Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 30, 2016.

American occupation of the 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. Deryck C. 11:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible, I don't know what this signifies. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the closest thing I can think of would be encroachment on Native American land but I doubt anyone looking that up would type this.--67.68.28.226 (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:48, 3 December 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.

User:Btphelps/Sandbox/Big Sur Land Trust[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 as WP:G7 author request, by User:AustralianRupert. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

housecleaning after move to mainspace — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 22:56, 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.

Korean disease[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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense, in fact, when I first saw this I thought of the Middle East respiratory syndrome, but the title is too generic. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep See following sources:
  • "Presidential scandal shows that 'Korean disease' of corruption is far from cured". The Washington Post. November 16, 2016. he vowed to cure the country of the "Korean disease," the political corruption that had become endemic... The scandal has highlighted just how prevalent "the Korean disease" remains
  • "SOUTH KOREA: POLITICAL CORRUPTION DUBBED 'THE KOREA DISEASE'". Associated Press official channel.
  • Quah, Jon S. T. (2011). Curbing Corruption in Asian Countries: An Impossible Dream?. Emerald Group Publishing. ISBN 0857248200. most potent antidote to the 'Korean disease' of corruption
See also Google Books search
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - This appears to be, as stated above, in use by several publications. At the same time, I'm concerned about readers being mislead if they're looking for information about the health care system in South Korea. I lean to keeping things as-is, however. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Phoenix's sources, and hatnote per CWM's concerns. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as a generic expression, It just happens to be used a few time in this sense. - Nabla (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:52, 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.

Miloš Marković (Serbian water polo)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Deleted. I created this in error, thinking it was a longer term redirect, and have now deleted it again so the matter is closed. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term; was created due to confusion (Yugoslavia vs. Serbia), but only existed for a few hours or so. Fram (talk) 13:30, 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.

Hawaii Five-0[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 disambiguatate. There is clearly no agreement on what the primary topic should be among those who think there is one, and those who think this should disambiguation page make strong arguments so the latter option is the one that can be best said to reflect the outcome of this discussion. What Hawaii Five-O (oh) should be (article, redirect to an article, redirect to the disambiguation, or location of the disambiguation) is outside the scope of this RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the reboot has been renamed or parenthesized, what shall we do with this redirect page? Shall it be kept as a redirect to the reboot, be retargeted to the original series, or be a disambiguation page? Honestly, I prefer the dabpage. Statistics say that the reboot is more popular. However, the original came first. Primary topic is not defined by anything, like usage or long-term significance. George Ho (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, both series also use the "0" (zero) as official titles. George Ho (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dab page - I don't think this discussion is really needed; it was implicit in the move discussion that there is no primary topic for the ambiguous term "Hawaii Five-0" with a zero. I would have changed this to a dab page already, except that there are quite a number of incoming links, which I hoped would be fixed first.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Amakuru: The WP:DPL project has a bot and dedicated editors who resolve links to disambiguation pages rather quickly, so I see no issue with WP:BOLDly converting the redirect to a disambiguation page so that the incoming links get resolved ASAP, considering that the links will become more known afterwards. Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @Steel1943: fair enough. This issue is more relevant where there is a swap of primary topic I guess, rather than moving from there being one to there not being one.  — Amakuru (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab page - I agree with a disambiguation, see above. --Nomentz (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have drafted a disambiguation page under the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean, Steel1943, that you favor the "dab page"? George Ho (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave as redirect to Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series). - this is a classic WP:TWODABS situation. Why annoy the user searching with "Hawaii Five-0" by taking them to a dab page when you can take the user directly to the article they are likely seeking, and, worst case, are still only one click from their desired destination? --В²C ☎ 21:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see you just changed this, but Hawaii Five-0 can't be a redirect to Hawaii Five-0, they're the same page. Did you mean something else? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You see, admins? The change from "O" to "0" is a classic example of befuddlement caused by the interchangeability of using a letter as a substitute for a number. George Ho (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Born2cycle must have meant the reboot, Ivan. Isn't that right? George Ho (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant the (now parenthetically disambiguated, sadly) reboot and fixed my !vote accordingly. And the befuddlement in this case was not caused by O/0 but by the unnecessary disambiguation. --В²C ☎ 21:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hawaii Five-O. The o-0 (letter/number) error is extremely common, probably moreso than general knowledge that the reboot deliberately used a zero instead of a letter O because of search results; the show used an ambiguous font, and was certainly advertised (at least in Canada) as "Hawaii Five-Oh" (and not "Hawaii Five-Zero"). Disambiguation is handled by hatnotes at both articles, there's no need in either case for a redundant dab page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "O" is now the original; do you mean that or the reboot, Ivanvector? George Ho (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean what I typed, yeah, but thanks for checking. I'm arguing that O and 0 should redirect to the same target, and that the original is the preferred of the two possible. Further, that standalone disambiguation is unnecessary because the articles themselves handle that just fine. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know, Ivan, that the original series has less hits than the reboot? George Ho (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like perhaps there's no primary topic either way. We could say the original series wins by long term significance maybe, but there could be a case for moving the original series articles and having dab pages for both the O and 0 forms, which is what we might do if there was no such distinction between O and 0.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: I'm aware, yes, I think you or someone already wrote that somewhere, but you also wrote here that "primary topic is not defined by anything" and I tend to agree. In that case we would normally disambiguate, but it gets weird when the two potential targets are related to each other and are visually ambiguous. Your stats show an interesting phenomenon: the peaks in usage are consistently on the same days for both pages. That indicates to me that readers are searching for both titles at both locations pretty regularly, and furthermore we can't tell if a reader landing on Hawaii Five-O or Hawaii Five-0 actually found the page they were looking for, or if they landed there and then had to click over to the other page. So in this case "the original series has less hits than the reboot" just can't be concluded from the statistics. My preference here, then, is to just direct all readers to the same landing page regardless of whether they type O (letter) or 0 (number), and let hatnotes work out the half(ish) of users who are in the wrong place, and that same landing page may as well be the article on the original series because it came first chronologically and the reboot is obviously based on it (and not the other way around). Or to look at it a different way, the other half(ish) of users won't be necessarily astonished to end up on the original series' page. I'm also compelled by In ictu oculi's comment in the latest (and only successful) move nomination: "[a]s to long-term notability the original show was known worldwide 1968 to 1980, while the CBS reboot doesn't appear to have been seen much outside North America and now looks likely to be cancelled." Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But what is astonishing is landing on a different page depending on whether you type a letter O or a number 0, based on a minor visual distinction that is not widely known among general readership. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ivan, readers were already astonished by the previous O/0 setup when the reboot became successful over the years. The dabpage would be less astonishing than the previous setup. How would readers more likely search for the original? Are you assuming that the numbers of the reboot are wrong? Are you assuming that more readers are searching for the original than the reboot? If not, can you clarify? --George Ho (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither, I'm assuming we'll never know which one they're searching for. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would this imply no primary topic for the "0", Ivan? The original is now disambiguated as "O" (oh), not yet "0 (1968 TV series)" or "O (1968 TV series)". We'll decide later on the "(oh)". Right now, we're deciding what to do with "0" ("zero" exactly). You voted redirect to the original series, yet you said that those using the "(zero)" may be searching for either one or both. I don't know whether this is either self-contradictory or an example of Cartesian circle. George Ho (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's neither, again. I am disregarding the distinction between O and 0 because it's apparent that readers do not make the distinction, they're completely interchangeable and neither title refers reliably to either series in real-world usage. There's as much sense treating them separately as there is treating Beatles separately from The Beatles because one is a band and one is an album. Readers don't know that and shouldn't be expected to. My argument is that both titles should point to the same place, like The Beatles vs. Beatles and like colour vs. color. Since Hawaii Five-O is already the article about the original series, Hawaii Five-0 should point to it. If Hawaii Five-O was a disambiguation page instead, then Hawaii Five-0 should point to it. If Hawaii Five-O were an article containing nothing else but Vogon poetry, then Hawaii Five-0 should point to it. Treating them differently is nonsense, because to a reader they're the same. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to original series' no difference between O and 0 In ictu oculi (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab page. "O" and "0" are interchangeable in this case, or at any close enough to being interchangeable such that differentiating by the difference between them won't work. The original series is classic, the new one is current, so there's probably no main topic. Herostratus (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just clarifying that I'm not opposed to making a dab page, per se, I just think it's redundant because the articles already deal with it. What I am opposed to is making one of the titles a dab page while the other is an article. Readers should arrive at the same place whether they type a O or an 0. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ivan, Herostratus, in ictu oculi, Born2cycle, Amakuru, Nomentz: I discovered Hawaii Five-O (album), so I added it as part of draft. --George Ho (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 1969 album's pop success just emphasizes again that O and 0 don't distinguish and both should redirect to the original series. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 1969 album's pop success is further indication that there's no one primary subject and both should redirect to a dab page. Herostratus (talk) 16:18, 10 December 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.

Lebu jol[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be a valid name in any language. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No affinity to that language. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Lebu jol' is a Bengali name of Lemonade. It is used in Eastern India and Bangladesh. Another Indian name 'Nimbu pani' redirects to 'Lemonade'.So, I think 'Lebu jol' is a valid name to redirect to Lemonade.Thank you. Obangmoy (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No affinity to Bengali. Si Trew (talk) 01:34, 11 December 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.

You are fired[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 You're Fired (disambiguation). Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe retarget to You're Fired but I see the primary usage of even that term as relating to the show according to Google, so maybe a move request on that page, but anyway, this is likely to mislead readers. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep redirect as is and support move of You're Fired - I think The Apprentice is the common usage primary topic for both "You are fired" and "You're Fired", and the film doesn't appear to be of particular long term significance. There should probably be an RM for You're Fired, but either way it doesn't affect this redirect.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I created the dabpage, Amakuru and Champion. George Ho (talk) 09:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still think there should be a disambiguation at You're fired, and "you are fired" would redirect there. -- Tavix (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Created You're Fired (disambiguation), Tavix. George Ho (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a disambig might be the best solution given the several possible topics... I think redirecting it straight to Dismissal (employment) is quite far fetched. How many people searching for an encyclopedia article on that topic are really going to type in "you are fired" into the search box? If they do type that I reckon they're more likely to want The Apprentice, but a dab does us fine either way.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I change my vote to retarget to You're Fired (disambiguation), which I created. Should no longer retarget to some reality TV show. George Ho (talk) 03:58, 8 December 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.

List of winners on The Apprentice[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this could refer to multiple shows as seen by this dab, strongly oppose retargeting as there isn't a list of candidates in any of the pages. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. The List of candidates was formerly a self-standing list, but was retargeted in 2008 because it was very out of date. Unless someone decides to recreate the lists there isn't much value in these redirs.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Too vague as there are mutliple shows for this title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - These lists don't exist, and the redirects are highly misleading to readers as things stand now. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:49, 3 December 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.

Laramie, WY mSA[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 14#Laramie, WY mSA

Mor ve oetesi[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. 11:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another Eubot redirect applying the German "oe" to Turkish. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:36, 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.

Ummon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 14#Ummon

Yun men[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 Yunmen. -- Tavix (talk) 19:05, 14 December 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.

Yunmen Wenyan Ummon[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 04:14, 10 December 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.

Yün-men[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 Yunmen. -- Tavix (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RFD#D2 confusing and WP:RFOREIGN, no need to have the diacritical mark in English transliterations. Si Trew (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ranging slightly off-topic, the lede of that article, Ü, was weird. It tried and failed to make the distinction between languages where it's considered a separate letter and those when it is just considered a modification (it certainly confused me by telling me that the Hungarian language considers it an "separate letter or in the alternative an umlaut/diaresis", when it never considers it the latter). I've changed it to make the distinction clearer. Also, I've piped through "xxx alphabet" rather than "xxx language" since that's what's being discussed there (many do have their own articles, e.g. Hungarian alphabet, Occitan alphabet, others often refer to a section in the "language" article). Incidentally I fixed Galician alphabet to link to the correct section in its target, looks like it's been renamed from "Writing systems" to "Orthography".
O umlaut → Ö explicity says "Unlike the O-umlaut, the letter Ö cannot be written as "oe"".
I think Ö (letter) should be created to go to Ö#Ö in other languages because as it is the WP search takes you to straight to O via O (letter), which is not helpful: the same happens with Ü (letter) going via U (letter) to U. Seems to me pretty obvious these should be created but I'm very slightly reluctant to do so: any objections? Si Trew (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
End off topic. I just thought this would be helpful to inform future discussions. Si Trew (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to disambiguation page. Deryck C. 15:04, 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.

Wu-Men[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 00:39, 14 December 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.

Ummon Zenshi[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 00:40, 14 December 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.

IRRI-6 White Long Grain Rice[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term, Wikipedia is not a retailer. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If kept, List of rice varieties#Pakistani varieties would be a more appropriate target (close variants such as "PK 386 Long Grain Rice" appear there). But these redirects aren't really terms for rice varieties per se. "IRRI-6" is a rice cultivar (developed by the IRRI). "White Long Grain Rice" is a term for a commodity (like West Texas Intermediate oil). I don't see any reason to mash-up the cultivar name with the commodity class. In the US, the commodity markets don't care about the precise corn cultivar (or transgenetic traits) grown by the farmer. But maybe things are different in Pakistan? Plantdrew (talk) 18:03, 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.

Peyton Roi List (actress, born 1998)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary disambiguator, a redirect at Peyton Roi List already exists Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Recently recreated. There aren't multiple Peyton Roi Lists. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} and someone obviously thinks it useful so there isn't any benefit from deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I tested the search facility as though I were an inexperienced WP user and I found that "peyton roi" took me to the article with no trouble, so this redirect page is not strictly necessary. However, I do wonder why people get worked up about such things. This reminds me of the campaign to remove "in the world" from all titles with a superlative followed by that phrase. That seemed particularly futile to me. LynwoodF (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The argument for deletion is basically covered by the essay at WP:COSTLY: Redirects that are unused have a maintenance burden (QED), so it can be better to delete them than to continue carrying that burden. I'll say Weak delete because having the disambiguation can give the impression we have other Peyton Roi Lists, however that is weak because we have disambiguations for all kinds of other reasons, e.g. {{R from more specific geographic name}} and indeed {{R to disambiguation page}}. Si Trew (talk) 03:54, 7 December 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.

Donald John Donaldovich Trump[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete both. JohnCD (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this name is ever used. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:38, 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.

MittRomney[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 14#MittRomney

Wikipedia:Content creation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete both. Ruslik_Zero 20:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has existed for less than a month. I would believe that there could be a more useful target for this redirect than a user essay, such as a guideline about how to add/create content. Steel1943 (talk) 00:27, 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.

Wikipedia:Constitution of ireland[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) 17:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XNR. However, per its edit history, it doesn't seem as though it was created in error since it's not a {{R from move}}. Steel1943 (talk) 00:22, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_30&oldid=1138581258"