Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 10[edit]

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

List of people named Henry Lord and all other SSTflyer redirects[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 close. The entire list is included in this discussion. I'll add a note to make that clearer. -- Tavix (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see LOPN Henry Lopes has already been deleted following a discussion here today and I also nominated for speedy deletion LOPN Henry Lott with this rationale. Still, my call for all of them to be speedily deleted was ignored, thus I start this discussion here. I hope that you understand that it is impossible to tag 17,500 different pages.--The Traditionalist (talk) 22:07, 10 May 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.

Cucurbita polymorpha[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. While there is no apparent consensus in this discussion, as closing admin I should assess the opinions with established policy. Although the redirect title is an obscure synonym with an unusual etymology, none of the "delete" opinions have been able to demonstrate how the redirect is either incorrect, confusing, or otherwise harmful to the reader. Procedural point: "Neelix redirect" refers to this ANI case, although the injunction becomes void in relation to any particular redirect as soon as any editor argues for keeping it. Deryck C. 23:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) whiy would this be polymorphic? I can't see it at the target Si Trew (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonTrew:, don't look too hard for meaning in scientific names. Ultimately, they are arbitrary, and it isn't always readily apparent what feature the person who named them had in mind when naming them. I expect that polymorpha probably refers to variation in the shape of fruits produced by different varieties of this cultivated plant, but it could refer to different leaf shapes, flower, or something else entirely. Scientific names can be blatant misnomers, but that doesn't invalidate them. Simmondsia chinensis and Scilla peruviana don't grow on the continents implied by their names, but the names are accepted. Plantdrew (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS neelix redirect??
  • Delete yes, it's one of the synonyms in the taxobox, but we don't create redirects for every old and obsolete synonym. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We might not create such redirects; but if someone else has taken the trouble to link an obsolete synonym from an old book to its modern day counterpart then, if we were really here to facilitate free access to the sum of all human knowledge, we might just be best to leave well alone. I really think that some on here should get more fresh air...perhaps participate in some good old fashioned book burning instead. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 17:04, 11 May 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.

Paceman[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 disambiguation page over redirect. Deryck C. 23:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should this not go to pacemaker like Christopher Chataway someone who deliberately sets the pace in a race? however I can't find an article about that, perhaps this is blocking search., Si Trew (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom - pointless redirect created by Neelix. –Davey2010Talk 17:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete would have made more sense as a misspelling of pacman Legacypac (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or disambiguation https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paceman#English Siuenti (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Mini Paceman as the overwhelming majority of uses of the term "Paceman" appear to relate to the car, making it what seems a clear-cut case of a primary target. I can, however, see a good argument to also make a disambiguation page. There's the usage of this as a typo for Pacman as well as for a process in what radiographers do. The application of this term to cricket also isn't wrong; I see it when looking up cricket-related articles from multiple news organizations. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I went ahead and created "Paceman (disambiguation)". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Making sure that it's clear I'm now changing the vote to: Retarget to Paceman (disambiguation). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pacemen mentioned in article. At least User:Davey2010 has the wit to redirect his mention of Neelix...a wikipedian with 10 featured article stars compared to his none. You don't have to be insane to work at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion...but it helps Bosley John Bosley (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tens of thousands of bad redirects like wankstain ... Go defend someone that has not wasted countless hours of everyone's time. Legacypac (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't blame Nelix...You have wasted your own time...you really have...but if you want to waste more go clean the wankstain at Wiktionary...but don't blame the creator of that article..take ownership of your actions. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't blame Nelix" - Well no one else has created thousands upon thousands of redirects have they .... Stop trolling and go do something productive. –Davey2010Talk 18:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One day You guys will realise that Neelix's redirects were harmless - maybe useless - maybe shit - but harmless useless shit...If they were harming the project someone would have picked up on it before he had spent five years racking up 80,000 edits...Go back...look at those who were howling for his head at the ANI bearpit...Where are they now?...are they still doing this donkey work? Bosley John Bosley (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The community found them so harmless they forced him to resign adminship and banned him for a year from making any redirects, oh and defacto he's site banned because anything he does is going to be watched like a hawk and he'll be expected to clean up his mess. Legacypac (talk) 09:53, 15 May 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.

Spintop[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) 17:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect)) Not sure about this one Si Trew (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I actually believe this one to be useful for once as technically the top of the top spins .... –Davey2010Talk 17:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • cOMMEnt don't mind if it is kept but there are stacks of these that are a bit less sensible. This is probably the most sensible one. Si Trew (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As goofy as the word looks and sounds, it's accurate. They do spin. And, more importantly, it doesn't seem to just be a thing made up by Neelix on the fly. A little searching reveals things for sale exactly by the name "spintop". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:17, 11 May 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.

Top-spins[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ther target is fine but I think this might be pushing it a bit far (Neelix redirect) Si Trew (talk) 17:12, 10 May 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.

Noseless[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) 16:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neelix redirects which appear to be pointing to a no-longer existent section of this article. The etymology section contains no indication that any of these terms have anything to do with Dasa.Onel5969 TT me 16:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedily delete these are a bit nonsebse. Could refer to someone who has had too much cocaine or whatever, or a missle without a nose cone. Pretty nonsense really. Si Trew (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I considered that, but think it would imply that rhinotomy is the only/predominant way to be noseless, which would be misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 14:47, 15 May 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.

Origin of the human species[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) 17:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought this should go to Darwin's On the Origin of Species. neelix redirect. Si Trew (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:XY. Seems like it could be anthropogeny, hominization (these two could perhaps be merged) or human evolution. Plantdrew (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The proper target seems to be anthropogeny. Both hominization and human evolution are specific aspects of it and they're both mentioned in that article's lead. Darwin's book is implausible as it doesn't deal specifically with human species. Uanfala (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be a subtopic? Uanfala (talk) 11:39, 12 May 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.

Muhammad/images[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. On balance, the likely disappointment of such redirects and the fact that mainspace subpages have been disused a long time ago outweigh the potential benefit to the reader from having the companion talk: pages as bluelinks. Deryck C. 17:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping. The Traditionalist (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete G6. Looks like these were well-meaning creations, counterparts to Talk:Muhammad/images and Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, but that's not how talk page subpages work. Since these redirects are in mainspace, they're substantially likely to cause confusion. --BDD (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When a user is on a talk subpage and clicks on the article tab, it can cause confusion to land on a nonexistent page. The point of these redirects was to provide a meaningful response when a user clicks on the article tab from either subpage Talk:Muhammad/FAQ or Talk:Muhammad/images. A user would expect to see the Muhammad article when clicking on the Article tab. Many of the discussions on Talk:Muhammad/images have participation from newbies who are not familiar with Wikipedia. These redirects were intended to alleviate confusion, and redirects are cheap. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually quite unlikely a user would expect such a feature if they were at all familiar with talk pages. Such redirects are quite rare, so any editors with such an expectation are doubtless being disappointed on a very regular basis. --BDD (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite unlikely because it is quite rare that users engage on a sub-page of a talk page. In fact, Talk:Muhammad/images is the only one I've encountered in my 10 years on Wikipedia. I created that redirect because I expected such a feature, and felt it was reasonable to assume that others might also, in this rare circumstance. The conversations on /images typically start on the main talk page and are then moved to /images, which has been disorienting to new users in the past, so any little bit helps. Redirects are cheap, after all. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. But there are many such subpages: the talk page archives, which always have those same red links for "Article". The more relevant navigational aid for pages like these are the links back to the talk page (e.g., "< Talk:Muhammad"). --BDD (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No BDD that isn't the same things. Talk page archives are archives, not "live" pages where active discussion takes place. It is common (at least for me) while composing a reply on a talk page, to click on the article tab to open a new window to refer to something in the article. That need does not exist on archive pages. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, redirects that make the user experience a little easier for people. I will readily change my 'vote' if I can be given one realistic example of how this redirect could cause confusion. fish&karate 07:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Simple, Fish and karate. A user types "Muhammad" into the search box—likely something that happens at least dozens of times a day. They see these titles, and click on them. What are they expecting to find? A page of images of Muhammad, or a page of FAQs about him. I don't know exactly how a reader in that situation would feel, but I expect confusion would be there. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful. User:BDD They do not show up in the search box if you type "Muhammad". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Rich, that's probably just because they're at RfD. They're mainspace—there's otherwise no reason they shouldn't. --BDD (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. The current search engine seems to be fairly "/" adverse (also I suspect it may take page views into account). Once you type "Muhammad/" both pages show. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as misleading, per BDD. One would expect to find a gallery of images or a(n) FAQ of Muhammad by searching with these titles. Of course, we don't have that since we're WP:NOTGALLERY and WP:NOTFAQ. -- Tavix (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and BDD. Steel1943 (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although the creator is obviously acting in good faith. We do not have redirects from e.g. Feminism/GA1 to Feminism despite Talk:Feminism/GA1 being an existing page. The vast majority of readers who don't edit Wikipedia never touch the talk namespace anyway. When searching for "Muhammad/images" in the search box, Muhammad and Depictions of Muhammad are among the top results. SSTflyer 14:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD and Tavix. These redirects cause confusion because there are no mainspace FAQ pages on Wikipedia WP:NOTFAQ, and there are no mainspace gallery pages WP:NOTGALLERY, as mentioned above. I agree that these were created in good faith, but these seem to be inadvertently misleading. If the discussions on the talk pages of these redirects are a concern, then my suggestion is to move these discussions to the main article talk page and note as such. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 15:28, 21 May 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.

User:Wikidumbo[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 soft redirect. The user may blank, add {{humor}}, request deletion, or do whatever else to the page, but there's consensus against this misleading redirect. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that doing this is legitimate... The Traditionalist (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blank and ask the user to make their userpage something that doesn't violate WP:UP#NOT. This one probably violates WP:FAKEARTICLE because it redirects to a real article without any notice (other than the system notice) and would hinder other users trying to look this user up. Probably also a WP:BLP violation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
God's Not Dead, Legacypac (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - does not cause any problems. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Blank as un-needed and perhaps as giving the impression of undue authority☺- there are precedents for this sort of action, but I couldn't put my finger on the one I was thinking of, though if I remember correctly, it involved a main user page redirecting to the main page.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove redirect link. Specifically I agree with User:Ivanvector above: this may a case of trolling WP:FAKEARTICLE or, at best, experimentation. On the other hand this behavior seems inexplicable because this person is a brand new Wikipedia contributor. Please see this page: Wikidumbo contributions page. So, I can't see blanking this user page since this person seems to be a contributor. In any case, this is inappropriate use of the User Page on Wikipedia - please read: WP:User pages. --Steve Quinn (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{humor}}{{soft redirect|God}}. Deryck C. 17:21, 22 May 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.

Religion, Religious[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) 15:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is going to search for this or link to this. The Traditionalist (talk) 13:03, 10 May 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.

Draft:Science[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 and delete, respectively. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping. The Traditionalist (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Draft:Science page which was never anything more than a redirect. Keep Draft:Science which has a lot of page history and material that was likely incorporated into the article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Draft:Science page, keep Draft:Science, per Oiyarbepsy. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both pages or move to a User space for posterity. These are of no use to the general readers that come to Wikipedia and therefore should not be in the mainspace. I think moving these to a User space is best - and I think most Users (or Editors) who incubate articles in their User Subspages leave them there or delete them. Also, the content available when accessing the "History" tab and then opening the "Difference between revisions" to see the content almost qualifies these as WP:Content forks. So, also for this reason these should be moved to a User space. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:02, 22 May 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.

VIRGIL[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per NEVER GONNA GIVE YOU UP. The Traditionalist (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Implausible caps. No notable acronyms defined on the disambiguation page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:15, 10 May 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.

Demosthenes as fictional character[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 22#Demosthenes as fictional character

MrAristotle[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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 14:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it is nonsense if the creation rationale did not look legitimate. Still, I cannot get much out of it, so I hope that the creator will come here and comment. The Traditionalist (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - as creator. Here's the story: this is a tip of the hat to Wikipedia's history. The very, very first iteration of Nupedia's Encyclopedia/Wikipedia had software that required links to be in the form of CamelCase. A link to George W. Bush would have to be written GeorgeWBush, one to Golden Gate Bridge would have to be written GoldenGateBridge, and so forth. In a lengthy historical memoir, WP pioneer Ben Kovitz described WP co-founder Larry Sanger taking umbrage that Aristotle had to be written MrAristotle to create a wikilink. Anyway, this is a little Easter Egg to our history as Wikipedians and I hope it will be retained. Carrite (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I have moved the memoir excerpt which was posted here to User:Carrite/Kovitz memoir since it was hindering editing the RfD thread. Do check it out, it's worth a read if you're interested in the history of the project. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag {{R from CamelCase}}. It is not technically a redirect retained from a historical CamelCase title since it was created long after The Conversion, but I think we should make an exception here. @Carrite: see my note above. In terms of things like WP:G7 please consider that page to be "your" page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This explanation should be added to the redirect's talk page. Legacypac (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac:If closed properly, a link to this discussion will be posted at its talk page. That should cover it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:24, 11 May 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.

It is the mark of[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) 15:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to find a meaning in this redirect. The Traditionalist (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is the mark of none other than Aristotle himself to have used this phrase. Uanfala (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aristotle is not the only one to use this phrase, he didn't speak English (so the phrase could be an artifact of translators), it's not very distinctive, and not discussed in the target article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this fragment - maybe "it is the mark of an educated mind" would make sense. Legacypac (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While he did indeed say this, many individuals have since, and the redirect isn't particularly helpful at any rate. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:25, 17 May 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.

Dropidas[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 restore article without prejudice against sending to AfD. Deryck C. 18:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure great-grandfather of the first cousin of the mother of Plato redirects to Plato... The Traditionalist (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that sounds like quite a gem. The redirect used to have content when it was created, so it seems best to restore to this earlier version and then, as the topic is of presumably low notability, prod or nominate for deletion. An alternative is to redirect to Lanike, the subject's daughter. Uanfala (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as suggested. Anyone we know something about that lived that long ago deserves at least a stub. Legacypac (talk) 15:50, 11 May 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.

Complete works of Plato[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 23#Complete works of Plato

Socrates Johnson[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) 15:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just nonsense, most likely. Seeing that the creator is still active, ten years after the page's creation, I hope that they remember creating this one and will be able to explain its intended purpose. The Traditionalist (talk) 12:33, 10 May 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.

Talk:Þú Og Þeir (Sókrates)[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 Resolved. The redirect code has been replaced with {{Talk page of redirect}}. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, a redirect to a talk page with material from a different talk page in it. The Traditionalist (talk) 12:31, 10 May 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.

Traditionalism (disambiguation)[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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page which redirects to the main topic is hardly useful. Perhaps a deletion would encourage the creation of an actual DAB page. The Traditionalist (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! I am sorry! I was so confident that Traditionalism was an article and not a disambiguation page that I did not even take a look at it... Withdraw--The Traditionalist (talk) 14:11, 10 May 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.

Talk:List of religious leaders in 2006[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 Resolved. The redirect code has been replaced with {{Talk page of redirect}}. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, redirect to a talk page which contains a different talk page. The Traditionalist (talk) 12:08, 10 May 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.

LCB Leasing[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No obvious relation. The Traditionalist (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to news reports such as this, LCB Leasing was a company created by the FBI to register aircraft used in domestic surveillance. Jonathunder (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it notable enough for a redirect to FBI's article, in which it is not mentioned?--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The widespread news coverage makes it at least plausible someone will search for it. Jonathunder (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Target is far too broad. The FBI has been around a long time and done a lot of stuff. One shell company doesn't justify inclusion in an article, and no inclusion in an article means no redirect. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:31, 11 May 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.

Elliot Shimon[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. (The target section is now just Conspiracy theories.) --BDD (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. The Traditionalist (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can explain (for suffciently liberal values of "explain") this one...
Some (dubious seeming) sources have suggested that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, is really a Mossad agent called Elliot Shimon or Simon Elliot. I suspect the redirect is intended to go to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Conspiracy theories, which mentions this. Suggest redirecting to there. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as suggested. Great explanation. Legacypac (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per the above; does not seem to be intended for a typo. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:37, 12 May 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.

User:Mhhossein/Un-Islamic Non-state[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, WP:G6, by RHaworth (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect which was, most likely, created accidentally. Unless the creator wants it kept, delete it. The Traditionalist (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I vaguely recall debating an article by that title and it being redirected, but this userpage looks to be an error so delete. Legacypac (talk) 13:55, 10 May 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.

Talk:Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War[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 Resolved. The redirect code has been replaced with {{Talk page of redirect}}. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect to a talk page contains a different talk page. The Traditionalist (talk) 11:12, 10 May 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.

Talk:Boko Haram insurgency/Archive 1[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 Redirect suppressed. This page is clearly a valid archive page for its parent talk page, so after removing the redirect, it's a standard talk page archive page. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect contains its merger proposal. Should it be there? The Traditionalist (talk) 11:11, 10 May 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.

Baroness The Margaret Thatcher[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) 15:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly implausible. The Traditionalist (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Utterly implausible, and wrong. Her title was Baroness Thatcher, or in full The Right Honourable the Baroness Thatcher. Not Baroness The Margaret Thatcher, and I can't imagine anyone ever searching for that... (NB "Baroness Thatcher" and "Baroness Margaret Thatcher" are – in my opinion correctly – redirects anyway) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only introduces error into the wild as these redirects are mirrored. Legacypac (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible synonym. I could've opted for a Weak Keep if it was The Baroness Margaret Thatcher instead --Lenticel (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep tag as unprintworthy. Redirect is 5 years old we should honour it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DENY. 2 hits in the 87 days preceding the nomination. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:35, 13 May 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 Summary of the Life of Franklin Delano Roosevelt[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) 15:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This survived a previous RfD on the basis that the history should be preserved. The article was so unencyclopaedic, however, that there is no reason for it to be preserved. Also, the redirect, on its own, is completely useless. The Traditionalist (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grade school essay titles Legacypac (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the history seems like it was a grade school essay, There's nothing that would need to be kept per WP:MAD. It's a shame though, it's littered with some crazy quotes: "Franklin had as strong a mind as anyone, even though he was paralyzed," "Europe was very Anti-Semitic anyway, so the other countries didn’t mind," and "It was a terrible war, as wars always are." -- Tavix (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: Saved for ever here.--The Traditionalist (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good, now I can be reminded that "Without Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Europe might be called Germany." -- Tavix (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But did Hitler "serve" Germany or was it more like "destroy" Germany and much of Europe? Legacypac (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac: I suppose that it depends on the point of view. If killing for an ideal can be justified and one firmly believes in this ideal, then, yes Hitler actually did serve Germany (and much of Europe). If you are more moderate (especially to the level of radical mediocrity which we tend to call “left-wing politics”), then he obviously destroyed them. I prefer not to stand by either of this positions and declare that it was all populism from the beginning. Populism neither serves nor destroys, it just irritates. And even when it kills, it can be nothing more than high-level irritation. Because nobody would want to do populism the favour of raising it to the status of a “destroyer”, am I wrong?--The Traditionalist (talk) 21:23, 13 May 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.

John Adams/Inaugural Speech[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) 19:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Martin Van Buren/Inaugural Address The Traditionalist (talk) 11:00, 10 May 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.

Uniformisability[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) 15:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

úThis is just about plausible (Neelix redirect). It is spelt with British English -ise not -ize, "Fowler and the OED notwithstanding" as Orwell has it yet it is just about plausible enough that I hezitate to take to CSD. Si Trew (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if it's just a redirect from a British spelling variant (even if infrequently used). Uanfala (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it does seem to be a British English variant of a term used in the article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:37, 13 May 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.

Blue House (Mexico)[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) 19:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) apparently there is another notable Blue House nowhere near Mexico but this is just then queering the pitch, I think, WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the target is a blue house and it's in Mexico, what's the problem here? -- Tavix (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The other Blue House is South Korea's White House. This one makes sense. Legacypac (talk) 23:25, 13 May 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.

Ch'ŏng'wadae[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) 19:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) Korean who is ever on English wikipedia going to search in this way? Si Trew (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I note that there are in fact 25 separate redirects from various spellings of Chongwadae to Blue House, as well as redirects from the Hangul and Hanja. Most of these were not created by neelix, and they all seem legit to me. They might not be commonly used, but I can certainly see a use-case for them. If consensus is to delete, we should probably nuke the whole lot of them. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Caeciliusinhorto. Uanfala (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's the McCune–Reischauer transliteration. Random86 (talk) 08:49, 11 May 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.

North Pavilions[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) 19:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, both are Neelix creations and I think WP:XY as these are not the only North and South pavilions in the world. Si Trew (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete these are a generic term like North Wing, North Building, South tower. Around here hospitals like to use 'pavilion' for sections of the complex. The redirected terms are just used discriptively to indicate the location of the buildings in relation to each other, and are not the names of the buildings. Legacypac (talk) 13:45, 10 May 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.

Alexandros Jakupović[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) 19:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the redirect to be deleted. It has been established that this name never features diacritics. Thus it is an ineffectual and practically useless redirect. Rovingrobert (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. The chap is Serbian and would usually have his name written in the Cyrillic alphabet so it makes not much sense to put into Latin alphabet in the first place. Si Trew (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Why delete? re above, Simon hi, firstly if he was Serbian Serbian is no longer commonly written in Cyrillic, if you look at the tabloid magazines on a news kiosk in Belgrade they are in Latin letters, 99% the same as Croatian. Secondly he's Greek not Serbian, BUT a few English sources do treat his surname as is if he was Serbian, so not doing any harm. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trust me, I'm with you on diacritics. But I don't see any sources that give this guy's name with diacritics. Keep in mind that a 'c' in Serbian can be a 'ch' or 'ts' sound. Rovingrobert (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it's wrong. The Serbian Cyrillic form of his name, at least according to the article and this Serbian news item, is Јакуповиц. According to Serbian Cyrillic, ц = c in Serbian; ћ = ć is a different letter in Serbian. Google searches suggest that both Јакуповицћ and Јакуповиц are surnames used in the Serbo-Croat world and we should respect reliable sources' coverage on which form of the surname he has. Deryck C. 15:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not convinced either way anymore, moving to weak keep. I made my previous comment because this search gave me various people in Macedonian (okay, not Serbo-Croat) and Serbian. But I'm becoming convinced by In ictu oculi's argument, particularly after finding this Bosnian source. Deryck C. 09:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @In ictu oculi: @Deryck Chan: Oh, you're kidding me. I had no idea that there were sources which spelt his name that way. That makes things a tad more confusing. I'm not quite sure what my response would be. Rovingrobert (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Deryck C. st170etalk 19:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to a weak keep, also agree with Uanfala's suggestion about tagging with misspelling. Seems plausible to keep it, albeit there is a lack of sources. st170etalk 00:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and tag with {{R from misspelling}} as it's plausible in this context . Uanfala (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deryck Chan (talk · contribs) @St170e: no Јакуповиц doesn't exist as a real surname, that's a fascinating example of the http://www.sd-crvenazvezda.net/ having back-translated a Graecicized Serbian name into Greek and then phonetically back into Serbian, which is completely legitimate and quality journalism on their part, however you've also got Serbian websites just treating the Greek player's name as per his father's normal Serbian spelling http://www.mojacrvenazvezda.net/97583/2014/11/04/tenis-dve-titule-za-bjelicu-u-heraklionu/ which means people may still search for it. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: Hmm, that's interesting. Now, this may be a minor technicality but I thought the name was Bosnian. Rovingrobert (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if sources use it, then why not keep it, per Deryck Chan.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - appears to be (or at one time have been) a valid transliteration. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:39, 13 May 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.

Casket (funerary box)[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) 15:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well lI'll be in my box before I get through these Neelix redirects but the (funerary box) at the back is a bit odd. I am well aware of the distinction betweenm British and US English but this does not need the DAB. Si Trew (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hummm there are a few pages Casket (something) but no dab page. Instead Casket is hatnotted to coffin. I suppose it has a little utility for someone searching "casket" on the site, seeing this redirect as an option and choosing it would be a little quicker then following the hat note. Maybe we need a DAB... Legacypac (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added wiktionary to the casket page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:56, 15 May 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.

HKTBA[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) 15:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure with this one. (Neelix redirect) was it ever known just by its initalism. User:Lenticel may know. Si Trew (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I've sought deletion on several hundred Neelix invented initialisms. If not in the target page with a cite, good chance it's wrong. Very unlikely this award wants to shorten it's name officially to such a meaningless string. Legacypac (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the initialism is not in the article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. Alcherin (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find anything that connects this acronym to the award. Closest that I got was HKTB which is the acronym of the unrelated Hong Kong Tourism Board --Lenticel (talk) 00:46, 12 May 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 people named Henry Lopes[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 multiple admins, with RHaworth (talk · contribs) handling the mass deletion. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given all the DABs on people's names we have, creating List of people named John Smith for John Smith could really get out of hand. Is there a good reason for this redirect? Legacypac (talk) 07:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all as creator. What matters is if deleting it benefits Wikipedia. This redirect does not meet any of WP:R#DELETE but meets WP:R#KEEP #3 and #5. Personally I find such a redirect useful, and it is harmless. SSTflyer 08:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SSTflyer: why do you say keep all when only one is listed? Si Trew (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is just clutter. No one is going to link to this, nor search for this and if they do the dab page will come up anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Just clutter" is not a valid deletion rationale. When I searched for "List of people named John Smith" in the search box, the disambiguation page is not on the first 4 pages of results. So yes, the redirect aids readers during searches. SSTflyer 13:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quite an unlikely search term -- samtar talk or stalk 11:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether it is a likely search term is subjective. I wouldn't be creating these redirects if I thought they were useless. SSTflyer 13:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that you did not think that they were useless does not mean that they were not.--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was not aware there were thousands of these created already! An exceeding bad idea that does not help the reader. Search engines don't need these redirects to help find these dabs. Legacypac (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per pretty much anyone above me.--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)See below.[reply]
  • Inclined to delete since technically they aren't lists. They are navigation aids. You could convert them to lists without much effort but then they would be set indices instead, and they are more useful as proper dab pages. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:RFD#K5; the target is a list (not technically a WP:LIST but a literal list) of people named Henry Lopes. What's the problem? Someone looking for a "list of people named Henry Lopes" will find exactly that at the target. We're not here to stop people finding information they're looking for. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete all per WP:R3 and the the ANI thread. Not only are these unlikely search terms, there's a big difference between a list and a disambiguation page. A list has a lede and notability criteria (WP:SAL), a disambiguation's sole purpose is to be used as a navigational aid for someone to find other articles. That's why we have a project that removes links to disambiguation pages, we don't want people ending up there unless they have to. Let's not confuse people by blurring the lines between a list and a disambiguation page. If we created these as lists, they would be deleted as trivia (no one goes "I wonder how many notable people are named Henry Lopes!). -- Tavix (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this and similar "list of people..." redirects. The title accurately describes the target page. (i.e. It's correct, I find it useful, and redirects are cheap.) Deryck C. 15:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone above - No need for "lists of" etc, –Davey2010Talk 17:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and explicitly set a precedent for the speedy deletion as routine maintenance of similar "list of" articles which exist as a redirect to the sole entry (regardless of their creator), to save a repetition of the post-Neelix situation in which a zillion different redirects have to be discussed separately. Serves no useful purpose; no article will ever link to this, and in the vanishingly unlikely event that anyone were ever to type "List of people named Henry Lopes" into the search box, the software will show them a list with Henry Lopes as the first entry. ‑ Iridescent 21:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily delete all I tagged myself for speedy deletion the first 20 of them but they are 17,500 on their whole. Tagging them all is impossible.--The Traditionalist (talk) 22:15, 10 May 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.
discussion after the close

I'm not sure these are in process speedies. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah this seems like it was very out of process. R3 was a particularly poor choice of criterion. As for the search engine argument, I went and tested it, and in fact Henry Lopes doesn't appear in the search results at all. So good job, now people searching for a list of people named Henry Lopes can't find it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No one is going to do that. I mean, I know we keep harmless redirects, but your comment there seems to assume all readers must have brain damage. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blank space[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 22#Blank space

Medial section[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 22#Medial section

Golden-spectacled[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) 16:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calling User:Plantdrew and User:Peter coxhead. Is this just a made up term or is it valid? I can see that golden eyed birdies would be valid but not sure about golden specacled (mine just come from Vision Express). I think there is a golden spectacled Owl or something but I am no expert on taxonomy. Si Trew (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I zap those at will too, while referring back to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red-knobbed. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As stated above, it's only a partial title match for the two given animals. I pretty much agree. It should just be trashed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:10, 11 May 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.

Mean of Phidias[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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm there are stacks of mathematical redirects, the maths experts probably would know more than I do but I don't think Phidias came up with the mean ratio or golden ration. Probably best to ask at WP:MATH. Si Trew (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the term does appear to be used, if infrequently: [1]. Uanfala (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Speedily keep withdrawn by nominator (me). If in doubt give RfD a shout. I forgot to say this is a neelix redirect. Si Trew (talk) 03:23, 10 May 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.

Old Gold (cigarette)[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) 19:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) not sure about this one. Since I smoke roll-your-own and get through about a keyboard every three months by putting rollup into it, I can see this makes sense and was indeed a brand of cigarettes in the UK. But it is the brackets cigarette unbrackets at the back that bugs me. Si Trew (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah hang on Old Gold is a colour... I see where this is going. greenisholives. Si Trew (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No actually it don't I was expecting it to be Greenisholives but admnin User:Anthony Appleyard just made it {{R from other capitalization}} many years ago. There is something fishy with this one but can't work it out yet. Neelix redirect. Si Trew (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm not sure. It is not a British brand of tobacco not made by British American Tobacco (BAT) or Gallagher or anything like that. Now, what was Terrys Chocolate essentially Rowntrees of York (now of course part of Mondelez) used to advertise on British television a box of chocs saying "see your woman's face light up with Terry's All Gold." so I am really not sure on this one. Si Trew (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm is it because it was created by Neelix confusing it with Golden Virginia? Si Trew (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you but the back end of it the (cigarette) is what is bugging me @SmokeyJoe:. That is a nice pic on that advert that is kinda very reminiscent of who was the bloke forget the name who drew loads of nice advert pics in an Art Deco style lovely pic that one. I am just wondering whether this makes sense to well it don't make sence to me being British English but if it makes sense to Americans then we should keep it. It certainly confused me. Si Trew (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the search function (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=old+gold+cigarette&go=Go) works better than manual redirects. It didn't used to be that way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that which is why I tend to like to delete a lot of redirects so the search engine can do its job properly. I am in no way a WP:DELETIONIST but the more redirect clutter we get out of the way the better the search will work. Si Trew (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in a puff of smoke as a strange search term and better to let search work. In the lead of the target Old Gold is listed with their other brands, each pointed to articles disambiguated with (cigerette) so this makes sense as an article title but should be redlinked to encourage article creation. Add a link to this title in the lead of the target. Legacypac (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from brand name}} per Tavix.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd imagine those who are familiar with Old Gold would probably search for it here. –Davey2010Talk 17:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a sensible redirct, can be used Old Gold with the pipe trick. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:19, 11 May 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.

Descent to the underworld[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'll note, however, that the target article is similar to Preceptor, which I labeled a "faux dab". It lists disparate meanings of the same word, and descent to the underworld is one of several topics that should be spun off from there to their own articles. "Descent to the underworld" may well be the title for this one, perhaps with the history contained therein. In the meantime, however, the redirect is legitimate. --BDD (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect contains a different version of the article. Should we remove it, just leave it there or take different action? The Traditionalist (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would that not be Kerberos the doggy fella who took people across the river from the living to the dead? Perhaps WP:RFD#D2 confusing? Si Trew (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - This first made me think of the Harrowing of Hell (I suppose that's my Catholic upbringing at work). Yet there are also many other stories of beings making a descent into a scary after-life place only to come back, including ones that are specifically fictional. It's been a while since I've read it, but doesn't Milton's Paradise Lost also use the term at some point also? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - I clicked over to the wrong page. Katabasis is already a disambiguation-like discussion of various descents and works well as a target. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does no good to do back formations like that. One of Neelix'. You have what is a mix of Greek and English and it does no good to keep it, it does not help people search. WP:RFD#D1 hinders search. Si Trew (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more of a mess than it looks. Per the original poster, "Descent to the underworld" contains after the REDIRECT some text which I've checked and is now fully incorporated into the article "Katabasis". The similar redirect "Descent to the Underworld" (capital U) doesn't have this text. So I suggest
(1) Delete all the text other than the REDIRECT at "Descent to the underworld"
(2) Keep since one version of a katabasis is a descent into the underworld. But, since "Descent into Hell" redirects to Harrowing of Hell, and bearing in mind "Hell" is the Christian underworld according to the "Underworld" article, "Katabasis" needs a See Also to Harrowing of Hell, and Harrowing of Hell needs a See Also to Ketabasis.
(3) Whatever you do to "Descent to the u..." must also be done to "Descent to the U...", "Descent into the u..." and "Descent into the u..." Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • write an article -- the problem is not with redirects or article titles, it's with the fact that both pages are simply terrible. Somebody needs to sit down and write an actual article. Traditionally, the person who does the work also gets to pick a reasonable title for their article (which should then only be changed if there are objective problems with it, but not out of questions of personal taste or preference). --dab (𒁳) 09:06, 10 May 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.

Itanimulli[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) 19:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly, this name (Illuminati spelled backwards) is some kind of code for the National Security Administration. A non-notable hoax, is what it is. Delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:32, 10 May 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.

Xo-Ho[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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like nonsense, but I might be wrong. The Traditionalist (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No you're right. It's a bit so-so but this is a no-no, (Chinese transliteration) WP:RFOREIGN Speedily delete. Si Trew (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Under this name he wrote, in 1757, A Letter from Xo Ho, a Chinese Philosopher at London, to his Friend Lien Chi at Peking, the first of his works to be widely reviewed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Withdraw. @Rich Farmbrough: Could you add a mention in the article?--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. We should probably have a separate bibliography, but I'll add some prose. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I'lll quite happiliy withdraw this (as nominator) if there is text in the article. Si Trew (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Very kind of you, but I am the nominator...--The Traditionalist (talk) 22:12, 10 May 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 Salvation Army corps in the United Kingdom in 1900[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 restore as article. --BDD (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading: the list is not included in the article. The Traditionalist (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. You can't take a "list of" to something that is not a list. I am not sure that although the Salvation Army which I am a great admirer of has a "corps". Certainly they are structured in Military style but this is just WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading because there is no list. A Salvation Army corps is a church/meeting house. Legacypac (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didn't know that, more like a chapel or Friends Meeting House if you are a Quaker (Society of Friends). I never knew that, I learned something today . Si Trew (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I learned this too cause just before I posted, and then went and improved our article on it. Near me the Salavation Army has a 'church' but even that would be called a corps internally. Legacypac (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: although I am something of an apathist I have a great deal of respect for the Sally Ann and Paul O'Grady's series of programmes on the Beeb that were so touching, moving and funny made me feel even more respect both for he and the Sally Ann. I am not a believer in any way but those programmes were very touching, and I think the best the Beeb can do when it puts its mind to it. Si Trew (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the list is here and could be part of an extended history. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Restore article New vote - Restore article that was redirected by an IP. It has a good (print) source and as a historic list, is not hard to maintain. It even survived an AfD. Legacypac (talk) 03:13, 15 May 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.

Scientology/Links[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 without redirect to Talk:Scientology/Links, and restore to pre-redirect status. --BDD (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping. The Traditionalist (talk) 01:25, 10 May 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.

Illuminati Bankers[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) 19:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either retarget or delete. I would go with delete. The Traditionalist (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It's not even accurate to what they say over in conspiracy-land, is it? The bankers and members of Wall Street work for the Illuninati, who in turn work for the slender reptilian space aliens, right? The bankers aren't "lizardy" themselves. Though, I recall that some claim that the more sexually adventurous aliens slept around enough such that some agents of the higher-ups are secret hybrid creatures. Stranger and stranger. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:44, 15 May 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.

2b1ask1[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 23#2b1ask1

Regular Grand Lodge of England[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 23#Regular Grand Lodge of England

Cebu lodge no. 128[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) 16:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article and non-notable. The Traditionalist (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedily delete. deffo not notable and what are we to have Cebu Lodge no. 129 or Cebu Lodge no. 130. This makes no sense really. Getting my star and compasses I can see maybe why this was created but is not and can ever be notable. Si Trew (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obscure synonym. I've searched for the lodge in the Philippine major dailies but didn't find any mention about it--Lenticel (talk) 00:54, 12 May 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.

LOL you're a noob[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 WP:G3, by 78.26 (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* The Traditionalist (talk) 01:09, 10 May 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.

Knight of the Secret Circle[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) 19:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article. Still, I am certain that I have heard about it. Perhaps a reference desk question would be good. The Traditionalist (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am almost definitely wrong on this but just throwing it out for others to consider that in Monty Python and the Holy Grail there was the Black Night. I am not suggesting by any means that that is the right target. It is certainly not the right target for freemasonry or the illuminati, there do seem to be a lot of Freemasonry redirects that Traditionalist has been kindly listing. Let me make myself clear I am not a Freemason I am an apathist but on English Wikipedia these make no sense. In Holy grail there is a song written I think by Neil Innes that goes "we're knights of the Round Table, we dance when'ere we able, we do routines and chorus scenes with footwork Impeccable". Might have been Eric Idle. But I think it it would be absurd to retarget that way so probably delete it. Si Trew (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E

Comment. I am almost definitely wrong on this but just throwing it out for others to consider that in Monty Python and the Holy Grail there was the Black Night. I am not suggesting by any means that that is the right target. It is certainly not the right target for freemasonry or the illuminati, there do seem to be a lot of Freemasonry redirects that Traditionalist has been kindly listing. Let me make myself clear I am not a Freemason I am an apathist but on English Wikipedia these make no sense. In Holy grail there is a song written I think by Neil Innes that goes "we're knights of the Round Table, we dance when'ere we able, we do routines and chorus scenes whenever we are able". But I think it it would be absurd to retarget that way so probably delete it. Si Trew (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. "We do routines and chorus scenes with footwork impecc-able"! Careful, Si. Can't you lose your British citizenship for that? --BDD (talk) 19:39, 19 May 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.

ILUMINATI[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) 19:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The typo is plausible but there already is a lowercase version of it (Iluminati), so this one is not needed. It looks like there was not... I need more sleep. Still, it would be good if we deleted the uppercase version and created the lowercase one. The Traditionalist (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the Eyes of the Illuminati was a computer game made by I forget whom when I had an Atari 800, they made great games, I am just throwing it out as a comment. Nearly daylight here Si Trew (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:RCAPS combined with a typo makes this implausible. -- Tavix (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nom (The Traditionalist) and Tavix have this spot on. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have created the lowercase version. Valid typo, but deleted or not, it does not matter when making searches. Harmless but somewhat useless. SSTflyer 04:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we don't want to encourage creation of all caps versions of every title and typo here. Legacypac (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is actually counter-productive to delete this sort of cruft. This discussion has already added about 800k to the database. I don't see that that anyone is encouraged to create more such redirects, and they can be gently told if they do start creating them. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • 'Keep this has been around for 7 years and is not harmful. Therefore deleteing it goes against the guidelines for RfD. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Caps implies an acronym or major stylization, which I don't see in the properly spelled disambiguation page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - huh, 2070 hits in the last 90 days. I don't get it, but WP:RFD#K5. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The stats tool is case insensitive, so it makes sense from that standpoint. -- Tavix (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The lowercase is more than sufficient here - If one types in caps the loweracse redirect should appear anyway..... –Davey2010Talk 22:01, 13 May 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.

Rotary Australia World Community Service[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) 16:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article and clearly non-notable. The Traditionalist (talk) 00:59, 10 May 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.

Rotary Club of Shanghai[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) 14:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a passive mention in the article, but not sufficient for a redirect. The Traditionalist (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable. There are Rotary Clubs everywhere so why is this specifically a notable one. Si Trew (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A mention in an encompassing organization's article is more than enough. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per Rich F. Redirects are invisible and cheap and a redirect to a page with passing mention trumps a redlink result in a name search. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then, retarget to the appropriate section.--The Traditionalist (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep content supports the redirect.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:10, 12 May 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.

Rotary Club of North Bay, Ontario[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) 16:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albemarle County Democratic Committee case. The Traditionalist (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no reasonable expectation of an article here. Ground Zero | t 02:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I might as well create the Wheeltappers and Shunters Social Club of Sudbury, Ontario (right next to the Big Nickel), this is patently not notable. Si Trew (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The story here is that somebody created an article about this in 2005, while failing to source it nearly enough to demonstrate any discernible reason why an international encyclopedia should give a hoot — so it was redirected to the parent organization as that's one of the options for dealing with an article of this type. There is indeed virtually zero prospect of a separate article about this actually becoming keepable. Si Trew might want to revisit what's actually next to the Big Nickel, though — which is not, admittedly, to say that it's notable either (though the barbecue sauce is still as legendary as ever.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Their barbecue sauce is quite nice but their hotdogs are rubbish. Si Trew (talk) 07:38, 10 May 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 second us president[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 23#The second us president

John Adams/Inaugural Speeech[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) 16:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most laughable things I have ever encountered in Wikipedia. Enjoy. The Traditionalist (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only just noticed but I am not sure the nominator did that there are three "e"s in Speeech. This makes it very rather implausible. Si Trew (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: you should look up the First President's Initial Powerpoint Presentation. There is a graph that has countries going from zero to one. Four score and seven year's ago, we founded a new country (graph shows countries going from zero to one). It is a brilliant bit of humour, you should look it up. Si Trew (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could help me look it up? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: [[2]].mn I got it a bit wrong it is the Gettysburg Powerpoint Address. The point I was trying to make is whether you can really call anyone in the US the First President let alone the second, it depends on where you count it from. Si Trew (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 14 years old, created by conversion script, of historical importance. Also not harmful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Rich Farmbrough: What does harmful mean? I consider the appearance of such things when one browses the list of redirects to a page to be harmful...--The Traditionalist (talk) 18:13, 11 May 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.

Vitreous (boss)[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 Boing! said Zebedee. --BDD (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. Delete per WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah so what is a vitreous boss someone who runs Pilkington Glass or what? Taken to [WP:CSD]], Si Trew (talk) 03:57, 10 May 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.

Cool Dimension: Sexy Assassin[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, WP:G5, by Xaosflux (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An implausible redirect for Cool Dimension: Innocent Assassin. Also, I cannot find any reliable sources for this title except for IMDB, which is not a WP:RS. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:32, 10 May 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.

Adams 2[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) 16:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect could refer to many people (and things), not just John Adams. I would prefer it deleted, but, if we are going to retarget it, John Quincy Adams would be the primary contender, as he was the second Adams to be a U.S. President, while John was just the second U.S. President. The Traditionalist (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to disambiguation: So there are multiple things that John Adams could refer to. One of them is John Adams (Adams 2 in the same way that George H.W. Bush is Bush 41 and George W. Bush is Bush 43), another one is John Quincy Adams, and perhaps another one is Charles Francis Adams, Jr.. pbp 01:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. Unlike the Bushes, John Adams is not known as Adams 2 for this very reason. -- Tavix (talk) 02:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. Could conflict with something at Adams.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sounds like a rocket or codeword like Adam-12, but lacks the significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I could maybe see a disambiguation page created along the line, but, as it stands, the redirect isn't right. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:46, 15 May 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.

Book of Mudora[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) 16:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. Delete per WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is a chapter in the Link to the Past manga as seen in The Legend of Zelda (manga), however, manga chapter titles are usually not notable in themselves, not like television episode titles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 09:05, 15 May 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.

Blind the Thief[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) 16:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. Delete per WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm deliberately not looking at the target I think this is confusing. Blind he thief is a biblical / koranic expression isn't it?
Houseman in A Shropshire Lad has it thus
If by chance thine eye offend the
Cut it out man, and be whole
But be a man and go and end thee
If thine sickness is thy soul
I think a lot of these onese to Zelda are biblical/Koranic allusions but not quite right
My gran used to say
Before you complain about the dirt on someone else's glasses
Make sure it is not the dirt on your own
John Hegley
And that is an allusion to casting the mote I believe. Si Trew (talk) 08:12, 10 May 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.

Arrghus[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) 16:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that this is a boss in the The Legend of Zelda video game series that is not exclusive to the subject of the redirect's target and seems to be not mentioned there. With that being said, delete per WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If it's a boss character and it's not even mentioned in the article, it must not be that important of a boss character. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Argos ...... No? ... Okay delete seeing as it's not mentioned in the enmey list thingy. –Davey2010Talk 00:00, 11 May 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_May_10&oldid=1166566682"