Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 12, 2016.

Lemmium[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 20#Lemmium

Ashley Nicolette[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no evidence of Halsey going by her first + middle name. -- Tavix (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by higher use? There is no need to create combinations of first-middle and middle-last when they are not notable stage names for the music artist. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- If there is another use proposed for "Ashley Nicolette", then we can redirect to that or make it into an article. Until then, there is no reason to delete this redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to have it in the first place. She doesn't go by that or the middle-last combination as a stage name at all, even in her early days as a performer. She's not a singer in Asia where her stage name could have the family name and given name reversed, nor is Nicolette a family name where she changed it. Bring some sources that show those other combinations as stage names and then it can be reconsidered. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As stated above, she doesn't go by this name. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Just because redirects are "cheap", doesn't mean keeping them is good. Senator2029 “Talk” 07:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's her real name, a plausible search. Montanabw(talk) 22:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, her real name is "Ashley Nicolette Frangipane". This is a "partial title match". If you think it's a likely search term, I challenge you to find sources calling her simply "Ashley Nicolette". -- Tavix (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first + middle combination is not particularly unusual and could presumably relate to multiple people, so not a useful redirect. WJBscribe (talk) 12:03, 20 September 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.

Anil Jain(MLA)[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. Creating a new redirect at Anil Jain (MLA) left to editorial discretion. WJBscribe (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there was a space between the disambiguator and the rest of the title, the disambiguator "MLA" is unclear since MLA is a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there aren't multiple politicians where this might be a dab. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The disambiguator MLA means Member of the Legislative Assembly and while I don't know much about Indian politics, this seems to be used in a similar way to MP. So, Anil Jain (MLA) should be about as likely a search term as John Smith (MP), so that's something we would want to keep (especially given how common this name is). On the other hand, I don't think we need redirects for cases of omitted spaces before a parenthesis, so I think it's best to move to Anil Jain (MLA) without leaving behind a redirect. Uanfala (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per Unafala and tag as {{R from other disambiguation}}. Thryduulf (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

A Very Brief Summary of the Life of Galileo[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) 01:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was a duplicate article for Galileo started under a very poor title. The page was redirected and it doesn't appear any content was merged. The content could be called an essay where the current redirect name was the essay's title. The alterative would be to think the page has some value but as it appears never to have been used, that's questionable. As it stands, we have what is arguably an essay whose titled has been immortalized by a redirect. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Other essay title was RFD'ed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. redirect from an article title that corresponds to nothing in the real world,., just the title used for a very elementary WP synopsis
  • Delete as unlikely synonym at best. --Lenticel (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:01, 18 September 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.

Raw Champ[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. The discussion seems to be roughly split between deletion and keeping it some form, whether it be keeping it as-is, retargeting, or converting the redirect to a disambiguation page. With no agreement as to where it should go, I'll let the status quo stand for now. -- Tavix (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Raw Champ(ion)" is far from synonymous for WWE Universal Championship. That championship is the top championship of that brand right now but other titles appear on the program as well and a number of other titles appeared on the show throughout its history. LM2000 (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unnecessary re-directs. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 08:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. Alternatively, a redirect to List of current champions in WWE#Raw could work.LM2000 (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One promo does not make a nickname. As Crash said, creator has a really bad habit of terrible judgement like this. oknazevad (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have had the Raw Championship and SmackDown Championship redirects since 2008 without issue, and it redirects to the WWE Universal championship, so my redirect is simply complimenting that. Same with SmackDown Championship since 2007. Other minor championships like tag team or US don't matter, the phrase would clearly refer to the TOP championship of a show. Ranze (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was unaware of those redirects and I assume most people were too because they did not accurately reflect brand designations. The outcome of this discussion will probably affect those redirects as well.LM2000 (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary re-directs.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 03:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Madame McMahon and her Unicorn Freaks are harmless and pointless, so I abstained from them. But this one's useful. Wanting to find out who the Raw or SmackDown champs are seems a likely question, even for fans who know the full titles, but dislike typing. Raw championship, Raw champion, Raw champ, Raw title, Raw belt and maybe even Raw strap should all point to whichever the top Raw championship happens to be today. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JTP (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert into a disambiguation page for all the past and present Raw titles. Pinguinn 🐧 16:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per InedibleHulk. Unless some disambiguation page can be created per Pinguinn, this seems like a reasonable redirect and a plausible search term. The target article seems to indicate that this is the top-tier Raw championship. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of current champions in WWE#Raw or WWE Raw#Champions. That would provide the necessary context, yes? --BDD (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @BDD: I think if this is going to be done that we should open a new discussion weighing this alongside what to do with Raw Championship since every editor who has contributed to that redirect would also probably want to weigh in on the conversation. We should also look at how the phrase has historically been used. For example:
    • Hunt, Jen (5 November 2006). "The champions prepare". WWE.com. Even though all the brands fall under the WWE umbrella now, there is fierce competition between these factions. "I'm more proud of being the ECW World Champion then I was of being the RAW champion or the WCW champion or the SmackDown champion," sneered ECW World Champion Big Show
    It's clear here that Big Show uses "the RAW champion" and "the SmackDown champion" to refer to the world titles he held there. They are "the" champions of the show, because those are the primary titles. Secondary/Tertiary titles like the Intercontinental/US or tag titles are not ones I've known to describe this way. But if anyone can show a source like this showing otherwise I'm open to being proven wrong. Ranze (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Redirecting to List of current champions in WWE#Raw makes sense, though delete is still my preference. Rather than starting a new discussion, just relist this one, it hasn't been exhausted yet.LM2000 (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of current champions in WWE#Raw... although, while I think that makes the most sense, I wouldn't really object to just outright deletion either. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:27, 12 September 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.

2016 Delta Air Lines power outage[edit]

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

WP:TRIVIA/WP:NOTNEWS. This is not a useful search term, as there's no substance to what it points at; it redirects to one line at the bottom of the Delta Airlines chronology that basically said "it happened". Not everything that happens is redirect-worthy or article-worthy. MSJapan (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reluctant Keep I agree with every single word of the OP's statement. The problem is that at the article's AfD the community's verdict was to redirect instead of delete. (Full Disclosure: I nominated it for deletion.) I think that consensus, especially since it is so recent, needs to be respected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG's cogent argument below. A redirect needs a target that has some viable connection to the name of the redirect. At the moment this one doesn't. And yes, for the record I think the AfD got it wrong. This should have been deleted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the outcome of the very recent AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The power outage isn't mentioned at the target, so this redirect is currently misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP and the recent AFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. , regardless of theAfD it cannot be kept unless it's mentioned, otherwise it's misleading. RfDand AfD have eqial standing, and we can properly reconsider here a redirect created by AfD DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - The power outage is mentioned in one of the last sections of the page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Power outage" is not mentioned at the target. Perhaps you're referring to the "technology issue"? -- Tavix (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:25, 12 September 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.

Multiple issues[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) 01:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What need have we for a redirect from mainspace to this template? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, not really up to me, just wanted to redirect (that's all) — God's Godzilla 20:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by God's Godzilla (talk • contribs)
@God's Godzilla: You made a redirect page just because you were in the mood to do so? That seems odd. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to chime in as a user who used this redirect just a minute ago. These kinds of redirects are really helpful, in my view. Mihirpmehta (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mihirpmehta: Can you show us a diff of how you used this redirect usefully? Or at least explain how you did? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiDan61: I searched for "Multiple Issues" (wanting to check the source and examples for my own use) and got redirected to the template, that's all. Since I commented, I read XNR linked by Steel1943 and I'm more inclined to agree with the arguments against making trapdoors, even though this trapdoor was useful to me. Mihirpmehta (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Confusing cross-namespace redirect. It has the potential to leave the reader thinking "Multiple issues of what?", but then confusingly somehow arriving at the template. Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Multiple issues" is inherently vague and has a lot of varying contexts outside of Wikipedia. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 10:08, 17 September 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.

General Television Corporation[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) 01:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is mentioned twice in the target article (once in the infobox and once in the article), but per the article itself, it is seemingly a separate subject from the article's subject and doesn't seem to be identified in detail anywhere in the target article. In fact, per the article, the subject of the redirect has a connection between the subjects in the articles The Argus (Melbourne) and The Age. So, delete per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 19:32, 12 September 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.

9/11 controversy[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) 01:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversy" seems like far too broad a term for the conspiracy theories. I searched this term wondering if we had an article collecting events like the $9.11 Rudy Giuliani fundraiser, The Onion's "Subtember 11th" promotion, and a Papa John's $9.11 pizza special. I don't think we have such an article, and perhaps we never will, but for me personally, this illustrates why this redirect is too broad. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree that the wording here isn't right. I'm also reminded of the periodical chatter about how Donald Trump wished people a 'happy 9/11' or such on Twitter. This is too broad. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete'. What controversy? Guy (Help!) 10:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - misleading — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:22, 13 September 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.

Craig Ranke[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) 01:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This 9/11 conspiracy theorist isn't mentioned at the target article. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Mr. Ranke isn't notable. He's not mentioned in the target page. This is a clear-cut case. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Talk archive 27 of the destination article indicates that merging was considered but "there was no sourced text to merge" so it was just straight redirected, meaning there are no attribution problems with deleting this. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 03:14, 16 September 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.

Medium-duty vehicle[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 Truck classification. -- Tavix (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in its target article. Readers trying to locate information about the subject of the redirect may be misled. Steel1943 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 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.

Wang Jingwei régime[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) 01:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed language, unlikely search term.- Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does not hurt for these to be kept. – Kaihsu (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. "régime" is a perfectly valid English word so there is nothing mixed language about these redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the accented version is not used in news media or books when referring to this government/official, and the search box will already get the reader to this. This isn't like résumé where the accented version is the formal name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Perfectly fine to use the accent in regime, even if it is rare. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Régime" is used in English as a less-common spelling, so the mixed-language argument doesn't apply, and this isn't otherwise harmful. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While not that common, 'régime' pops up in regular English writing, I believe, and these redirects seem reasonable. This isn't a matter of mixed languages per se. I'd also retain these. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:00, 16 September 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.

China (Nanking)[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/retarget so they're all pointing to Republic of China (1912–49). -- Tavix (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous, these should all refer to a single target, however I have no opinion on what target suits best. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 00:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably “Republic of China (1912–49)” is the most pragmatic solution, though it also includes the Beiyang government in Beijing, etc. The Nationalist government was not always in Nanjing. The Reorganized National Government of the Republic of China was only for five years during 1912–49. – Kaihsu (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:00, 12 September 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.

Minguo[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 Republic of China (disambiguation). --BDD (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They all refer to the same thing (i.e. "Republic") but are ambiguous. Republic of China (disambiguation) may or may not be a good idea, but I am largely neutral on the outcome of this RfD, as the nominator. (I only nominated these because they have different targets) - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 00:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They should all redirect to Minguo calendar. That is the main use of this abbreviation. There readers can find the etymology, which leads to other meanings of the term if it is such explanation that they are looking for. – Kaihsu (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Republic of China (1912–49). "Minguo" is the Chinese abbreviation for Republic China, and commonly refers to the Republican period on mainland. -Zanhe (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Zanhe and hatnote other uses. AFAIK Taiwanese are unlikely to use this as a standalone phrase for the current country, while it can be used to refer to the Republican era. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate since we've established this has multiple meanings. -- Tavix (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However, that disambiguation doesn't have the calendar, so it would be different. -- Tavix (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix:I just added it. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:47, 16 September 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.

Mary, Mother of Christ (film)[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. WJBscribe (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, IMDb is not showing any films by this name. I'm listing this separately since there is a 1999 film entitled Mary, Mother of Jesus (film) if someone thinks it's worth a retarget. -- Tavix (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not a pet project for the director as it is not even mentioned in the target article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments below. — Gorthian (talk) 23:37, 14 September 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.

Mary, Mother of Christ (2014 film)[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. WJBscribe (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense. According to IMDb, there is not a 2014 film by this name. -- Tavix (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found another in this batch and added it here; hope that's okay, Tavix. — Gorthian (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's not nonsense as such; it's a WP:CRYSTAL problem. Some news floated out c. 2012 about this upcoming film, with some casting and distribution info, etc., but in the end, nothing happened. This is just another film project that went nowhere. MSJapan (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even as an abandoned or developing film, it is not even mentioned in the target's article as producer. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. This film is kind of of all over Wikipedia, but with no place to redirect. It's clear that no one knows when it will be released, though IMDB optimistically says it will be next year (renamed Mary). None of the articles that mention it have decent sources for the information, except one—sort of: Mary Aloe (a producer) has an extensive list of media articles, all from 2012, inserted as external links. I have not investigated any of these yet. But on Wikipedia, Benedict Fitzgerald is said to be a screenwriter, Barbara Nicolosi a co-writer, and Alan Weinberger an executive producer. If it ever gets released, it may well be notable. Until then, let's get rid of all this confusing cruft. — Gorthian (talk) 23:36, 14 September 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.

2015 Raymond Detention Center escape[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This detention center, a 2015 escape, and those involved in the escape aren't mentioned at the target article. Seeing as the article is a town, it would be a bit WP:UNDUE to mention all these things, and the incident itself seems extremely minor or trivial. Perhaps the Detention center is notable, but we'd still have a case of WP:REDLINK deletion on our hands. In either case, these redirects do nothing but disappoint our readers in the off chance of any of these terms being searched for. -- Tavix (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP. I tried to add the story about the escape, but it got removed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So by that logic the redirects should be removed as well... This seems like a case of someone being a little too attached to their creations? -- Tavix (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Detention center is a county jail that doesn't even have notability. Draws attention to non-notable criminals. Reconsider if WP:BLP1E or WP:BLPCRIME AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not sure what you were doing, Jax 0677, but it looks like you were just going in circles. — Gorthian (talk) 00:17, 15 September 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.

Nicolette Frangipane[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense combination of middle name and last name. Orphaned. SSTflyer 14:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There are folks who go by middle and last name as common name, but this isn't the case as this music artist goes by her first name scrambled. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP, until a higher use is proposed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AngusWOOF. Steel1943 (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per cheap and a reasonably plausible search. Montanabw(talk) 22:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a "partial title match". I challenge anyone wishing to keep this to find sources calling her by her middle + last name. -- Tavix (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As stated above, this isn't helpful since she isn't known by her middle and last name in this way. ?CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unlike the first + middle combination, it seems difficult to imagine that someone would be searching for someone else. Redirect are cheap. WJBscribe (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would bet big money that someone searching "Nicolette Frangipane" would be looking for Niccolò Frangipane over Halsey (singer). If someone is looking for Niccolò, the only difference is a different form of Nicolas. For someone to be looking for Halsey, it would require that person knowing her middle and last name and choosing to search that way instead of simply using her stage name. -- Tavix (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Until proven otherwise, the actual spelling of the middle and last name should default to the actual individual, not a similar misspelling. Case in point, Cory Taylor. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only time a middle + last name combination should "default" somewhere is when there's evidence of that person or a reliable source using the middle name + last name combination. It's not at all uncommon for this to happen, but the problem is that there's zero evidence for this to be the case with Halsey. I don't think this string of names should be retargeted to Niccolò, rather simply providing a counter to the argument that it seems difficult to imagine that someone would be searching for someone else. -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 20 September 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.

Halsey (Singer)[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) 01:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Useless, orphaned redirect. SSTflyer 14:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Having the (singer) disambiguator is okay but the lower-case version already exists and the capital one is wrong for dab purposes. See WP:NCDAB AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC), updated 00:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Speedy) delete. I created the redirect in the course of moving the page to Halsey (singer). I will sometimes leave the redirect as a way for an editor to find the page at its new title. Usually I clean it up after a little bit as a G6 speedy, housekeeping. I may have missed this one. I endorse the deletion, and if acceptable, I request either a G6 or G7 speedy delete. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy was declined as it was not the original author. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
fixed [1] This was a case where one link was converted, but another one wasn't. Now it's just user pages and wikiproject alerts. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing a minor link to (Singer) on an article was changed to (singer) but 10 hits a day is nothing compared to the 5000+ she gets [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:05, 16 September 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.

Over My Head (Cable Car 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 delete. -- Tavix (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect, implies that this song is by some artist named Cable Car. SSTflyer 13:49, 12 September 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.

Tekkatho[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 Burmese names#Honorifics and delete, respectively. --BDD (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFFL General topic not affiliated with certain languages. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:15, 12 September 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.

Sanctum (formerly Perfecto Technologies)[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, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from page name that was renamed to meet naming conventions. CSD R2 does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page name. sandgemADDICT yeah? 06:45, 12 September 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.

Violent Plan[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Created by multiple sequential page moves (B.C. Kochmit to Violent Plan to Bradley Kochmit), so there's really nothing incoming. This is an NN side project that only recorded a demo, and not everything needs a redirect simply because it exists. MSJapan (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP. Per WP:SUBNOT, "Appropriate redirects from the subject's name and entries in disambiguation pages should be created to help readers find such information". --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep depending on whether Kochmit's article will stay around for notability purposes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:53, 12 September 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.

Straight from The Barrio[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL - Several variations on a title for an album that hasn't been released, won't be released until the end of October (tentatively), and has no presumption of notability upon release. MSJapan (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP. Per WP:SUBNOT, "Appropriate redirects from the subject's name and entries in disambiguation pages should be created to help readers find such information". --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - To be clear, I would like all of the redirects kept. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "From the" and "From The" as stylization shown on their album and news announcement itself. [3]. Delete "from The" which is not used. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 12 September 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.

Rocky Horror Picture Show/Riff Raff[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) 00:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect. JDDJS (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - With this slash right in the middle there, this redirect looks unhelpful. We should just trash it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, housekeeping. It looks like they were trying to make a character article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_12&oldid=1142586956"