Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 23, 2016.

Draft:Apakah FINGERPRINT GEMSTONE or GF Gemstone or Batu Akik GF layak GO INTERNATIONAL[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 delete, G8, as the target has been deleted. --BDD (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, becuase the title is too long, confusing, spammy-looking, and misleading. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete implausible search term that was renamed to a proper title. Houseclean this one. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As long and implausible the title of the redirect is, the title is the title where the target draft's creator originally created the draft. Deleting this redirect hinders their ability to find the draft in the event they ever want to pick it up again. (Note: the draft was moved to the new title by the nominator of this RfD about half a year ago, not by the creator of the draft.) Also, the "spammy-looking" concern with the redirect's title is not really an issue in the "Draft:" namespace since all "Draft:" namespace pages are not indexed for third-party search engines. (See Wikipedia:Drafts#Finding drafts.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that as a problem considering that the creator's talk page has multiple notices about where the draft is currently at. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's assuming that the draft's creator knows how Wikipedia works. Steel1943 (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel1943. Harmless redirect not in mainspace. Deletion has no benefit and could potentially hinder the original contributor. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the draft article is actually about the Sunrise Ruby. As described in that article, "pigeon's blood" is the stone's grading. The editor created the article almost 10 months ago and hasn't been back to Wikidepia since, so they don't seem too keen on expanding their article. Perhaps that's because they since found out that a more detailed article already exists. I will nominate the draft for deletion also. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC) P.S. I'll add that Steel1943's rationale is fair - normally I would have agreed that keeping the link would be kind to the author. Just that it is unnecessary in this case. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:34, 30 June 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.

Oostenryk[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 (maybe) delete all. Uanfala, I'm not sure how strong your "maybe keep" is, but if you really do want it kept, let me know and I'll relist Freistaat Sachse separately. -- Tavix (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are mostly redirects to their target articles from unlikely languages (e.g., from Afrikaans to Austria, Arabic to Saxony, etc.). The redirect page names do not appear on their target articles. I'm no language expert, but I think these should all be deleted per WP:RFFL. — Gorthian (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding two more to this group. — Gorthian (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep Freistaat Sachse as a likely misspelling of the German name Freistaat Sachsen. Uanfala (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. The names in these languages are not official or historic, so they would fall in WP:RFFL. They are covered in the non-English Wikipedias. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:31, 24 June 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.

Bro-C'hall[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 split decision. There's clear consensus to delete most of these. The others that were mentioned by Uanfala will be kept, although the consensus isn't that strong. I thought about relisting, but that seems much too bulky for only a few redirects. Therefore, if someone still wants any of these deleted, I'll allow speedy renomination in order to have a focused discussion on a certain category (eg: the Old English ones or the neighboring country ones). -- Tavix (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to France from every language known to Google and then some. I have not checked on every single one of these, but none of them seem to be mentioned in the target article. I think they should all be deleted per WP:RFFL.

Note: Two of these don't even show up in my browser, so they are tricky to get to!— Gorthian (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uanfala, could you specify which ones are the names in the languages of neighbouring countries (including the two old English ones)? — Gorthian (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These are: Dutch (Franse Republiek, not a neighbour in the strict sense of the word, but that's not what we're after), German (Französische Republik, Franzosische Republik, Franzoesische Republik) and Italian (Republica Francesa). The Old English ones (Francland, Frencisc Cynewīse), if kept at all, had better be retargeted to a historically more appropriate article. Uanfala (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that the first four aren't the traditional names of France in these languages (and those do exist as redirects not listed in this discussion), but rather translations of "French Republic". This might an official name, but it doesn't seem to have the established historic association with the topic that would normally be needed to justify keeping. Uanfala (talk) 11:58, 24 June 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.

Formation (album)[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 / retarget to Lemonade (Beyoncé album). I don't find specific consensus for either option, but keeping as is would satisfy no one. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misleading. Despite what this redirect says, Beyonce does not have an album entitled "Formation." -- Tavix (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Lemonade (Beyoncé album) as a plausible search term. The corresponding concert tour is named Formation World Tour. SSTflyer 07:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete still not an album. The tour is called The Formation World Tour, or Formation World Tour, or Formation Tour, but it is not referred to as Formation by itself. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per SSTFlyer. I can see myself putting in the name of the tour and the word 'album'. --Izno (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per SSTFlyer. Plausible search term given the name of the tour. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete anyone using this should be helped to quickly understand that there is no such album, a redirect just leaves them scratching their heads. Siuenti (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also typing in the term "formation beyonce" would find Formation (Beyonce song) rather easily. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of no use and misguided. —IB [ Poke ] 12:56, 24 June 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.

Speciously[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep. From the comments below, these pretty much fall into the category of "not really useful, but not harmful either", which often generates a keep-delete split at RfD. Deryck C. 20:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like wiktionary redirects as they are rarely useful. These are no exception. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't believe readers regularly search for "speciosity" as per {{wi}} and the hits that do show up are because they are looking for other terms and find it curious. There is an article for Specious present though. A search on news and books for speciosity refers mainly to a particular quote by Thomas Carlyle "Seek only deceitful Speciosity, money with gilt carriages, 'fame' with newspaper paragraphs, whatever name it bear, you will find only deceitful Speciosity; godlike Reality will be forever far from you.... " So it is not used in regular communications. But are you trying to frame it like Specious? If so, redirect all variants to that and add wiktionary lookups for it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I'm not convinced by the page view stats. I usually consider 1 page view/day to be in the plausible range and these are well under that, keeping WP:NOTDIC in mind. -- Tavix (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Patar knight. PaleAqua (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. Mass Wiktionary redirects for rare word forms is quite contrary to WP:NOTDIC. We can't be serious about that principle and try to make Wikipedia function as a dictionary. Generally, I'm all for serving readers, but WP:NOT has to trump that. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 5 July 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.

Tomana[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 create a set index. -- Tavix (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. “Tomana” has nothing to do with macrons. Gorobay (talk) 19:19, 23 June 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.

Surinamese general election, 2020[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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is premature, and seems to have been created solely to add to the template {{Surinamese elections}}.— Gorthian (talk) 17:43, 23 June 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 Episodic Characters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect doesn't make sense. Not all episodic characters are from the "Courage the Cowardly Dog" cartoon. Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This redirect would be WP:R3 deletable if it were recently created. Note that it was previously targeted to Courage the Cowardly Dog and I redirected it to the list of charecters. Pppery (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambiguous and confusing since the title of the show is not in the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article created in error. Does not refer specifically to that show, and if kept, refers to an unmaintainable list that does not exist here. I would also RFD the guest star and episodic character lists for Courage as those are non-notable and violates WP:TVCAST of listing every single character on a show. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is an open-and-shut case for deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:57, 24 June 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.

Boro language (Atlantic-Congo)[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 Boro language (Ghana) and delete, respectively. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that those who are looking for an article about a language expect to find a subpage to a wikiproject. Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are the names associated with two now retired language IDs on Glottolog. And while we're waiting for the creator of the redirects to weigh in, I'll just note that the only ref for glottolog's entry for Bangbay[1] is also a reference for Bang-bay, which is alternative name of the Ngambay language, which can then be a likely alternative target. Uanfala (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone would be looking for these unless they heard about them from Glottolog. I created links for all language names in Glottolog, but I don't know how best to handle these. I don't know why they were retired, whether spurious or not distinctive. That would influence how we target the rd. — kwami (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice for recreation if there's evidence of them actually being used as an alternative name for any languages. I think kwami's concerns of spuriousness are enough for me to oppose a retarget unless more evidence can be found. -- Tavix (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not listed in Atlantic–Congo languages so even putting it as an entry in Boro language is difficult. Bangbay can be redlinked to encourage creation if it is notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC) updated 01:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Boro language (Atlantic-Congo) to Boro language (Ghana). Glottolog's "superseded" entry for Boro language (Atlantic-Congo) [2] doesn't tell us what other entry it's superseded by, but it gives us enough information to figure that out. Its only reference is Sommer (1992:113) and all the information this text gives about the language is consistent with what wikipedia says about Boro language (Ghana): both are spoken in Worawora and Tapa, both became extinct in the 19 c. and both have been argued to have been either unclassified or belonging to the Togo-Remnant subgroup of the Atlantic-Congo group of the Niger-Congo family. Uanfala (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other redirect seems to hinge on the whats and wherefores of glottolog's inner workings. Pinging Jasy jatere in case they might happen to be able to help. Uanfala (talk) 20:07, 24 June 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.

Rendering APIs[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 List of rendering APIs. -- Tavix (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A rendering API doesn't necessarily deal with 3D stuff. Stefan2 (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • would you change it to a disambiguation? the term is often assumed to mean (gl,vulkan , d3d etc) but I can see it might appear in other contexts. Fmadd (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a bad redir anyway, the page content was 
    #redirect [[Category:3D graphics APIs]]
    and you can't make a redir to a cat page in that manner. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OpenVG and anything else classed as a 'Rendering API'. Indeed 3D graphics library isn't actually synonymous with 3d rendering api. A graphics library usually sits on top of a rendering API (possibly multiply back-ends). I see the library page already covers 'low level ...', but that could just link to a new "list of rendering APIs" page. Fmadd (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:42, 23 June 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.

Economic analysis[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. Consensus is that there should be an article here. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected target. I'd expect to find an article which discusses economic analysis, not a portal page which lists six articles and six mathematical formulæ. Stefan2 (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Economics. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Economics is far too bulky to satisfy expectations about the central aspect analysis with the modifier economic. The portal subpage while not ideally suited, certainly fits the expected content. And that is analytical methods in economics. I would not vote against summarizing these items in a short overview article of its own, if the general feeling is against a simple redirect. Simplicity and therefore non-inflation sometimes has its merits. -- Kku 06:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
It's bulky but it does mention economic analysis multiple times. If there's an article that focuses on that specific term, that would be helpful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support making a broad-concept article per Tavix. This subject seems to be a poster child for WP:DABCONCEPT. — Gorthian (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There seems that there would be a great deal of overlap between the proposed page and the one that we already have for 'economic statistics'. It's possible that the latter article should be moved to a slightly different name and this redirect targeted over there. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:59, 4 July 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.

Papal ban of Freemasonry/catholicism and freemasonry[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not an old school title like I expected, was created in 2009. Initial edit summary claims it to be restoring a deletion but I can't see that in the logs. In any case, I think this is an implausible search term that gets negligible page views. Jenks24 (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks completely orphaned. From what I believe I know about subpages, this isn't even a subpage. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subpages are disabled in mainspace, so it can't be one. -- Tavix (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like a combination of two article titles and is an unlikely search term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Confusing title ("Papal ban of Freemasonry and Catholicism and" ... oh wait) & miscapitalised = unlikely search term. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a clumsy and confusing redirect. It should go. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:24, 24 June 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.

Mrs Denis Thatcher[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 2#Mrs Denis Thatcher

List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Mauritania[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, following the precedent for São Tomé and Príncipe. Patar knight's edits to the target article should help instruct readers and avoid WP:SURPRISE. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect. There's only one diocese in Mauritania. MSJapan (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is a necessary redirect. There's only one diocese in Mauritania. If not re-direct, then delete. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone would be looking for a list, which is something we don't have. Let's not mislead our readers or give them false hope. A redlink would show a reader that we do not have a "List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Mauritania". -- Tavix (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you appear to be saving someone from disappointment... why does this person only want a list with two or more members? and how exactly would someone encounter this redlink you mention? Siuenti (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I think the chances someone would want a "list" of this variety are negligible (which is another reason to delete the redirect), but in case someone does decides to search for it, a "redlink" will signal to them "hey, we don't have this list, but here are relevant search results!" They can find what they're looking for via the search results, but it's misleading to say "there's a list here!" when there isn't. -- Tavix (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Normally redirects of this type would be deleted per WP:REDLINK or turned into a list, but for this one, it seems like if there was a list, it would only return this entry, so the redirect makes sense. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Siuenti. I've added the bit about how this is the only such diocese in the country to the article. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:18, 30 June 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.

Ryukyu Broadcasting[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 Ryukyu Broadcasting Corporation. wbm1058 (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since they are completely two different media companies. RekishiEJ (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC) 06:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC) altered a typographical error[reply]

  • Create separate article for Ryukyu Broadcasting Corporation AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this was done. Should a hatnote be added for Ryukyu Broadcasting? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added hatnote. This looks clean now, can we get it closed? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:25, 26 June 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.

Professional Soldier[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was move Professional Soldier (film) over redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the redirect professional soldier has been deleted, this redirect should get the same treatment as well. RekishiEJ (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support move of film to Professional Soldier as the film uses this title and can be the primary topic. A hatnote can be added to soldier if you are concerned people want to know if soldiers get paid. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:24, 25 June 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.

Google/[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep redirects like these. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete useless stylization, not likely searches except when someone is typing in the term and sees it as a curiousity. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These are not helpful redirects. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:20, 29 June 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.

SSJW[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vague, could refer to multiple subjects. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Subjects that use the acronym are not notable for dab purposes. Sounds like a Dragon Ball Z nickname too. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There's no way that "SSJW" is in the common parlance the same way that "WW2" is. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unhelpful lack of clarity. Definitely something to get rid of. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedian-invented acronym not actually used in reliable sources, and could be confused with things (whether notable or not) which are actually called SSJW in reliable sources. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:41, 26 June 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_June_23&oldid=1160232212"