Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 10[edit]

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

Adams, President[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) 15:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly a sort name. President is a title, not a forename. --Nevé–selbert 18:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Is there any reasonable doubt that a person searching for "Adams, President" would be looking for a "President Adams"? I see no reason at all why sortnames can't include title-plus-name combinations, since that makes it possible to alphabetically search all people with a given title by surname. bd2412 T 21:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

*Weak delete. Yes, we have {{R from sort name}} with an astonishing 30,711 entries but it doesn't mean we do this at all consistenty (we have far more than 30,711 biographies) and I really wonder whether any {{R from sort name}} is at all helpful. We have Wales, Jimmy (which is not rcatted as {[tlx|R from sort name}}), but not Yeltsin, Boris, for example. Russian Wikipedia actually has titles of bio articles surname-first, e.g ru:Ельцин, Борис Николаевич, consistenly to achieve this. But at EN:WP we achieve that end with [[DEFAULTSORT:Adams, President]]. I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, but since also this is a {{R from ambiguous page}} (which President Adams?), is rcatted but not DEFAULTSORTed, and had only 2 hits in the 90 days before this RfD with no incoming links, I think it slightly worse than useless. WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target.

If I had my way I would delete all 30,711 redirects in category {{R from sort name}}: Redirects are not the way to achieve index sorting. But I've not the energy to fight that battle, because at least it would require making sure each target had the appropriate DEFAULTSORT instead, and that's probably a rather Herculean, or at least, Stakhanovite, task. (I suppose a bot could do it.) Si Trew (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tradition of encyclopedias listing biographies by last name first (which is what sortnames almost always represent) goes back hundreds of years. It is entirely reasonable to provide readers with the ability to reach subjects directly by typing in a last-name-first combination, or a last-name-title combination where the title is associated with the name. bd2412 T 12:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • And that centuries-old tradition was essentially thrown out when EN:WP decided to list people in "English name order" if I can call it that. It would have been perfectly possible to have consensus that all bio articles should be titled in the traditional form, but EN:WP didn't in fact decide that. As it stands, if I type "Yeltsin, Boris" into the drop-down search the first and only entry that appears is "Boris Yeltsin": I don't think we need a redirect from Yeltsin, Boris to give readers an "ability to reach subjects directly by typing in a last-name first-name combination". Jumping a reader through a redirect to a DAB is to me just as indirect as presenting (often singular) search results. I just don't see the point of them. The centuries-old tradition comes from not being able sensibly to have multiple indices: but the analogy of the old-fashioned index is that a reader would find someone by thumbing through Category:Redirects from sort names, which is absurd. Si Trew (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose what I am really saying is that "yes, I am sure people search for Smith, John but the way to satisfy that search is to include the set of all [[DEFAULTSORT:]]s in the domain set for the search engine (perhaps it is, searching for Yeltsin, Boris seems to work perfectly). There's no good and some harm in having another parallel catalog that is manually maintaned and, were it done so perfectly, would be a mirror of that DEFAULTSORT set. It is not done at all perfectly, so chose the tool to fit the job, not the other way around." We seem to manage perfectly well without Art of Computer Programming, The. Si Trew (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a last-name-first redirect takes the reader to a disambiguation page where the persons by that name are listed, this is a neater result than search returns, which typically include large numbers of unrelated results. For example, if Wikipedia search results for "Smith, James", if not directed to the disambiguation page, returns things like The Temptation of Carlton Earle (because it mentions "C. Aubrey Smith" in proximity to a mention of "James Lindsay"), Overbrook Entertainment (because it mentions "Will Smith" near "James Lassiter"), and Vermont gubernatorial election, 1934 (because it mentions "Charles M. Smith" a few lines away from "James P. Leamy"). I know that this holds true throughout the encyclopedia because I have built hundreds of disambiguation pages, and have had to pick through scatterings like these to find the articles that are actually relevant to the combination of the first name. Wikipedia chose a tradition from a binary set of options, but that hardly means that Wikipedia chose to throw out the old tradition, or {{R from sort name}} wouldn't even exist! bd2412 T 15:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I said at the start that I've not the energy to fight that battle, but the way to make search work is to make search work. It has got better over the years, and things like {{R from sort name}} are earlier admissions of failure with the search engine. The aim would be for the "most likely" terms to rank top of the research, like some other well-used search engines do. But this is really going off-topic, which is what to do with this redirect. Si Trew (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly cromulent, for the same reasons. People searching for "Adams, President" are best served by being taken to a list of people surnamed "Adams" who were "President". Fixing search is a red herring in this case - with an ideal search engine, we would not need the disambiguation pages at all because a search for "President Adams" itself would yield ideal results, so the variation between Adams, President and President Adams is irrelevant. bd2412 T 17:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
That's a non sequitur: . There are indeed many ways to search, but just because a DAB (list, SIA, project, portal, etc) is valuable doesn't mean Rs to it are valuable. We needn't replicate a machine-generated set of links (the DEFAULTSORTs) with manually-generated ones (the R from sort names). I can see a case for {{R from sort name}} when there may be multiple useful sort orders, but as it stands it is being applied rather inconsistently. I must admit I was entirely unaware of its existence, and I have been knocking around a bit doing bio articles and redirects and DABs and other things over the years, too. Is there something in WP:MOS that recommends its use? Si Trew (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And anyway it doesn't take people to 'a list of people surnamed "Adams" who were "President"', it takes people to a DAB with two presidents and two ships named after them. Si Trew (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there are notable additional meanings of "President Adams", they should be added to the disambiguation page. bd2412 T 04:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per bd2412. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strengthen mine to Delete. After the discussion with bd2412 above, I've come to the conclusion that {{R from sort name}} is (or should be) just a doppelganger for the [[DEFAULTSORT]] (or any other sorts) at the target. There might be a case for its use when we want the same target sorted in several different ways, but in this case the target doesn't specify a sort order at all, so presumably the authors of the target (a DAB) did not intend it to appear to be sorted this way. Thus it's WP:RFD#D2 confusing as an {{R from sort name}} that is inconsistent with the way the target is actually sorted. Si Trew (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On balance, I think this is a useful redirect and I doubt readers will be searching for anything other than the current target. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there analogous redirects, i.e., other sortnames based on titles or other alternative names? --BDD (talk) 21:01, 18 October 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.

Brian kelly album redirects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 18#Brian kelly album redirects

Grave accent (`)[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) 20:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parentheses should be used for disambiguating, rather than giving examples. Pppery 14:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Really it's an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, and I would say WP:RFD#K5 somebody finds it useful but there are no incoming links and stats are infinitessimal. But the "(`)" is not really an example, it's part of an alternative, fuller description: ` also → Grave accent. That being said, something like Grave accent (¸) would be stupid so there's really no need for this. Anyone not knowing what a grave accent is can just search for "Grave accent". Anywone who knows that it is "`" can search for that. Si Trew (talk) 08:28, 11 October 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.

Template:Nemzeti Bajnokság II teamlist[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 Procedurally closed by (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC). This is no longer a redirect but has been converted into a navbox template by the nominator User:Robsinden soon after listing here.[reply]

Redirects to a different league. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:31, 10 October 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.

Bin (Terrorist)[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 snow delete. -- Tavix (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence the person is referred to as just "Bin". SSTflyer 13:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Moronic term no one with half a brain-cell is going to use, Delete. –Davey2010Talk 19:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Whew, that was a little harsh there...Wow— JJBers (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who would use Bin to refer to the terrorist leader?— JJBers (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Implausible redirect. Seriously, what the heck. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. It's a pity we haven't an article (that I could find) saying that "bin" means a bit like "Fitz" in "Fitzpatrick" or "Mac" in "Macdonald" and so on, i.e. introduces the genealogical Lineage, but perhaps there would be little to say at such an article except what I have just said, and WP:NOTDIC. This is equivalent to saying something like Mac (terrorist) or Fitz (terrorist). Pretty ancient (14 Feb 2008 and unchanged since) but that is really no reason to keep this. Si Trew (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm also wondering whether WP:TERRORIST here (we've discussed this before in terms of WP:RNEUTRAL and I think consensus is that we don't usually need such redirects because there are more obvious ways to search anyway. That certainly would seem to be the case with this one.) Si Trew (talk) 09:34, 11 October 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.

Ms. Clinton[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 snow keep (non-admin closure) Pppery 21:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not the only notable woman with surname Clinton. SSTflyer 12:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mrs. Clinton[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 snow keep (non-admin closure) Pppery 21:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not the only notable woman with a husband with surname Clinton. SSTflyer 12:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mrs Clinton[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 snow keep (non-admin closure) Pppery 21:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not the only notable woman with a husband with surname Clinton. SSTflyer 12:49, 10 October 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.

Hillary (politician)[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) 19:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not the only politician with this name. SSTflyer 12:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there another politician mononymously known as "Hillary"? bd2412 T 14:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
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.

Thwack[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. Creation of a DAB page can be done at other editors' discretion if they feel there is enough material.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect. As per AfD. A wholly inappropriate redirect for non-notable "online community" which fails WP:PRODUCT, WP:GNG and has no reasonable reason to sit as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this title. Guliolopez (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a pretty implausible redirect. At one time it used to redirect to "Thwack.com" (which was a non-notable website) but I don't think it is warranted now. "Thwack" is a common word and a redirect is not appropriate. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The term refers to an online group, to a set of badminton rackets, to at least one song, and a bunch of other things. None of them appear to be considerably notable. We should just trash this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are these uses referenced enough in the encyclopedia to support a disambiguation page? bd2412 T 14:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I know basically nothing about badminton, so I can't really comment on that front. Notability might exist there. We have a bunch of articles relating to sports equipment. Everything else, though, seems minor. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous at best --Lenticel (talk) 07:33, 13 October 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.

Trump effect[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) 19:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article mode effect doesn't have the word "Trump" in it. So what is it? There is a new definition for the Trump effect, and it's Donald Trump.[1][2][3][4] – Muboshgu (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't think this is a valid alternate term for mode effect. Also, I have a feeling someone is going to attempt to create a page here in the near future concerning the so-called "Donald Trump effect." Pariah24 ┃ ☏ 10:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder who might be thinking of doing that. (-->) – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Go for it, anything to get rid of this tacky redirect page   Pariah24 ┃ ☏   05:07, 13 October 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.

Kitchen fires[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. No prejudice against a new dab at the title, nor against an AfD for such a page. --BDD (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Total surprise. While grease fire would be a better target, it isn't synonymous, and most if not all types of fires could occur in a place designated as the kitchen. Bedroom fires and bathroom fires don't exist, and I think this term should follow suit. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bad idea since kitchens aren't mentioned there. Someone searching specifically for kitchen fires won't be helped by the target, as they're going to want information on something more narrow than the target can provide. -- Tavix (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then mention kitchens there. It seems logical that a good proportion of structure fires happen in the kitchen. bd2412 T 10:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing per WP:XY. As well as this meaning bride burning or a conflagration, it could also be refer to kitchen ranges or cook stoves, to which cooking fires redirects (but not cooking fire; we don't have kitchen fire in the singular either, but a search for that generally gives results referring to a conflagration in the chef's department, not a ritual burning). Si Trew (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate per WP:XY. Back in the old days, "kitchen fire" was sometimes used as synonym for hearth (see, e.g., this book titled The kitchen fire and how to run it: A manual for the housewife showing how to save coal, gas, labor and health). However, at least where I live, I think most people would associate the term "kitchen fire" with a structural fire that occurs in a kitchen. Either way, I don't think we should keep the current target. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify grease fire and Fire class#Cooking oils and fats (kitchen fires). Looks like it's clear enough to at least point to these two articles. --Lenticel (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per above. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Fire class#Cooking oils and fats (kitchen fires) (first choice) or Delete (second choice). It doesn't make sense to link to grease fire, as it's not necessarily a "kitchen fire" (and vice versa). At least the other suggestion mentions "kitchen fires", so I'd be fine with a retarget there. -- Tavix (talk) 03:20, 18 October 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.

Trump Timepieces[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) 19:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Term is not mentioned in target, or anywhere. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This product isn't notable, and it's certainly not mentioned at the targeted page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:48, 13 October 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.

Uk driving license[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, but definitely marked as {{R unprintworthy}}. --BDD (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UK has always been abbreviated as "UK", It's extremely rare to see it as "Uk", Having searched "UK driving licence" this target never popped up (I had to change the capital to a lowercase for it to appear) so this looks to have been a useless and unused redirect (The pageview tool wouldn't pick this up),
Anyway I've created UK driving license which should hopefully work better than this target –Davey2010Talk 01:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "UK driving licence" is more of a plausible search term and somehting the search function can easily pick up, As I said the search engine doesn't appear to be picking this one up thus making it useless . –Davey2010Talk 09:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've mark the newly-created one as {{R from misspelling}} and {{R from short name}} but had this new "better but still incorrect" form not been recently created by nominator then this one would not be a candidate for deletion. The search engine will supress it if it decides that the new "UK driving license", to the same target, is "better". It would probably have picked it up otherwise.
Incidentally, I've rcatted driving licence and driving license ( → driver's license) as {{R from other name}} and the first as {{R from other spelling}} too. Similary Driving license in the United Kingdom as {{R from incorrect spelling}}. In short I have gone through all the Rs linking to this target. Over time, people have been a bit overenthusiastic with some of these, I think... but some are quite old. Si Trew (talk) 08:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SimonTrew - Oh god I'm glad you noticed that!, I'm assuming I've copied and pasted the previous target and completely forgot to change "license", The newly created one was obviously meant to have been "licence" but anyway I've now created "UK driving licence" too,
See Si this place would be screwed without you :), –Davey2010Talk 16:08, 11 October 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.

Eeyore (song)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 10:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Song is entirely an insult. Just listen to the song and read the lyrics. No need to archive songs bullying or attacking someone. It can be compared to an attack page. As you may no there is unfortunately thousands of thousands that might insult someone but none can compare to being as derogatory as this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Icarus of Jakarta (talk • contribs) 05:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're proposing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeWithMarkets: I think that he is proposing the deletion of the redirect Eeyore (song). Pppery 15:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this redirect cannot be deleted for attribution reasons as it is a {{R from merge}}. It is also perfectly normal to redirect non-notable songs to the album they are contained in. Pppery 15:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this nomination is just a case of I don't like it. I don't like it either, but that has nothing to do with whether it is of encyclopedic interest.--T*U (talk) 05:33, 11 October 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.

Chat-Roboter[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 21:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of redirect as it has zero views. https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2016-09-20&end=2016-10-09&pages=Chat-Roboter Daylen (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This seems like a German term for "chat robot" to me. I don't see a need to keep it as most English language sources do not use it and we don't keep routine translations as redirects, unless there is some encyclopaedic value. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above {{R from other language|de}} but no affinity to English; WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. There is one (German) citation at the target to "Chatroboter" without the hyphen ("Chatroboter simulieren Menschen") but we haven't Chatroboter anyway. The IW link is to de:Chatbot and the term (with or without hyphen) is not mentioned there either. Si Trew (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, @Lemongirl942: are you aware of the ongoing discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Redirects_from_foreign_languages? You (and others) may wish to contribute there. Si Trew (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. I will have a look there. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:52, 13 October 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_October_10&oldid=1136448110"