Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 10, 2016.

Chinky chow[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) 18:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is some restaurant chain with this name, I can't see this redirect as anything other than racist. Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:R#D8. Per WP:RNEUTRAL and WP:NOTCENSORED, the argument that it is racist holds no weight (especially as there aren't any BLP concerns). However, the argument that it is an obscure synonym is reasonable.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being racist is relevant, and if this target a person, it would be a speedy delete as an attack page. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obviously not useful. I tagged this for speedy deletion earlier in the day. It was deleted by @RHaworth, but then almost immediately undeleted, with all revisions except my tagging restored [1]. I'm guessing there might have been a misclick involved. IgnorantArmies (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vandalism - which is how it was deleted before. Legacypac (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 13:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the comments above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as useless. No potential targets per Google search as well --Lenticel (talk) 00:22, 12 March 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.

Corporations are people, my friend[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. WP:INVOLVED close given the backlog and unanimous consensus after two weeks of listing. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currently not mentioned at the target article. Corporate personhood or Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 would probably be more appropriate places to discuss it anyway. The phrase is mentioned at Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, but that doesn't seem like a good target. BDD (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is probably supposed to be an attack page, though its not obvious enough to warrant speedy deletion. And the ", my friend" is very unlikely to be included in a search anyway. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 12:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. & Compassionate727.--JayJasper (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Every random-ish saying by a politician doesn't have to be redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:52, 18 March 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.

Gekijô-ban Wiadaru Yankobiku: Bureru no baka! Ni juzô hoyûsha daikussen[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. WP:INVOLVED close given the backlog and unanimous consensus after two weeks of listing. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED. There's nothing special about the Japanese release of this film, and no mention of it. --BDD (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as no reason for Japanese names. Legacypac (talk) 06:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 13:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not plausible anyway, as it is romanized Japanese. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:18, 12 March 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.

Twinkie dog[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. WP:INVOLVED close given the backlog and unanimous consensus after two weeks of listing. --BDD (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This joke isn't mentioned in the target article, and the section nonexistent. I remember a lot of good gags from this movie, but not this one. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 10 March 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.

Dad bod[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) 18:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not at generally associated with the Tonight Show, and the Tonight Show article does not explain what a dad bod is. JDDJS (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Dad Bod is a nice between a beer gut and being in shape. The dad bod says, "I go to the gym occasionally, but I also drink heavily on the weekends and enjoy eating eight slices of pizza at a time." It could use its own article and not a redirect to a show that mentions the phrase. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete common noun with usage long predating 2015; WP:REDLINK for the actual topic, which is the body style beauty topic -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. Legacypac (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per WP:REDLINK, though whether an article on the topic is appropriate is debatable.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 13:02, 11 March 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.

Action potential threshold[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 17#Action potential threshold

Anatc.com[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) 18:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not plausible search term, website not covered in target. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:38, 10 March 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 gold (liquid)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 17#Black gold

Protein-coated[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) 18:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the target for this, if any, should be a biology article of some kind Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lots of things are protein-ocoated, including viruses, which have protein coats -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 70.51.46.39. Viruses, vesicles, and various technologies could be protein coated, so there is no one dominant target. Analogous to "sugar coated" as a general adjective. --Mark viking (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 14:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As stated above, many particular entities have protein coats on them. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:06, 11 March 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.

Submission (song)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget. --BDD (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this Neelix redirect needs to be retargeted to Submission (disambiguation) because the disambiguation mentions two songs with the same name. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 14:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the other song with the same name does not have a standalone article an article of its album. Add a hatnote if required. sst✈ 03:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget neither song has an article, and this title is ambiguous, ambiguous disambiguation is a bad idea, so it should point to the disambiguation page. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:19, 12 March 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_March_10&oldid=1091453872"