Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 21, 2016.

Republican (politician)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 29#Republican (politician)

Republican OParty (United States)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Place Clichy: no it doesn't, it's not recently created. -- Tavix (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I can't quite get what is behind this difference. Time doesn't make it more plausible. Borders in WP:G1. Delete then. Place Clichy (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mr. Fahrenheit[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 disambiguate as proposed. Deryck C. 13:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No indication why this points here - "Fahrenheit" not mentioned in text. Mr. Fahrenheit needs to be a redlink, eventually an article, for a beauty pageant - see Lei Ponce. PamD 20:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out my "delete" comment per PamD's withdrawal statement. Steel1943 (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination and convert to dab page, now that there are 3 uses - done. But the Freddie Mercury link is not a valid dab page entry, so perhaps a Queen expert (@Steel1943:,@AngusWOOF:) could add a mention of "Mr. Fahrenheit" to one of the above-mentioned pages and change the dab page link to point there. Thanks. PamD 00:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relating it to the lead singer would require a source otherwise it's likely synthesis. The song lyric goes "I'm burning through the skies yeah. Two hundred degrees. That's why they call me Mister Fahrenheit I'm trav'ling at the speed of light." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Truro by-election, 1987[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pointless redirect Domdeparis (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. RA0808 talkcontribs 01:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep there are many similar redirects such as these, not entirely implausible. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The number of articles on wikipedia that do not start with the definite article "the" is astronomical. As per WP:THE this should be avoided in the title of articles and IMHO in redirects --Domdeparis (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see where you're coming from, I feel like we need a discussion on all those "The X" redirects including the ones I linked above, but I really don't feel like nominating them. I've said enough because I don't want to change the subject of discussion. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Battle of Peschiera[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. Deryck C. 13:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misnomer: the target (Peschiera del Garda) does not contain any information on the 1796 battle. A red link would be more useful, espescially associated through {{illm}} to actual Wikipedia articles over the battle in other languages (fr). Reasons to delete #5 and #10, at least, apply. A PROD under WP:R3 (misnomer) was declined because the criterion "only applies to recently created redirects". Place Clichy (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated is similar Siege of Peschiera, discussion here. Place Clichy (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Socials[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget Social (disambiguation) Deryck C. 10:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a sensible re-direct. Had message at OTRS about people searching for socials and not expecting the page they got.. Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dialect groups[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Dialect continuum. There isn't very strong consensus for this, but clearly no desire for the status quo. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This term isn't exclusive to the Chinese language. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Dialect continuum as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to dialect. A Google Books search seems to indicate that this isn't really a term of art, but literally just any coherent group of dialects. As such, retargeting to dialect is fine, since the meaning of group would just be the plain English meaning. Dialect continuum is too specific and not synonymous with dialect groups, which are not necessarily geographically contiguous. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Copied text[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 accept disambiguation page to provide instructions to a reader who stumbles upon this. Nice work User:Steel1943 and all. Deryck C. 10:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking this should be retargeted to Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources. (This redirect was created about a week ago, so WP:BOLDly retargeting it would be controversial.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: For the record, I oppose deletion. This title was obviously helpful enough that the redirect's creator thought it useful to create, and I agree with that. Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not opposing this request, but it seems ill thought out and pointless, frankly. It would seem better to point it somewhere more useful, and that seems to be User:Steel1943's thinking too, rather than deletion. I created it intending to use it myself, but other priorities intervened and I see no incoming links at all. So no great impact to me if it's deleted, I can use longhand if and when I get back to the project of which it's part. But I see no harm in it as is, and would suggest that someone might instead mildly trout nom and suggest that next time, they might look at the history and then discuss with the creator. That seems only polite to me, and would avoid wasting time here. In view of the lack of links I would quite happily and boldly delete it myself if it really worries nom... but they first need to work out what if anything they really want done. Happy to help with that too! Andrewa (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Andrewa: After making this nomination, I realized that Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia may also be a possible target for this redirect. Maybe convert this redirect to a disambiguation page? Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, FWIW, I disagree that this nomination was a "trout"-able offense. I brought this nomination here so that the redirect could have community discussion, since well, Wikipedia is a community. Maybe I'm wrong in the community's eyes, maybe you're wrong, maybe we're both wrong. We really wouldn't know until community input is provided. Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree that community discussion is good. Two points.
        • This is not the right forum for this discussion. Nobody seems to be proposing deletion. Not even you. While redirecting somewhere else is a possible outcome of RfD, the purpose of this page is to discuss potential deletion, and in particular to trigger any necessary admin action. There was never any suggestion that admin action would be needed here.
        • Even if you did want deletion, it would be far better, for a page that has only one contributor, to first raise it on their user talk page. As I said, I would have been quite happy to boldly delete it if you'd only asked (or we could have invoked WP:CSD G7), and saved the time of everyone else who will now read this entry. This is a bit of a hot button for me, as there are several chronic backlogs requiring admin action at present. Andrewa (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi Andrewa. I just wanted to correct one of your points. You seem to be confusing Redirects for Discussion with Redirects for Deletion. This is in fact the correct forum to have a discussion of this nature. -- Tavix (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • I admit some surprise at this claim, as I remember the discussion of the page name from some years ago, and did recheck what WP:RfD currently says before commenting above, as I don't normally lurk here. So, you interpret it as meaning that, if you want discussion as to the correct target for a redirect, with no suggestion of deletion, this is the place to raise it? I would have thought that should be the article talk page (well, it's not an article, but it's in the article namespace so its talk page is in the article talk namespace). The intro to RfD talks mainly about deletion, but doesn't seem to spell it out either way. I still think this nom was a waste of time, but if those who do lurk here think it constructive, I stand corrected. Andrewa (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • The problem becomes which article's talk page do you want to have the discussion on, the current target or the article you want to retarget to? You can't have the discussion on the redirect's talk page, no one ever checks there. So redirects for discussion becomes that central place where those who care about redirects can come together and figure out the best place for a redirect to target. Of course, this isn't the only place to do so, a relevant WikiProject talk page usually works if the Project is active or the creator's talk page also works if you just have a quick question and/or don't need third party input. But RfD has typically proven fruitful. -- Tavix (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • Either the redir talk page or the (current) target talk page would do, with a heads-up on the other. and I would suggest the redir. As to whether anyone ever checks, the heads-up would handle that. But in this case I think my user talk page is the obvious place to start, as I said. But I note you disagree, and as nobody else has expressed any interest I'm happy to regard that as consensus among the regulars here. Best.
                • User:Steel1943, apologies for the suggested trouting. It appears that you are more in touch with the process here than I am. I stand corrected. Andrewa (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do notice that I'm the only one to yet have expressed any opinion on the topic under discussion... what to do with the redir I created at wp:copied text. I must take the blame for this, having apparently misunderstood the process here. See wt:copied text if interested, or of course contribute here, and I will link from there to any relevant postings here. Andrewa (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Andrewa: I had previously mentioned the idea of creating a disambiguation page at this title. To illustrate this possibility, I have drafted a disambiguation page under the redirect. (There may be more examples that could be added ... and the page may need to be moved to Wikipedia:Copying text given its current contents ... but what's there is all I can think of at the moment.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've never heard of having a DAB in the project namespace, and the DAB policy is explicitly about articles and article titles, not pages and page names in general. It might be more of a project page equivalent of a BCA... but that's most often exactly what a help page is. Interesting... Andrewa (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Andrewa: Yeah, I didn't think there was precedence for disambiguation pages in the "Wikipedia:" namespace either a few months ago. At some point, I ran across a page that was tagged with {{Wikipedia disambiguation}} (the linked template I put at the bottom of the disambiguation page draft) and thus noticed that there seems to be precedence to create disambiguation pages in the "Wikipedia:" namespace in certain situations. In fact, see Category:Wikipedia disambiguation pages for other such pages. Also, I have never seen a WP:BCA in the "Wikipedia:" namespace, so I'm not sure if there is precedence for that, but even if there was, due to how the "Wikipedia:" namespace works, I'd fear that such a page may further confuse readers who arrive at the page since the concept of "broad concept" may not work so well in the "Wikipedia:" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • disambiguate, "promote" the nice page Steel1943 drafted. (Off cource it makes sense to disambiguate in wp:'s namespace, why would one think there is never naming ambiguity over here? :-) ) - Nabla (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Serampore Battala[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Battala. This close doesn't prejudice discussing the merits of the new target at WP:AFD if WP:BEFORE is done. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget-Serampore Battala is a fringe sub-locality in the city.We don't need useless redirects.Otherwise we have to go on creating infinite number of redirects of every prominent landmark in the area to the locality! Retarget to Battala.Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 12:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Battala: article was created in October, and should be discussed with AFD first. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Travis McHenry[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. Draft:Travis McHenry was moved to Travis McHenry by Anthony Appleyard via this request. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I need to remove this redirect so that I can replace it with a genuine article that I have waiting in draft space. KDS4444 (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom WP:REDLINK. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KDS4444: Where's the article? Draft:Travis McHenry doesn't exist. You don't have to have the redirect deleted to write an article, you can create the article by writing over the redirect, or an admin can move a draft over the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix:I had the article in draft space on my user page. I have now moved it to "real" draft space as Draft:Travis McHenry. I hesitated to roll the new article out over the redirect as I wasn't sure this would correctly retain the article's edit history or that I would be credited as article creator. But since it is now in article draft space, can it be moved over the redirect safely? KDS4444 (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Fairfield Methodist School (Secondary).[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect hanging around after a possible mistake during a page move. The period at the end is not useful for any plausible search term. We already have Fairfield Methodist School (Secondary) and Fairfield Methodist Secondary School and this extra redirect doesn't serve a purpose. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

CHICKEN WINGS[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely capitalization. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Şuncă[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 29#Şuncă

Thumbprint cookie[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 2#Thumbprint cookie

Elite One Championship 2007-2208[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, G6, by GB fan. -- Tavix (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The end year was a mistake (almost 2 centuries in the future). GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unlikely typo. Speedy if possible. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as impossible end date, impossible typo. Pikachu RP25 17:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Shoulder (band)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Bryan Webb. --BDD (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was orginally delete and recreated as a redirect per the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoulder (band) in 2008. However, the subject itself is only mentioned in passing as the former band of some of the band's (the subject of the target article) members. Since this is the only time the subject of the redirect is mentioned in the article (and also named as an "associated act" in the infobox) without identifying the subject further, readers trying to find information about the subject of the redirect will not find enough information about the subject itself since it is not identified as a whole in the target article, nor is it an alternative name for the subject of the article. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Looks to me like an everyday {{redr|to related topic}}. What's the problem? The band is mentioned in the target article. It's not like this redirect is going to confuse anyone. Narky Blert (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's mentioned as the band where two of the five members came from. But the band itself is not notable. The article doesn't give information as to how Shoulder has a strong impact on the songs of the current group, nor is it a working name for the band. It could be a garage band for all we know. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Bryan Webb. There's not really much information on this former band anywhere, but redirecting to the more notable band makes it seem as though Shoulder became Constantines, and that is not quite the truth. The article on the other member of Constantines who was also a member of Shoulder was an entirely unsourced BLP and I've redirected it to the band's article, so redirecting this band to its one notable performer should be fairly uncontroversial. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that retargeting to Bryan Webb, especially given the garage band aspect [1] [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retarget per Ivanvector and AngusWOOF. Narky Blert (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Loveliest[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep all. Debates about WP:X1 notwithstanding, the emerging consensus is that these redirects are worth keeping. Deryck C. 14:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More Neelx redirects since X1 was abandoned, are these really plausible search terms? - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all, all are valid variations of the word. Pikachu RP25 17:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

God Hates Fag Enablers (etc.)[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. While there are good attempts to save some of these, the rough consensus is that we should keep a directory of WBC hate slogans at all. Deryck C. 14:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dozens of redirects to Westboro Baptist Church from bigoted slogans. I concede that a few of the slogans I found are well known, having been mentioned extensively in mainstream sources. In such cases the redirect is likely reasonable and I will refrain from nominating any that I think are sufficiently well known to be kept. But most of these are obscure and the redirects are at best gratuitous. Wikipedia should not be used as a platform/advertising redirect for or by fringe groups. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks I was just about to post the combine. You beat me to it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It should be restricted to ones explicitly outlined in the article, ones that could technically be trademarked or catchphrased to the group. Anyone could make up a sign and have it appear on the news so I wouldn't go by just the picture unless there's a large group of people who are carrying the same sign. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all or as they used to say in the cold war, nuke 'em till they glow then shoot 'em in the dark. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - if you're offended by these slogans then congratulations, you're a human being, but Wikipedia is not censored: we don't remove things just because they're offensive These are slogans used by Westboro and if someone were to see that slogan somewhere (like at one of Westboro's funeral pickets) and type it into the search engine here, they should get to the organization's article. Several of these are specifically described in the article, albeit in an image: Thank God for 9-11, Thank God for IEDs, Fag Troops, God: USA's Terrorist. For those that are linked to the organization but not specifically mentioned in the article, these aid searches. Without Fags Die God Laughs, a search for that term turns up pages like Mussolini: His Part in My Downfall, Lovecraftian horror, and John Lennon; hardly useful results for this phrase. Also of note: many more of these are mentioned specifically with citations in our article The Most Hated Family in America, which is a documentary about this organization, but I still think the phrases better suit readers if they target Westboro's main article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I deliberately left alone several redirects that have gotten widespread mention in RS sources. GOD HATES FAGS, Thank God for Dead Soldiers, Thank God for IEDs. But most of these are just bigoted rants with no well known connection to the WBC. Some are probably used by other fringe groups. I don't think we should be used as a promotional platform by the WBC (see WP:PROFRINGE) and I don't think we should allow them to co-opt ownership of every bigoted phrase. And then there is the problem of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: I'd argue that at least God Hates the World is a special case as well, "Westboro picketed the funeral of recording artist Michael Jackson after his death on June 25, 2009. Members of Westboro have also recorded a song titled 'God Hates the World', an adaptation of Jackson's charity single 'We Are the World'.", fifth paragraph of Westboro Baptist Church#Funeral pickets.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Westoboro Baptist is a tiny bunch of fringe bigots with negligibel following, and there's no need to immortalise every one of their obscene slogans with a redirect. Anyone looking for these terms almost certainly knows where they come from. Guy (Help!) 12:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for things made up on a placard one day. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh I've not seen that one. Bookmarking. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonably covered verifiable terms don't fit the "made up one day" mold.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Asia Wall Street Journal[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to The Wall Street Journal Asia. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target (I doubt there is such a thing). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moldavian Singles Chart[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. - Nabla (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unreasonable redirect. XXN, 20:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per WP:RFD#K5. Unlikely but reasonable, second sentence of target says "Kiss FM Romania also has a branch in Chișinău, the capital of Moldova, that broadcasts a mix between Kiss FM in Bucharest and local radio programmes." It is a slight stretch to pushing it to it broadcasting a singles chart, but not that far. We have also Kiss FM (Moldova) to the same target, so perhaps we don't need both. My watershed would be whether Kiss FM in Romania or Moldova calls it "singles chart" in English, they could well do but I'd need to research that by listening to it. (Hungarian radio stations often drop English into it to be "cool", and of course a lot of the songs are in English.) In the meantime it is a weak signal for keep. Si Trew (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not only Kiss FM Romania has a branch in Moldova, but other Romanian radio stations as well (Pro FM, Radio 21 etc.) And probably each of them has it's own songs chart, but no one of these can be named "Moldavian Singles Chart". MediaForest Moldova [3][4] ran such a chart for some time, but currently it is discontinued, I think. In any case, before creating such a redirect, user should mention this in the target article citing realiable sources. As sources are missing (moreover, even can't exist), this bad redirect must be deleted. --XXN, 14:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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_November_21&oldid=1088108820"