Vulgarization, is red. -- Tavix (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to "vulgarism". While uncommon, that would be a legitimate grammatical variant. I know of no connection at all to "popular science", however. Rossami (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vulgarisation" is a French-language term that doesn't translate precisely into English (the closest thing would be a combination of "popularisation" and "simplifying"), and refers to a particular "Space is really big" type of very simplified science program/book/magazine aimed at the mass market. I assume this redirect has been created by a French-speaker who wasn't aware the term doesn't translate. ‑ Iridescent 19:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert per Rossami. The current target seems to be a criticism on the target's subject (though it does seem to be a valid meaning) ; "vulgarization" is an English word, and "vulgarisation" is a viable alternate spelling of that per wikt:vulgarisation. The current usage in the redirect seems to be for bowlderization and simplification -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2016 (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.

Unlawful possession of ammunitions[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 1#Unlawful possession of ammunitions

Domotor Kolompar family organization[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) 16:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

[1] 9 Google hits, all wikipedia and mirrors.

These 2 redirects get 7 total Google hits, all mirrors or the Neelix target list. They are spam with no value. [2] Legacypac (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These 2 get 5 google hits each. [3] No real world use = useless redirect spam. Legacypac (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A prior discussion covering 86 redirects to the target [[4]] said keep without assessing the merits of each line. These two each get 7 google hits [5] all from a wiki mirror or the Neelix target list. No use in the real world = redirect spam. Legacypac (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf [6] decided this should not be CSD'd as Neelix cleanup so here we can discuss it. This search string gets 9 google hits - 1 at www.pronouncekiwi.com/, 1 at Neelix: Targets - Tool Labs and 7 to www.cyclopaedia.info (a mirror). [7] A prior discussion [8] covered 86 redirects to this target went keep, but there was no discussion or research into the merits of the individual redirects on the list. Legacypac (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep, speedy close. This is just a waste of time. Legacypac has been trying to sneak out-of-process speedies through here, for a set of redirects that were unanimously dept in an RfD discussion not two months ago. Despite what Legacypac says, above, The Big Bad Wolfowitz didn't "decide" anything; the community decided not to delete these two months ago, with full knowledge/consideration of the Neelix issues, and, as Legacypac well knows, they're therefore not subject to speedy deletion on the grounds the community already rejected. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • ^^^ troll in wolf's clothing. Some of these were nominated for CSD and others were not. There is no rule that we can't look at a redirect twice. Can you provide a keep rational that involves a RS please? Legacypac (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. They are not confusing or harmful to readers. "Neelix cleanup" is not a valid reason to throw away redirects that do comply with our rules. Deletion serves no purpose. Rossami (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions Can you justify how 86 redirects to one short article comply with our rules? How does making phrases up that no one has ever thought of in history (see search links above) and turning them into redirects comply with our rules? Which rules exactly please are being complied with? Keeping them serves no purpose. The wider community decided to IAR and purge the Neelix nonsense redirects - so let's clean up. Legacypac (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good evening, Legacypac. You are asking the question backwards. The right question is which of our rules do these redirects violate. Which of the specifically-itemized reasons for deletion at the top of this page apply to these redirects? What benefit is there to the project to "cleaning up" these? Rossami (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I claim
  • WP:RFD#DELETE #2 "The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted." and #8 "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful."
Perhaps you missed the ANi, Topic ban, ArbComm case, desyopping, ANi again that lead to IAR all rules Admins can delete his redirects on sight, and so on. Many talked about nuking all his redirects, but instead we are working through every single one of them because he created so many bad ones. Join the effort. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anomie/Neelix_list and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anomie/Neelix_list Legacypac (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous discussion. The G6-able ones were already G6'd as a result of the previous discussion, and the others continue to be correct and harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - these were kept less than three months ago and I see no good reason why they have been brought back. No convincing policy-compliant reason has been adduced for deletion. The default for redirects is to keep and, since these are all harmless, there is no reason to delete. Just Chilling (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They were addressed in a block without analysis. See RFD Reason #8 "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful." The search results show that the listed ones are absolutely novel. More policy "On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects." Legacypac (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interjecting because this keeps coming up: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#The guiding principles of RfD. If a good-faith RfD nomination has no discussion, the default result is delete. (emphasis in original) Doesn't change my !vote in this instance, though. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2016 (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.

Everyman's[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 Everyman (disambiguation). This seems obvious and has no objection so I feel comfortable closing early. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everyman's is a very common word,that is the first word in at least 8 articles here. Delete it or create a DAB? Other ideas? Neelix redirects Legacypac (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The article mentions that the organization goes by simply "Everyman's" and at least one source uses both versions (with and without the apostrophe). I still haven't figured out if this is the only thing known as simply "Everyman's." If so, I think it should be kept, with a hatnote to Everyman (disambiguation). If not, either retarget it to that dab or create a new one at that title. I do not think deletion is appropriate. -- Tavix (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The rational for delete would be "too broad a term" but it's great there is a DAB so send them there. I'm sure that some people shorten the name to everyman's, but is this the primary meaning for the term? I highly doubt it. Given the huge number on the Neelix redirect list, I'm doing a first triage assessment on these redirects, sending the questionable ones here for more assessment and CSDing the dumbest ones. I appreciate the input from others here to sort out how to improve the problematic but potentially salvageable ones. Legacypac (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think your point on it not being a primary meaning is a good point, and it's next to impossible to determine what else is known as "Everyman's." I'll officially !vote to retarget to Everyman (disambiguation) and I'll add this org to the dab. -- Tavix (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with the Retarget. Wish I'd seen that myself in the search results. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2016 (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.

Goldspotted pond frogs[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. JohnCD (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More Neelix fake compound words. This was declined at CSD but we have deleted many similar cases. Part of a Redirect bombing campaign to short stubs about frogs. Legacypac (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the actions of all the Admins and editors involved in deleting similar smashed together words by this editor did invalid things is an interesting argument. See WP:RFD#DELETE #2 and #8. Legacypac (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - valid alternate hyphen. To meet the Neelix nonsense bar I think it would have to go into "golds-potted" or "brightyellowspotted" or "aurumspeckled" or some such, but this one seems fine. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As stated above, this is an incredibly simple typo to make for "gold-spotted pond frog", and the redirect is indeed helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2016 (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.

List of black ice hockey players[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 6#List of black ice hockey players

Bernie Sanders interview with Diane Rehm[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. Maybe keep an eye on the target article in case this content doesn't stick. --BDD (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure and unimportant event. Does not need its own redirect and it also redirects to an article's section that has since been removed. SirLagsalott (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the section was removed over a month ago and Sanders is no longer even mentioned anywhere in the article.--69.157.252.178 (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not listed in Sander's article or his campaign article either.--69.157.252.178 (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this was mentioned in the article maybe. While redirects are cheap we don't need redirects for EVERY topic in an article. Mrfrobinson (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obscure and unimportant event? Is this your personal opinion? I see no consensus supporting this view on the talkpage - so have reverted the removal from the article.Ottawahitech (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
  • Delete as an XY - could just as easily be a redirect to Bernie Sanders. Legacypac (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really. This episode is all about Reim and her screwup, and Sanders is simply the guy caught in the middle. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If some knows Rehm's name why is this search string useful? Legacypac (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the target section was removed without consensus and later restored. Redirect points where it should. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable event, merits its own section on the Diane Rehm. This redirect is useful. Dimadick (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing inherently noteworthy, in terms of either a dedicated section and redirect, about a prominent talk show host interviewing prominent figures. The article currently mentions she's interviewed John McCain, Barack Obama, Madeleine Albright, Fred Rogers, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and others. Should we create redirects for these as well? No. While these interviews may have inherent interest at the time, and even mentioned in secondary sources, none of these necessarily requires encyclopedic coverage per WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS when put in context with her entire career (recentism as well as sensationalism should be avoided). Mere verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But the interview with Sanders is already there in the article. Deletion of the section is a topic for the article's talk page. As long as we have information on "Bernie Sanders interview with Diane Rehm" somewhere on the encyclopedia, it makes sense for this redirect to point to it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The creator is irrelevant unless they are evading a block/ban or Neelix. Except for those special cases, we judge solely on the redirect itself and not the person who created it. However, if you see any other redirects you think should be deleted, feel free to nominate them. -- Tavix (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rehm's citation of false informaiton circulating on racist, anti-Semitic web pages as fact , an assertion o f fact that she repeated as fact when a flabberghasted Sanders responded, made a rather major stir at the time. It should be a section on her page and a redirect of this title is appropriate. Debunking falsehood is a good use of Wikipedia, and people are likely to search for this topic. Mostly, however, keep as a redirect because the sourcing supports it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Settling this question is really going to depend on the notability of this incident. The target section no longer exists, though the Controversies section consists only of discussion of this incident. Looking through the target article's talk page, there's been some discussion of the incident, though not very in depth, and there seems to have been an unrelated controversy section in the past.

I'd like to see editors discuss whether a reasonably complete article on Diane Rehm would include this incident several years down the road or if this is a case of recentism.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent question. I follow the US election news pretty closely and never heard about this till this RfD. Talking heads say all sorts of nonsense in the US election season and this is just one of those fleeting nonsense events. So no, I don't see it as significant. Legacypac (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also hadn't heard of it despite following the election closely. But I hadn't heard of Diane Rehm either, so I can't really speak to how significant this is in her career. --BDD (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: re: your relisting comment, article content is a topic of discussion for the article's talk page, not RfD. The only question we should be discussing here is if this title is an appropriate redirect to that content, and it clearly is. So if that content exists, then this redirect should point to it. If the content gets deleted, then delete the redirect. We don't have jurisdiction to decide on article content from here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that uncertainty over the content will affect the usefulness of the redirect. If there's edit warring at the target article, it's probably best to have this red. If the content is staying for the foreseeable future, it will probably work. And I disagree that we don't have jurisdiction over article content. I don't think "jurisdiction" really exists in this sense; article content is built by consensus, and there's no requirement that that consensus be built on the corresponding talk page. --BDD (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, uncertainty over the content probably means that we should wait for that discussion to be resolved before we do anything, keep or delete. I suppose it doesn't matter where that discussion occurs, but at least there should be a note on the article's talk page that we're talking about it here. Editors watching that article and not RfD will not be aware of the content discussion regarding the article they're watching. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So throw a link to this discussion on the article talk. Legacypac (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already did. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2016 (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.

GPACTP[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. JohnCD (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a valid acronym for the article title you would expect to find it used to refer to the target in search. Zero uses in a Google search suggest strongly it is Neelix nonsense. I had CSD'd it but an editor with no clue and an ax to grind against me reverted the CSD. Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2016 (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.

Hot joga[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. JohnCD (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This started as an article eligible for A10 deletion, but another editor redirected it. There's no reason to have a redirect from the Slovenian spelling. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Someone mistakenly wrote an article in Slovenian on the English Wikipedia, we don't have to keep the Slovenian spelling. JIP | Talk 19:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • tipka as unnecessary. No relation between Slovenian and yoga as a topic. Legacypac (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Tipka"? Does that mean "delete"? JIP | Talk 21:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in Slovak yes, according to Google translate. Seemed appropriate to make my point :) Legacypac (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2016 (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.

Plowback retained earnings[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 still no consensus. I think it's appropriate to bring the subject up again, as it's almost been a year since the last RfD closure. However, there doesn't seem to be a substantial change of opinion from either side. Deryck C. 21:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Plowback retained earnings is an implausible search term as it's overly lengthy and nonsensical to boot, see this comment. It's also redundant to another redirect we have, Plowback. I recommend deletion. Iaritmioawp (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The redirect blatantly fails to "anticipate what readers will type as a first guess" and serves no purpose. Retaining it, especially given that we already have Plowback, defies common sense. Iaritmioawp (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closer, please take note that this is the nominator. --BDD (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - you can read my previous comments ([9], [10]) from when we discussed this at great length a year ago. This title is a nonsensical jamming together of two different terms for essentially the same thing. It wasn't a thing and should have been deleted then, and it's not a thing and should be deleted now. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is definitely nonsense. An area I'm quite familiar with. Legacypac (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No valid reason has been offered to delete. Redirects are "redundant" by definition. There is no other title that a reader would plausibly expect this redirect to point to. It is not harmful or confusing to readers. Rossami (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only two pages on Wikipedia have a title that starts with the word "plowback." One of them is Plowback; the other is Plowback retained earnings. They are both redirects and they both point to the same target. The latter is clearly redundant, much more so than the average redirect, and it makes no sense to deny it. Also, as mentioned above, Plowback retained earnings violates our policy on page names in that it doesn't correspond to what any reader could conceivably be expected to search for, which is as valid a reason to delete as anyone could ask for. The argument that the redirect is "harmless," whatever that means, and therefore should be kept by default is nonsensical, and is not considered valid by the Wikipedia community at large as evidenced by the existence of such speedy deletion criteria as WP:R2 or WP:R3, both of which allow "harmless" but useless redirects to be deleted without any discussion. Plowback retained earnings would be a textbook example of a WP:R3 candidate had it not been originally created as a stub article. Iaritmioawp (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my rationale in the previous discussions. This is now the 3rd time that the nominator has nominated this redirect. This is starting to get to a point where these nominations are starting to get disruptive. Steel1943 (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting discussions where no consensus was reached is standard practice on Wikipedia. If you don't like the way things are done here, you're more than welcome to suggest changes, but please do so at the appropriate venue. Also, I'd like to note that the exceptionally weak "rationale" that you used to support your previous "keep" votes was contested in both of the previous discussions and that both times you failed to respond to the objections that were raised in any manner whatsoever. Had you cared to argue your stance when it was challenged, instead of drive-by keep-voting and then disappearing into thin air, perhaps one discussion of this particular redirect would've sufficed; I suggest you give that a thought. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is the appropriate venue, you have brought this redirect up three times now, and have DRV'ed discussions twice. This nomination seems like a repeat of the rationale of previous two; you have yet to provide any new information that changes my opinion or stance. Unless someone else wants to nominate this in the future, if this discussion is closed to "keep" or "no consensus", I recommend that you stop wasting the community's time with your repeat nominations of this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This venue is for discussing redirects. If you'd like to address the objections that were raised against the merits of your "keep" votes in the previous two discussions, this is the place. If you'd like to address the arguments made by the editors who support the deletion of the Plowback retained earnings redirect, this is the place. If you wish to discuss the conduct of any of the editors involved, please use their user talk pages and/or the appropriate noticeboard. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
..."This venue is for discussing redirects." Yes, you started this discussion about a redirect ... which you have coincidentally already nominated twice in the past already. (Nice straw man you just said there.) Unless you have something substantial that could change my opinion or the other "keep" opinion above, I recommend you stop harassing the editors stating "keep", get off the soapbox, and stop thinking that you need to have the last statement in a "keep" thread to need to have your opinion validated in full. You already stated your rationale in your nomination statement, and that is sufficient enough. Steel1943 (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that I'm the nominator is immaterial to the issue of whether the redirect should be deleted or kept, contrary to what you're implying. The number of times the redirect has been nominated for discussion is also immaterial to the issue of whether the redirect should be deleted or kept. Your "keep" rationale, which you're alluding to in your !vote, was already at length refuted in the course of the previous discussion. You failed to address said refutation in any manner whatsoever and so I made a note of it here; there really wasn't much more I could do. One more thing that I will note is that responding to other users' comments in a discussion, which is not to be confused with a vote, doesn't constitute harassment; indeed, it's what debating is all about—you present an argument, I either agree with you or present a counter-argument, and then it's your turn. You may not like it, but it's just the way things are done on Wikipedia. Iaritmioawp (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for confirming my concerns with you in this nomination. Have a great day. Steel1943 (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the subject of this RfD; the Plowback retained earnings redirect is. Please kindly forget about the former and focus on the latter if you wish to make any further comments. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2016 (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.

Hero game[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) 15:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect, along with Hero Game, are pretty much useless. There are no incoming links from actual articles to either, and only a couple of incoming links at all in the first place. They seem to be only a remnant of an article about a non-notable roguelike game that was deleted nine years ago. Delete both. JIP | Talk 15:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not needed and providing no help to the reader. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some readers do in fact look for "hero game" and will be helped by finding the disambiguation page and learning that there are multiple games with that title.
    Note: Some of the arguments made in the nomination are explicitly not valid reasons for deletion. First, the fact that the redirect is an orphan is a feature, not a bug. In a perfectly-edited wiki, all redirects would be orphaned. That is not a valid reason for deletion. Second, the status as an orphan is temporary. Those links remain in history and could be restored any time if, for example, a page is reverted to fix vandalism. Third, the "orphan" status is a statement about internal links only. We have no way to know whether any external links exist to this title - links which would be broken by deleting the redirect. Redirects as old as this have a higher likelihood of being linked externally. Link-rot is an evil to be avoided unless a redirect is actively harmful or confusing to readers. Fourth, "useless" is a value judgement based on the specific way that you navigate the wiki. Others navigate differently and we are charged to assume good faith. If the original creator made the redirect (and there is no evidence of bad faith), we must assume that at least he/she found it useful. And redirect really are cheap enough that being useful to a single reader is sufficient to keep it. Finally, converting a non-notable article into a redirect is not only accepted but often encouraged. Rossami (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - whether or not it has incoming links or "is needed", there are a number of games titled "hero" (or variations) listed in the #Gaming section of the disambiguation page, and none are primary topics. A reader searching for "hero game" is very likely to find what they're looking for at this title. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Given that several games do exist titled simply "Hero" or "Hero ____", this appears helpful as stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2016 (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.

Possession of a firearm[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 Overview of gun laws by nation. There's some disagreement here, but that page does have discussion of the broader topic of possession of firearms, whether or not it's criminal. --BDD (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was CSD'd by User:SimonTrew with "Possession of arms went to RfD and I think was CSD'd, I (non-admin closure) closed that discussion. This is another with same rationale, and WP:G6 Neelix concession."

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has taken up the cause of removing CSD templates [11][12] [13][14] [15] [16] on Neelix redirects and attacking editors involved in the cleanup [17] [18]. So here we are, going to have a vote, again, on redirects very much like others we deleted. This one is quite misleading as possession of firearms is often not criminal. Moved to be next to the RfD below for ease of discussion. Legacypac (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep both. Regardless of alternate uses, "Possession of a firearm" is what the criminal offence is specifically called in many countries—including Britain, where a sizeable proportion of en-wiki readers live—and it's reasonable to assume this will be the search term they'll use. Legacypac, I strongly suggest dropping your crusade against Neelix (and I say that as the co-poster of the original complaint against him); anything that's genuinely problematic will be nominated by someone else at some point, and nominations of clearly valid redirects like this are making you look like someone with a grudge against everything he ever touched. ‑ Iridescent 22:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the United Kingdom (not "Britain", whatever that is), the offence is "Possession of a Firearm/Ammunition without a certificate" (my italics), not simply possession of a firearm/ammunition: Firearms Act 1968. Si Trew (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was not even my nomination at CSD - and see the list below. There remain thousands of misleading and harmful redirects on the Neelix lists to cleanup, why not join the effort? Legacypac (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was my nomination, and seemed reasonable considering what had happened to Possession of arms. It is not Neelix-bashing; the redirects Neelix created were fine until the article was moved. Si Trew (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sir Joseph: "while possession is most likely illegal" is easily misconstrued. You may want to reword that, unless your intention is to state that most people having or owning a firearm do so illegally, rather than stating that the term is used to indicate illegal ownership.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Godsy: What is interesting is that I now don't even know what I meant by that, which just reinforces that the redirect should go to gun laws by country. Possession in the US is most likely legal. If you carry outside, it's most likely legal, unless you possess it in a manner contrary to law, but of course the term "possession" is generally used to refer to illegal use of a firearm, but if someone was using an encyclopedia to search, they might be using the term to do a search for actual possession, not criminal possession. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Overview of gun laws by nation per Just Chilling. I don't really like that target but it's probably close enough. I have the same issue with these as the nominator: simply possessing a firearm is not criminal in many parts of the world; this seems to be striving at a POV. The Overview article isn't a lot better but I don't know what a better target would be. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to a new DAB or hatnote the current target to Overview of gun laws by nation. This is a case of a more-general title redirecting to a more-specific one, which can be a WP:SURPRISE.
This has nothing to do with Neelix-bashing; the redirects Neelix created were perfectly fine until the target was moved back in April: we're just doing that housekeeping now, that's all.And not everything that is illegal is criminal. Si Trew (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2016 (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.

Arms possession[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. Several suggestions were presented below. Some argued these should be kept because "possession" implies "criminal possession" in legal language; others disagreed and said this is a biased POV, so they should be deleted. Some suggested a retarget but others disagreed with the match of topic. Taking into account comments at the AfD which produced these redirects, and the plurality of editors opining for deletion, the best course of action for now seems to be deletion. No history preservation is needed as no content was merged as a result of the AfD. Deryck C. 12:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, although weakly inclined to delete as WP:RFD#D2, WP:XY.

This is a result of a page move, although not marked as such. It's not a "Neelix redirect", as that one was. But I think it's as confusing as #Possession of arms, which went as a CSD by User:Anthony Bradbury with the closing comment of "Neelix nonsense".

Not all possession is criminal possession, and we have plenty of alternatives, such as Right to keep and bear arms. Yet, considering it's the result of a page move, it might be best to leave it be. Si Trew (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm a liar, it was turned into a redirect quite recently as a result of this AfD discussion. I'm not convinced there was real consensus to make it a redirect, only half a !vote for that. Si Trew (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well it kinda was.Weapon possession was moved to Criminal possession of a weapon with this change of 25 April 2015. Before that, a lot of these redirects were sensible; it's the introduction of the criminal element that makes them nonsense or confusing. Four days after the move it was expanded to an article by Neelix, but by then all (or many) of the redirects had been "fixed" by bots to refer to the criminal article. In the absence of Legal possession of a weapon and some such, I'm not sure what to do; I'm awaiting the outcome of CSD on a few:
On the basis that "ammunitions" is not a word, and "ammunition" per se is not a weapon (I think we had a discussion about this before), and:
as being very similarly to the deleted Possession of arms. But that was deleted on the grounds of WP:G6 "Neelix nonsense" and not necessarily because of the arguments above. Si Trew (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that the most of the "What links here" for Weapon possession are from transclusion of the navbox {{Weapons}} (which also uses Criminal possession of a weapon). I've dropped a note at its talk page. Si Trew (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. I recall this mess from before and trying to figure it out. The explanation above looks spot on. Legacypac (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Neelix paranoia is disruptive and destructive. It's the work of about ten seconds, for example, to find a page where working (American) lawyers use the term "weapon possession" to open a discussion of criminal possession of a weapon,[19] which is exactly the redirect target. The other terms have similar patterns of use. They are frequently used as shorthand for the criminal offenses described in the target article. And that's what users who search for the phrases on wikipedia are almost certain to be looking for. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a question of "Neelix paranoia". These redirects made some sense until the article was moved, now they don't. Si Trew (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Overview of gun laws by nation. No target is perfect but this seems most likely to lead the searcher to the information they are seeking. Just Chilling (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I consider these useful, as reasonable terms by which someone might look for information. DGG ( talk ) 07:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep the first two (i.e. arms possession and weapon possession) per DGG, Delete the third (i.e. possession of weapons) due to the order of the wording and wording itself not being a general legal use. Possession is "the state of having or owning something"; the word as a legal term designates a crime. The first two terms use it in the legal sense (see drug possession for example) while the nature third is more likely to be a synonym with simply having a gun. One wouldn't be charged with "Possession of weapons", rather several counts of "Possession of a weapon"; if were going to associate these terms with crimes, the line must be drawn somewhere on which terms to redirect, because of the non-criminal meaning of possession outside of legal settings.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • But when a lawyer (even a legal draughter) calls something "possession" they are implying unlawful possession – and a criminal law (or for that matter a civil law) about possession necessarily covers both legal and illegal possession. The target only covers criminal possession, which is a subset of illegal possession, which is a subset of possession. It's always problematic, to me, to redirect a more-general title to a more-specific one without somehow trying to cater for the other senses that might have been intended (such as the one suggested below). Si Trew (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Overview of gun laws by nation per Just Chilling. I don't really like that target but it's probably close enough. I have the same issue with these as the nominator: simply possessing a firearm is not criminal in many parts of the world; this seems to be striving at a POV. The Overview article isn't a lot better but I don't know what a better target would be. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the nom immediately above, I think maybe we should make a new DAB and redirect hose to it. We could hatnote at the target, but there would be a lot of redirects in that hatnote. Si Trew (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I had closed this as retarget to Overview of gun laws by nation, but since none of these are about firearms, I think that's too narrow an option. I don't see a good alternative. I'm also skeptical of a dab at any of these titles, though I'll take a look if anyone wants to draft one. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2016 (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.

Agnes Blizzard[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) 16:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure whether we ever got consensus on whether CSD criterion WP:G8 "redirect loop" includes a redirect that links to a target which is the only thing that links to the redirect (I claim WP:RFD#D2 as a WP:SURPRISE). But that's the case here, so I'm bringing it as something of a test case. Relatively recently created, December 2015, by User:Legacypac. Si Trew (talk)

It should not be a loop, so I just fixed that by unlinking her name. It should just be a redirect to the YWCA#Canada article as she was co-founder there. Hopefully someone builds out an article about her over the redirect. It was my intent to build a redirect to the thing she was famous for, not to create a redlink. Legacypac (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having redlinks helps people identify at a glance that the article needs building. Removing the link doesn't; redirecting it back to itself doesn't. Si Trew (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^Keep there is always a conflict between red linking a name to encourage article creation and creating a redirect to guide the reader to the info we do have about the person already. I intended the later because I could not find enough info on the women for a good stub but she gets many mentions on the web as cofounder of YWCA Canada. I prefer to keep the redirect and unlink to remove the unintended circular reference. Legacypac (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Legacypac. Si, what WP:G8 defines as a redirect loop is two redirects that point to each other; I don't think we ever disputed that. We didn't really come to a conclusion on what the other thing is called, but the fix is to remove the link, not delete the redirect. Although it might be the case subsequently that the redirect should be deleted because it's not useful, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the interpretation was even narrower than that, not that there is a circular reference of RedirectX targeting RedirectY and vice versa, but that RedirectX targets RedirectX, itself. (I presume there is logic in the double-redirect bot to stop it chasing its own tail with those.)
As a reader, I find it confusing (or at least infuriating) to click on a redirect link only to end up back where I started.
It's not ideal to remove the link if the redirect could one day be expanded to an article (i.e., is or should be an {{R with possibilities}}). What I do sometimes is change the link to a redlink e.g. RedirectX (circular) with a pipe; that is perhaps a bit confusing to an editor but I tend to comment it and put it similar in the edit summary. Si Trew (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2016 (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.

Figurational[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. JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe retarget to Figurational Sociology or just delete as too vague? Legacypac (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, on the basis that the meaning does not carry through to either of the options on the disambiguation page. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - definitely not precise enough. Onel5969 TT me 19:21, 27 January 2016 (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.

Resort spa[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 all. JohnCD (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_21#Water towns.

Not sure that these are the same thing. The target starts "A destination spa is a resort centered on a spa"... and goes on to say "Resort spas are generally located in resorts". It makes no mention of "spa resorts", is one the resort and one the spa, or both the resort, or both the spa? Si Trew (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added Resort spas, which I've marked as {{R from plural}}, so it's not forgotten. Spa resorts is red. Si Trew (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — If you think they are sufficiently different, you should add a new article. Otherwise leave as is or update the existing article appropriate. I opt for one of the latter. — 192.114.91.234 (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems reasonable redirects -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not broken, don't fix. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This isn't a precise apples to apples linkage, yes, but things are close enough to where deleting the redirect just seems like splitting hairs for no good reason. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2016 (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.

Becky Ferguson[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Procedural retarget to Rebecca Ferguson (disambiguation), consequent to a move over DAB from Rebecca Ferguson (actress).(non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think deletion is the best option for this redirect. It used to point to Rebecca Ferguson when it was a dab page but that is no longer the case and the dab was deleted per WP:TWODABS. It doesn't appear that either of the two options, Rebecca Ferguson or Rebecca Ferguson (singer), are ever referred to as "Becky" so I don't think redirecting to either of those articles is appropriate. Jenks24 (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rebecca Ferguson (disambiguation) I checked if this was a viable dab, and it was. I re-created it at Rebecca Ferguson (disambiguation) with 3 entries and a see also. Nothing to gain at all from deletion, may be slightly useful as redirect. Boleyn (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2016 (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.

Kathoy[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 as {{R from alternative transliteration}}. Deryck C. 21:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether this could go as {{R from typo}} equally or more likelily to Cathay or Kathy, so perhaps better off deleted to let the search engine do it. Si Trew (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not needed at all. Legacypac (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasoning as "Kathoei" below - plausible variant in transliteration. Rossami (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rossami. My search confirms that this is attested as an alternative spelling. I think the next-most plausible typo would be Kathay though. -- Tavix (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

National action plans[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 2#National action plans

Kathoei[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. I've tagged it as {{R from alternative transliteration}}. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Thai General System of Transcription ⋅version, but not the title or alternate spelling in article. Unclear where this is sourced to. Delete it or ?? Legacypac (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as {{R from other spelling}} (I've tagged it thus). I don't think there's any need here for it to appear in the article, any more than for e.g. {{R from typo}}; titles don't have to be WP:RS. I've looked through all the other redirects to this article and rcatted as I felt appropriate. Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2016 (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.

Phet thi sam[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) 16:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thai phrases related to the target. Appropriate redirects or not? Still working Neelix list Legacypac (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2016 (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.

A second kind of woman[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. JohnCD (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of a Thai phrase used to describe the target. Not a likely search term in English so does not help the searcher., Legacypac (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RFD#DELETE #2 and #8 for good reasons to delete. Legacypac (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is point #2. I just didn't say "#2"; rather I elaborated on why it is point number 2 -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The English language wording "second kind of women" here is way, way too vague to automatically associate with one specific target. A bunch of other things come to mind immediately, just off the top of the head: a) women that work outside of the home and are 'primary breadwinners', b) women that dress masculine and act as 'one of the guys' in Joan Jett fashion, c) women that stay single their whole lives and reject notions of commitment in relationships, and... well, it goes on. Way too vague. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2016 (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.

Mountain people (Vietnam)[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 retargeted as per BDD, and seeing no votes, withdrawing Legacypac (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is only one tribe of many in the country, and they are not really called this. Legacypac (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks - these are parts of a wrong headed Neelix effort to connect a bunch of unrelated topics. I CSD'd some other stuff too. Legacypac (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to turn Mountain people into a redirect to Hill people Legacypac (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, done, thanks. Legacypac (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2016 (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.

Fragmentally[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. JohnCD (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still working on Neelix redirects. Another word he added many suffixes too without checking what the words mean. These words have a strong connection to geology. Ideas for an appropriate target? Legacypac (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The homeless rabbi[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 Speedily deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are too general for the target. Not referenced there either. Legacypac (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2016 (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.

Possession of arms[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 Speedily deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One does not equal the other. Confusing nonsense by Neelix Legacypac (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Completely misleading, bypassing every military use since the dawn of time. Softlavender (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as 'armful, WP:R#D2 confusing if not WP:R#D5 nonsense. Not all weapons are arms, and not all posession is criminal possession. In fact the target doesn't use the word "arms" at all ("firearms" is used in one para, three times). Si Trew (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Hubert Humphrey School of Public Affairs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 1#The Hubert Humphrey School of Public Affairs

Young Women's Christian Association Women of Distinction Awards[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 1#Young Women's Christian Association Women of Distinction Awards

NAPCHT[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 1#NAPCHT

Notes to my Daughter on the Meaning of Womanhood[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 both. JohnCD (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need the subtitle or the title plus the subtitle when the search engines will do just fine helping people find this. Legacypac (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2016 (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.

Oriental gardeners[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) 16:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix redirects. Oriental is much broader then Chinese. Not sure if there is a better target or just delete as too vague. Legacypac (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Oh good grief, oriental gardens are almost always Japanese. This is atrocious and completely clueless. Softlavender (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "gardener(s)" - a gardener is not a garden, you can have gardeners of any ethnicity in any garden -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly Delete Oriental garden and Oriental gardens as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:XY; perhaps WP:REDLINK but my search for oriental gardens and so on does not reveal that they are primarily Chinese or Japanese, and no other parts of the orient seem to figure much.
Researching originally, it seems to me that an oriental garden is more of an occidental interpretation of an oriental style of formal garden (that is, you won't find an oriental garden in the Orient, any more than you will find an Irish pub in Ireland). I was thinking to start an article on this, but I can't find much online RS to support my pathetically minimal research.
Delete the "gardener(s)" and "gardening" ones as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:XY;, an oriental gardener could be a gardener from the Orient or anyone who tends an Oriental garden. We do have the more-general gardening but that doesn't mention the orient (it mentions Japanese, but not Chinese, gardens). It's not included as a type in the navbox at Template:Horticulture_and_gardening. Si Trew (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen plenty of gardens in China and very few are along the lines of a Classic Chinese Garden [20]. Oriental garden is pretty much nonsense because that term covers from Dubai to China to Malaysia - way too broad to be meaningful. Legacypac (talk) 07:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit disoriented: I would have thought "The Orient" in this context means only the Far East, but the article at Orient seems to suggest it has always had a wider meaning. Si Trew (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
o·ri·en·tal of, from, or characteristic of East Asia. synonyms: eastern, Far Eastern, Asian, Asiatic; (a range of meanings) Legacypac (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2016 (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/2016_January_24&oldid=1138580975"