Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 28, 2016.

Dearly won[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) 15:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing these tied closely to accounting at all. A battle could be dearly won etc. Did Neelix even look at the target article? Legacypac (talk) 22:59, 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.

Stag-like[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) 15:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But then we have this set. Deer obsession... Do we need redirects-like for every word-like in in the Wikipedia-like? Legacypac (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unwarranted Neelix inventions. Softlavender (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ridiculous. In the unlikely event someone did type staglike, they might be thinking of the meaning of stag in the expression "going stag" i.e. going to a party without a date. In the unlikely event someone did type fawnlike, they might be looking for "faunlike". So just delete. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Something that is deerlike is cervine (→ Deer). Wictionary has (wikt:deerlike), but not wikt:deer-like. Where do we draw the line for WP:NOTDIC? -like is red, for example. Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 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.

Fawnest[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) 15:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unwarranted Neelix inventions. Softlavender (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ridiculous. Major colors such as black, white, red, yellow, green, and blue can have comparative and superlatives. Oddball colors like auburn, ecru, puce, or fawn do not have comparatives and superlatives. You could say this girl has the bluest eyes you've ever seen. You can't say that this dog has the fawnest coat you've ever seen. The only way fawnest is a word is in the archaic sense: "Thou fawnest like a spaniel at my feet."—Anomalocaris (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In which case we should retarget it, like Fawning and Fawner, to sycophancy. Si Trew (talk) 09:57, 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.

Fawny[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) 15:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about these?

  • Delete. Unwarranted Neelix inventions. Softlavender (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fawny, Keep. Fawnier and Fawniest, Delete. Major colors such as black, white, red, yellow, green, and blue can have comparative and superlatives. Oddball colors like auburn, ecru, puce, or fawny do not have comparatives and superlatives. You could say this girl has the bluest eyes you've ever seen. You can't say that this dog has the fawniest coat you've ever seen. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all WP:RFD#D2 confusing per WP:XY, could just as likely mean cervine. Si Trew (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Useless and unwarranted redirects. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:42, 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.

Fawningness[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) 15:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary word pointed at it's Italian equivalent which is used as a music term in English. Retarget to wikionary maybe? Legacypac (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete what the hell? or retarget to affection or sycophancy -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:NOTDIC, not a translation dictionary. If someone wish to know what accarezzevole means, they should look it up in an etymological dictionary such as, er, at wikt:accarezzevole. That does not mean it is useful to do the reverse lookup, since "fawning" as a verb more likely translates as Italian: servile outside of this specialised musical meaning.
Incidentally, I'm not even sure that the target should have a diacritical mark in Italian, let alone in English. Spanish WP has it with the accent both as its article title and in the Italian etymology, translating as Spanish: servil. There's no article on Italian WP (or in Italian Wiktionary). Si Trew (talk) 10:18, 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.

Yellow jaw[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) 12:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snake is called "yellow-jaw tommygoff" in one part of it's range. Is this enough to justify these redirects? Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it's also colloquially called just "yellow-jaw." Here are a few sources for attestation: [1], [2], [3]. I didn't see any notable competing uses either. -- Tavix (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix's findings --Lenticel (talk) 00:32, 5 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.

Shaggedness[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. Yeah, baby! --BDD (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are just confusing and not helpful to reader pointed at a DAB (that I just merged four overlapping DABs together to make, check for any issues there while you are looking) Legacypac (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Typical Neelix disruptive nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ridiculous. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I can only see "Shaggily" and "Shaggly" as possibly of worth as being mistakes for searching "Shaggy", but, well, even then it's a stretch. Best, I suppose, to just flush them all. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:16, 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.

Stereotypes of Hispanics[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 all. JohnCD (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are problematic. See WP:INUSA for why it's a bad idea for X to redirect to "X in the United States", and similar discussions for West and Central Asians and Arabs.

(Note that since Latino redirects to Hispanic and Latino Americans, I haven't nominated Stereotypes of Latinos or Latino stereotypes. Note also that while the term "Mestizo" is mentioned at the target article, no stereotypes specific to Mestizos are even included.) --BDD (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree with BDD that there is no basis for assuming "in the United States." Presumably, there are stereotypes of Hispanics and Mestizos in Canada and other countries, not just the United States. As for "Hispanic stereotypes", additionally there is no way of knowing if this is stereotypes about Hispanics or stereotypes possessed by Hispanics. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are indeed stereotypes in Canada though less pronounced then south of the line. Legacypac (talk) 17:41, 29 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.

Cdebootstrap[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 4#Cdebootstrap

List of iPhone applications[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) 15:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vague target, I'm thinking about a set-index, but not entirely sure. We can have List of iOS games and/or List of free and open-source iOS applications etc. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:01, 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.

Guanin (Fish)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 4#Guanin (Fish)

Fin-fish[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 avalanche keep and retarget (section) to Fish#Finfish. I've left a courtesy comment there per WP:RSECT, and I've marked this and Finfish as {{R to section}}. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Tail-cat or Nose-mouse? It's an old redirect but it makes no sense. Legacypac (talk) 21:29, 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.

Alaskan river[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 6#Alaskan river

Nakshal (film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 4#Nakshal (film)

Template:Fact (lede)[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 with WP:NPASR. Deryck C. 22:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and multiple RfCs and other consensus discussions at WT:LEAD have concluded to stop promoting "lede" in reference to WP article leads (encyclopedic leads have little in common with journalistic ledes, and the usage is misleading here).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Says who? The only instances of "lede" currently at WT:LEAD are people using it without anyone objecting. The "our ledes aren't journalistic ledes" has always seemed a bit of a red herring to me. They certainly have some similarities, and while "lede" may look unfamiliar to some editors, it's unambiguous, which you can't say for "lead". Keep "lead" the standard usage, fine, but we gain nothing crusading against a legitimate alternative. --BDD (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:27, 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.

Novitiations[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 Shinbyu. By implication of Ivanvector's argument I have retargeted Novitiation as well. Deryck C. 23:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see an obvious retarget for this exceptionally rare word. You will not get any help understanding it at the target for It seems to be mainly used in describing Myanmar Buddhism but with only 301 Google hits including non-English results it is just so rare its not really a useful word. Another Neelix creation so could be G6 Housekeeping. Legacypac (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - adding -ation to an action word makes it a noun describing the performance of the action. As such, the target defines the action indicated by this word. Perfectly sensible. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivanvector. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like a "novitiation" is the beginning of a novitiate, which is at least recognized in some strains of Buddhism. Could a different article on Novitiation be feasible?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Re to relist) You might be right. This short article describes a "novitiation ceremony" in which a novice enters the novitiate. But it's also very roughly translated, and might not mean that at all; for all we know the translator made the same modification that Neelix made here. This one is a bit better - it describes the novitiation ceremony in Myanmar, which we do have an article about, Shinbyu, but I think this is one example of a novitiation ceremony, rather than all instances of novitiation referring to Shinbyu specifically, and in that case I think keeping the current target is better. Maybe there is an article in this though. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is one of those theoretical words that can be created within the way English works, but is not a real word in that it is not recognized in dictionaries and literature. Exactly the kind of mistake an ESL speaker might make. If the "fact" this word exists is not found in a RS we should delete just like any other "fact" not found in RS. Legacypac (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • On further investigation into this, I've found that while novitiation is a recognized thing (an occasion or ceremony denoting the start of one's entry into a religious order; think initiation but more specific), it is almost always called by some other name except when referring to the Shinbyu ceremony. So they're not quite synonyms, but they are sort of like how banana is typically understood to mean the Cavendish variety, even though there are many other kinds of banana. So now I think we should retarget to Shinbyu. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Shinbyu per Ivanvector. Well argued. --BDD (talk) 15:31, 4 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.

Mushroompickers[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) 15:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All nonsense compound words like so many others we have deleted aready. We don't just stick words together to make redirects. There are also redirects for these terms with spaces and dashes too. Legacypac (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, I can't believe anyone would enter any of these in search of an article. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete all per SimonTrew. Softlavender (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all pointless redirects. Sasata (talk) 20:34, 29 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.

Plaintively[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, these two words have the same-ish etymology, but other than that, I'm at a loss of how these are related. -- Tavix (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This has got to be one of the most egregious Neelix creations. Softlavender (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's simply wrong -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense redirect. If we could just nuke them all we would save a lot of time. Let editors using their brain recreate anything that is needed. Legacypac (talk) 11:42, 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.

Bush the devil[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 all. JohnCD (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This comes from a speech in which Hugo Chávez called George W. Bush a devil. It's not mentioned at his article and I have WP:BLP concerns about these redirects since it draws attention to this incident. (Additionally: Bush Devil seems to be the name of a monster truck.) -- Tavix (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the term does not apply to the target but to Bush. We are not going to redirect them to Bush, so delete. Leaders are called lots of names by lots of people, but that does not mean we need redirects to Low energy Carson or rude Trump etc. Legacypac (talk) 05:46, 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.

Hgu chavez[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 let me take this opportunity to plug one of my favorite articles, ¿Por qué no te callas?. --BDD (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RTYPO, all of these have multiple mistakes from "Hugo Chávez". Seems like someone was playing the permutation game to see how many typos they could come up with. -- Tavix (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible typos. Legacypac (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep these typos are related to accent-less single letter typos with lack of capitalization (they are all lower case, since Wikipedia does not present lowercase first letters, the formatting here makes it appear as though the first letter is capitalized). Since the lack of an accent is not a typo, that's not a multiple error, it's a choice in spelling (as can be seen in many reliable sources). The lack of capitalization is merely an alternate presentation, since some people stylistically do not capitalize anything. How many people actually capitalize their search terms? That leaves the actual typos (dropping a letter, adding a letter, mistaking a letter, transposition of letters). And transposition errors aren't uncommon, from perusing the internet. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all which are simple reversals of letters. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
search engines are smart enough to get people where they need to go. If you search any of these errors you can see they multiply across the Internet from here so are actually doing harm. If someone internally linked I would want the link to turn red because it is wrong. Legacypac (talk) 11:20, 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.

Glass-like[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) 13:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vague. Several things can described as "glass like" and not be a hyaline substance. -- Tavix (talk) 05:01, 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.

Qanats[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 Qanat. JohnCD (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just created this and wondered whether it should go to Qanat instead. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget the plural of Qanat, used in the second sentence of the first paragraph. It is a unlikely transposition misspelling of the airline name. Legacypac (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:32, 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.

Next iphone[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 both. JohnCD (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No plausible target per WP:CRYSTAL. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update The two redirects are fully protected, please help to nominate them. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Believe it or not, there will come a time when there won't be a "next iPhone." I don't know when that time will be... probably because I don't have a crystal ball. -- Tavix (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep that time has not come yet, and when it does the target should be updated to say Apple is bankrupt or the brand is discontinued or whatever which will tell the reader what they want to know when they type this very plausible search string. Legacypac (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you think it's a plausible search string? Stats are averaging one hit every four days... -- Tavix (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • that's a lot less then I would have thought. Next iPhone is what I would search for, but I would not necessary choose WP out of the search results, I'd look for a good tech blog. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly. Someone searching "next iPhone" is going to be disappointed because they aren't going to get any information about what the next iPhone is, when it's coming out, specs, features, etc. -- Tavix (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the next iteration of the iPhone should always have a short detail in the main article, thus any information available on Wikipedia should be navigatable from there. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These type of redirects are generally controversial (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 1#Next Greek legislative election being one of the more recent ones). This is misleading: the blanket IPhone article doesn't contain any information on the "next IPhone", so the information being sought isn't there. If IPhone 7 existed as an article (a rather weak target itself as the redirect would need periodic updates), and wasn't itself a redirect to the same place, an argument could be made to retarget it there. "Upcoming IPhone", "Future IPhone", etc. are just as likely; it would be unreasonable to make redirects of this type for every product with the potential to release a new version. At least until such time as information (based on non-speculative notable sources) exists at a section within current target or in a standalone article (even then the redirect would be debatable per above), this should go, as this encyclopedia isn't a crystal ball. Tavix makes a good point, relevant to the current target, that there won't perpetually be a "next IPhone". Last and least, the capitalization isn't correct.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix above. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per NOTCRYSTAL. Rossami (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - As stated above, these redirects aren't used much in the first place, anyways, and the violation of our guidelines seems fairly obvious. Wikipedia is not in the speculation business. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:04, 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.

Iphone 7[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 6#Iphone 7

Afroestadounidense[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) 15:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no particular affinity to Galician. (Spanish is "Afro estadounidense" as two words, but no particualr affinity to Spanish, either, not even Mexican Spanish). Si Trew (talk) 04:26, 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.

Black education[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. Although several editors argued for keep on the basis that these phrases predominantly refers to African Americans in existing literature, there is a strong majority to delete based on reasons such as redlinking, that Wikipedia shouldn't propagate the US-centric use of these terms, and ambiguity of the terms. Deryck C. 23:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as WP:RFD#D2 confusing (essentially, vague), WP:XYZ. I realise there are possible targets out there, but perhaps too many to try to DAB them. Si Trew (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are specific to the United States or African Americans. It would be nice to have a good place to retarget those in the article if this is to be deleted. Black Poverty was previous an article; it was a contested CSD and then was changed to a redirect with this edit of 17 January 2012 by User:Daniel J. Leivick, and occasionally has been to section "Economic status" (but isn't right now).
Black poverty is also referenced at Talk:Jena Six#Links to articles that haven't been written yet (January 2012), and Black education at Talk:Female education#Inappropriate title (September 2015). I've left a courtesy comment at each of the talk pages, referring to here. There's references at a few WikiProjects but I don't think they need to be notified expressly. Si Trew (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't recall why I created this, and I would agree that it isn't appropriate and sounds US-centric. Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning toward opposing deletion. Unless there is a better redirect, I don't think it should be deleted. Like I stated in the discussion that alerted me to this redirect debate, "Black education redirects to a section of the African American article because no one has created that article yet." Furthermore, many sources using the black education terminology are referring to African American people and not to black people from different parts of the world. So if the term is U.S.-centric, that's a literature matter per the WP:Due weight policy. From what I see, Boleyn was not wrong to create that redirect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flyer22 Reborn seems to be the first one to do some research and practice BEFORE. A JSTOR search for the very term gives over 3000 hits--in peer-reviewed journals. These are titles like "Neoliberalism and Black Education", "Explaining the Black Education Gap", "A Philosophy of Black Education", "Socioeducational Ideologies of Black Education", "Reflections: Black Studies-Black Education?", "Historical Revisionism and Black Education", "Black Education: The Cosby Debate", "Women and Black Education: Three Profiles", "Black Education Book Featured at National Press Club Event", " The Pennsylvania Abolition Society's Mission for Black Education", "State Leadership and Black Education in Florida, 1876-1976", "The Constitutional Moment: Reconstruction and Black Education in the South", "Black Education, Earnings, and Inter-regional Migration: Some New Evidence", "We Built Black Athens How Black Determination Secured Black Education in Antebellum Nashville", "Education and 'Black' Education: Some Remarks on Cultural Relevance", "The Rosenwald Schools and Black Education in North Carolina", "Black Education, Earnings and Interregional Migration: Even Newer Evidence", "Black Education at Oberlin College: A Controversial Commitment", "BLACK EDUCATION 1988" (the themed issue of the journal The Black Scholar (19.6: 1988) is called Black Education), "Victims Without "Crimes": Some Historical Perspectives on Black Education", "The Black Education Strategy in the 1970s", "Trials and Tribulations: American Missionary Association Teachers and Black Education in Occupied New Orleans, 1863-1864", "Blacks on Brown: Intra-Community Debates over School Desegregation in Topeka, Kansas, 1941-1955". I could go on.

    What I left out from this, the first page of JSTOR hits, is two articles on black education in South Africa. Still, 2 out of 25 legitimate hits--these are all impeccable--pertain to education for African Americans, so that redirect target doesn't seem so bad. You can argue that JSTOR is US-centric, and that may be so, we're talking about a repository of peer-reviewed articles here which cannot just be swept away. So the real question isn't why this redirect was created (it was good) or where it should lead (it's fine), but why we only have seven paragraphs, and not a real article on a real topic, which we can call Black education. Or African American education. God forbid we give the appearance that on Wikipedia rassling, K-pop, and manga are more important than black education. So keep and, Boleyn, thanks for writing it up. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see now that this discussion is about two terms, sort of awkwardly lumped together as if indistinguishable--as it happens, though, what goes for the one goes for the other as well. "Black poverty" is a perfectly acceptable search term (really, full-blown topic in its own right) as confirmed by JSTOR, with what appears to be a similar US-South Africa distribution. The term does not occur as often in titles as does "black education", but JSTOR searches full-text and thus lends credence to the term. Note also its occurrence in The Negro Family: The Case For National Action, cited in a number of the JSTOR-indexed publications. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies stated, "God forbid we give the appearance that on Wikipedia rassling, K-pop, and manga are more important than black education." LOL! So true. I'm also not sure why we don't yet have an encyclopedic article on the topic. Sometimes...that's just the way Wikipedia is; things that should have Wikipedia articles don't, while things that shouldn't have Wikipedia articles do. That's not to state that our popular culture topics don't deserve space, of course. I like manga. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS this is not the U.S. Wikipedia. The world is not composed solely of the United States. Poverty and education in sub-Saharan Africa is a major world topic ; and also major topics in South Africa -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but possibly retarget to redirect pages. They are perfectly reasonable search terms. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but seriously per WP:REDLINK. There's no doubt that this is a notable topic, but general phrases like "black education" would probably be inappropriate as titles for them on a global encyclopedia. As the IP notes, African Americans are hardly the only black people to suffer poverty and education gaps. Now, I suspect we'll have articles on these topics for African Americans before we do for other groups of black people, and when that comes, I'm not sure what will be best to do with these titles. It may well be that we can't talk about black education or poverty as global phenomenon without resorting to WP:SYN. But for now, without even articles on the topics for African Americans, I think it's best that we be honest with our readers about our lack of coverage here. --BDD (talk) 15:19, 4 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.

Cure to clinical depression[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) 13:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOMEDICALADVICE. -- Tavix (talk) 04:08, 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.

Unhappiness[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) 15:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Target is only distantly related to redirect. Maybe better to target Happiness or something similar. Also this is not a dictionary so we could just delete. Legacypac (talk) 02:38, 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.

Deject[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 Deleted as G6 Neelix cleanup. Legacypac (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Significant differences between these two feelings making this a misleading redirect. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. All the variations of deject listed here included in this nomination by reference. Neelix nonsense so if it looks like these should be deleted they can be G6 speedy. [4]. Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a personal attack. It was a fact. Were they created by Neelix? Yes. Are they made-up? Yes. Are they nonsense? Yes. Softlavender (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom -- they are all a poor match for the target. Many thanks for nominating these! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2016
  • comment Neelix nonsense is the best shorthand for the tens of thousands of nonsense redirects he created. Admins are specifically required to put the name Neelix in their G6 housekeeping deletes so it serves everyone well to ID which nominations are his specifically so we can IAR and plow through the nonsense. The ones coming here to RFD are those people are less sure about-many more are CSD directly. Legacypac (talk) 05:34, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_28&oldid=1037901700"