Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 14, 2017.

Musically[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 21#Musically

Johals[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 21#Johals

2017 solar eclipse[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 List of solar eclipses in the 21st century#2017 with new anchor on target page. This should satisfy both disambiguation and retarget requests. Deryck C. 11:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page should not redirect to the August 21 eclipse as there is also Solar eclipse of February 26, 2017. This should either be a disambiguation page or simply be deleted. Note that 2016 solar eclipse, 2015 solar eclipse, etc. do not exist in any form, disambig or otherwise. Smartyllama (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate. Lacking another solar eclipse this year, this would be a perfectly fine redirect, and disambiguation pages are basically multi-target soft redirects. Nyttend (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambuguate per WP:XY. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. The redirect is not the actual name of any subject which could be placed on a hypothetical disambiguation page, as well as the fact that versions of the redirect's title at previous years do not exist. May as well not start a precedence that doesn't exist anyways. Steel1943 (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if someone searches for "2017 solar eclipse", you'd prefer to present them with a deletion log entry rather than pointing them to the two articles we have on this subject? Absurd. Nyttend (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I would actually expect them to locate which article they are attempting to find via the results when looking up "2017 solar eclipse" on the search bar if this redirect was deleted. Right now, this title existing blocks that functionality (see how Special:Search/2017 solar eclipse functions) and the only way around that is for the reader to do a blank search first (Special:Search) then type in "2017 solar eclipse" into that search bar directly. We cannot expect that all readers have even the slightest clue how to do this, and the remedy to not expect them to is to delete the redirect. In addition, I really think that we should not be locking our readers into only being able to find a set list of titles if they look up an ambiguous title which is not the specific title for any subject (which is what a disambiguation page would do; lock readers into only being able to see a set list of articles.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Though I commented "delete" above, I just found List of solar eclipses in the 21st century. If this redirect could be retargeted to something specific there, that option could potentially be helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify or retarget to List of solar eclipses in the 21st century per Steel. I'm leaning on the latter since it's more comprehensive than an a new dab page --Lenticel (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig. This is a very plausible search term for either of the two eclipses as their paths do not cross meaning that people in the relevant areas are very likely not to know about the other one (whichever that is). The list article is not really very useful given that there is no sectioning within it to which we can point this redirect. Deletion is even worse, as search results are not guaranteed or even presented in every case - it depends how you navigate (and other factors) whether you get a search page (with or without results, which may or may not be relevant), an invitation to search, an invitation to create an article or search, or an editing window. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of solar eclipses in the 21st century#2017 (add an anchor before the first 2017 entry). The list is much more informative than a dab could ever be, and there's less maintenance required. -- Tavix (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig to the two from that year. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2017 (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.

Remove kebab[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. Speedy G3, although it is also offensive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A highly inappropriate internet meme. See here for more information. ~barakokula31 (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2017 (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.

Galician Universities[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 1#Galician Universities

Jeff Malcolm (ice hockey)[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) 00:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted. He is a non-notable ice hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and unlikely to ever pass GNG. The target location makes no mention of him and makes no more sense then targeting 2013 NCAA Division I Men's Ice Hockey Tournament, the only place where he is linked. Yosemiter (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Can always be re-created when notability is met. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:03, 14 April 2017 (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.

080 in Denmark[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) 00:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No clear connection between the number 80, which seems like it would refer to the 1st or 9th centuries, and the 10th century Pppery 15:12, 14 April 2017 (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 digits in pi[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 refine to Pi#Approximate value. -- Tavix (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The target article is about the definition of Pi, and doesn't have a list of all of its digits. For that reason, this redirect could be misleading and not present readers the information they are looking to find. Steel1943 (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Indiana Pi Bill. It's supposed to be 3.[April Fools!] Consider Refine to Pi#Approximate_value though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine per AngusWOOF or retarget to Approximations of Pi. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if users want digits of pi, they can create a template with one of the parameters being numDigits. UpsandDowns1234 23:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a very experienced editor (been here over 13 years) and I wouldn't have a clue how to make such a template. Expecting the average reader to know (a) that this is what they need to do, and (b) how to do it is one of the most ridiculous suggestions I've ever seen at RfD! 11:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)
  • Refine to Pi#Approximate_value (per AngusWOOF), since there the reader can find relevant links (via OEIS), according to his/her needs (decimal or not, and how many digits). Wikipedia is not a place for more than 10-20 (well, maybe 30) digits. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are only ten distinct digits in (the decimal represent action of) pi, and the target does indeed mention a all of them, but not in list form. I must admit I dislike "list" redirects to things that are not lists,as that seems to me WP:RFD#D2 confusing. User:SimonTrew under IP 84.3.187.196 (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2017 (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.

Pi to (number) places[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, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Pi (the article) doesn't specifically display the subject of any of these redirects. Readers who may search these subjects will not find what they are looking for. (However, if these redirects targeted, for example, their specific value, these redirects would actually be helpful.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the reason I gave in List of Digits of Pi above. UpsandDowns1234 23:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that it would be useful for there to be a reference for these values, but Wikipedia probably isn't the place. It would seem to fit nicely under b:Subject:Mathematical references on Wikibooks, but it isn't there yet, so a soft redirect wouldn't help at the moment. I'll ping the mathematics project to see if they have ideas. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; it is enough to have "List of Digits of Pi" (discussed above). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine to section Pi#Modern quest for more digits where the dates for enumerating these specific numbers of digits are given. User:SimonTrew 84.3.187.196 (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2017 (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 talk:Checkuser[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) 01:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Serious nomination) Ok? How is this supposed to be useful? It doesn't really make sense to redirect a blocked user's talk page to a procedural policy about a "small group of trusted Wikipedia users". Mr. Guye (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not useful, no incoming links, unlikely to break anything. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've made MBisanz (who created the account) and the checkuser team aware of this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to user:Checkuser which is the usual way these sorts of accounts are handled. I'll add a link from that page to the current target. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a role account but we need to update the page. It's being discussed. @Mr. Guye:, thanks for bringing this to light. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: Where is/was this being discussed? -- Tavix (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doing my best Doug impression... ;) This was briefly discussed on the functionaries mailing list. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because the user of that talk page created the redirect himself. Unless any other guideline forbids that, WP:OWNTALK comes in place here, regardless if blocked or not. Lordtobi (✉) 14:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not your normal blocked account: it's a doppelganger. It's not an approved role account (WP:SOCK#List of role accounts), but since other types of functionaries have such accounts, someone might reasonably expect the checkusers to have them too, and we should redirect this to a useful place, just as is already done with User talk:Mediation Committee and User talk:Bureaucrats. Nyttend (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. No objection to Thryduulf's suggestion but really, this has been the way it is since 2008 with no apparent problems, so the path of least unnecessary effort is "do nothing". Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the "meh" above. There's an administrative logic in tidying it by redirecting to User:Checkuser, but I'm not aware that the existence of this page has led to any confusion about who or what checkuser is, and there seems no need to make changes to it after all this time. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sync with User:Checkuser - This should redirect to the talk page of the page that User:Checkuser redirects to (e.g. if User:Checkuser redirects to User:X, User talk:Checkuser should redirect to User talk:X). If User:Checkuser shouldn't redirect anywhere, then I'd say either convert this to a format similar to User:Checkuser, or redirect it to User:Checkuser. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:48, 21 April 2017 (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.

Best Answer[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) 23:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRIVIA. Lordtobi (✉) 10:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations merged – Train2104 (t • c) 15:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, these are terms specific to Yahoo Answers, but given how generic they are, it could easily be seen as promotion. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These are very ambiguous terms that have a number of plausible targets. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all A quick Google verifies that these are not exclusive terms to Yahoo! Answers, there are a whole bunch of unrelated usages as well. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:40, 21 April 2017 (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.

American Airlines System[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) 23:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:R#DELETE 5 nonsense, I could not find uses of this exact phrase (with the "System") capitalized, all of the uses I could find were with a lowercase "system" (i.e. Starting July 17, all reservations made for US Airways flights will be gradually transferred to the American Airlines system.. But let's face it, this is not a plausible search term regardless of whether one word is capitalized. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. Does anyone ever do WP:BEFORE work any more? It took all of five seconds for me to find that this was the historic name for the combined American Airlines (domestic) and American Overseas Airlines/American Export Airlines before they were merged into a single operating unit. ([1], [2], [3], [4], all from the first page of results.) ‑ Iridescent 21:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Iridescent. The content should be added somewhere in the article though. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Iridescent. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2017 (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.

Aavacations.com[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 24#Aavacations.com

United Kingdom/Basic Topics[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. – Train2104 (t • c) 06:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we archive such things by moving them to a talk subpage? That's what I recall. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; it's an ancient redirect, and we don't delete them without solid reason. Archiving via movement to a talk subpage would be insufficient, since the title itself is a part of the history. Nyttend (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nyttend. One of the reasons we keep very old redirects like these is that they are likely to have attracted links from external websites and be embedded in hardcopy documents, etc. archiving would break these links, defeating the point of keeping them. Thryduulf (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2017 (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 ISO 639-3 language codes reserved for local use[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'. Thryduulf (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected cross-namespace redirect. – Train2104 (t • c) 06:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Train2104 can you expand on your rationale? I agree it is WP:XNR but it's quite common to redirect from mainspace to a WikiProject, as this does. It has had fifty hits in thirty days, which suggests someone finds it useful. Si Trew (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a title that obviously suggests a cross-namespace redirect, and the target page looks like an article. It was not until I read the move discussion on the talk page did I begin to understand why it's in project space. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when you say it is "unexpected", where would you personally as a reader expect it to turn up? I agree it is not how ISO spells it, but that is not the point, I don!'t write Systeme Internationale du Pays Francophones and whatnot. why do you think it is WP:RFD#D2 confusing? Inaccurate, certainly, but not confusing. Were it to redirect to First Men In The Moon, that would be confusing. Si Trew (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nathu La and Cho La incidentsIf deleted, there should probably be a link from the ISO article. — kwami (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I redlinked them here at the discussion and said as so. I do do my homework. Cho La is blue, La Incidentia is red. Si Trew (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC: #7 at WP:XNR "If they're acceptable, then Wikipedia requires no policy on cross-namespace redirects. Simplifying policy improves odds that newbies and policy non-wonks understand/follow policy." Which is to say, do anthing you like. They're acceptable by WP:ARTICLETITLE sp I guess thery are acceptable. Nonsense, but acceptable. That thing doesn't link to WP:NEWBIES, as a policy wonk, so I have no idea who a newbie might find that it might not apply to newbies. Si Trew (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. From what I gather, it was moved out of article space because "the contents of this article are not encyclopedic". If it's not encyclopedic, there shouldn't be a redirect from the encyclopedia space. -- Tavix (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2017 (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.

Kricji[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) 00:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was incorrectly tagged for deletion but ....This is actually an Esperanto neologism referring to the pseudonym of a man named Christopher who left the Esperanto movement, used to attack people like him. Not a useful or valid redirect Peter Rehse (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2017 (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.

Meaning of the word "is" is[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. There's clear consensus to keep these redirects this time around. Full disclosure: I !voted delete last time, but I no longer hold that opinion 8! years later. -- Tavix (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I am listing these two redirects for discussion after Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 April 4#Meaning of the word "is" is was closed as "no consensus". The closing admin gave me permission to create the redirects and list them for discussion here. Cunard (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both per Patar knight (talk · contribs)'s strong argument for retention at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 April 4#Meaning of the word "is" is:

    The "is" quote from the Lewinsky scandal is possibly the most famous quotation to come out of that. The first is a direct snippet from that quote, and the second is a common misquotation of that snippet. Anyone who actually wants to know what the definition of "is" is, would search for "is", not this phrase. With that in mind, the search results for this are pretty useless. The first only gets to the Lewinsky page as the 4th result, while the second only gets to Lewinsky on the second page.

    Cunard (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 April 4#Meaning of the word "is" is participants: George Ho (talk · contribs), SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), Stifle (talk · contribs), DGG (talk · contribs), Hut 8.5 (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), Aervanath (talk · contribs), Patar knight (talk · contribs), and RoySmith (talk · contribs). Pinging original creator Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is no reason to have such redirects. If they are notable quotes the should be mentioned in an article and search engines should find them. That said, they are cheap and harmless. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a famous quotation this is a realistic search term and the target is what searchers should be sent to. Contrary to what's said above the Wikipedia search engine does not perform well with this term, with Lewinsky results very low down - as pointed out above one term has Lewinsky as the fourth result and the other doesn't get to Lewinsky until low down the second page, even with the benefit of these redirects. (Google by contrast returns overwhelmingly Clinton-related results.) Hut 8.5 10:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As someone who was an American child during this time, without reading about it I remember little about the scandal other than the basic facts and the "meaning" misquotation of this phrase; I expect that lots of other people are in the same boat. I know that we have redirects from quotes, so if I remembered the phrase (whether the actual phrase or "meaning") but didn't remember the context, I might well look for it here. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had no idea you were so young. To older people, this is gossip column trivia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I remember a few things from the Bush I era, but they're just family things; my earliest memory associated with the broader world is a TV scene with the announcer looking at an illuminated White House and saying something like "this is Bill Clinton's first night in the White House". Nyttend (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. Sort of in order
  1. Why are we wasting this much time on such a trivial matter?
  2. Delete, because it's inconceivable somebody would type this into a search box.
  3. Redirects are cheap, so who cares if they get recreated.
  4. Remind me why we're spending time on this?

-- RoySmith (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep plausible variations of the phrase that aid in search engines finding the correct wording of the quote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both Plausible search term, probably the most well-known phrase from that incident. Definitely conceivable that someone would search for it. Smartyllama (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both they're certainly viable search terms, particularly "meaning" (since it was from the actual quote "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is"). The only phrase that could possibly be more notorious from the scandal was "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky". Just as famously part of the scandal as "No; I am your father" (and its common misquotation "Luke, I am your father") is from The Empire Strikes Back. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... - I'm amazed by a nice pace of change in the consensus, contrary to how the discussion went years ago. I can't vote, i.e. I'll abstain, because I have been working on the RfD archives looking for deleted redirects that were worth of any value. In fact, I initially considered re-creating the pages as redirects to Copula (linguistics), but never have I considered them references to the Lewinsky/Clinton media circus. Well... I'll accept the outcome of this discussion and let it be. --George Ho (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both Famous. Likelyto be famous for quite some time, an therefore encyclopedic. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both Plausible search terms, and the original quote is given in the article. Sideways713 (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh per RoySmith. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2017 (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.

😘[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 23#😘

Google regional domains[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 List of Google domains. -- Tavix (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are all regional domains of Google and the redirects are not required, proposing deletion per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is already a List of Google domains. Nota bene similar discussions have taken place here and here. RoCo(talk) 01:52, 14 April 2017 (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.

QWERTYUIOPASDFGHJKLZXCVBNM[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. The arguments that this is a useful redirect outnumber arguments in favor of deletion. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Implausible redirect to QWERTY. We're an encyclopedia, not a collection of random redirects. RoCo(talk) 01:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep --176.16.123.95 (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely inplausible and no backlinks in mainspace. —Frosty ☃ 08:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely anybody keying in the subject would actually be looking for QWERTY. MilborneOne (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On a QWERTY keyboard, this is the whole alphabet in the same manner, just extended down: left to right in top row of keys (QWERTYUIOP), middle row of keys (ASDFGHJKL), and bottom row of keys (ZXCVBNM). It's not at all implausible, not at all random. Nyttend (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I added Qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm to the nomination. Also, why would a person want to type the whole 26 characters for a tangible reason, other than to just check if such an article exists. The redirects hold no encyclopedic value as far as I can tell. RoCo(talk) 11:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. not random, just rest of keyboard. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's the alphabet. It may not be encyclopedic, but the fact that it does get pageviews shows that people are using it...even if it's being used for humorous purposes. As far as I can tell, the redirects not causing any harm, either. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirects like these seem more like gimmicks than anything. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both of these are entirely harmless, and the lowercase version in particular is seeing plenty of use. It got 300 page views/month from January to March, which is a lot for a redirect; and it used to be even more popular. Sideways713 (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when is the stats thing case-sensitive? I almost left a note saying "The counter isn't case sensitive", but now I see that QWERTYUIOPASDFGHJKLZXCVBNM got 46 hits in those 90 days, while Qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm got 914. But yes, non-capitalized got at least one hit every day (and 4 or more hits on 85 of the 90 days), so that's clearly getting a lot of use for something that's related without being exactly an alternate name, and 46 hits in 90 days is reasonable as well. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really know, but I'm pretty sure the old stats tool was never case-sensitive, and the new tool gives case-sensitive stats going back to July 2015 (which is as far back as its database goes); so I'd guess case-sensitivity is a new tool thing and has been part of the new tool from the beginning. Sideways713 (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2017 (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/2017_April_14&oldid=1088108189"