Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 7, 2017.

Ancient jerusalem[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – Train2104 (t • c) 22:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that a correctly capitalized version of the same Redirect title exists, let's delete this one with lower case "jerusalem" (the proper name of a city). The Search Bar is typically non-case-sensitive, so we don't need the incorrect version for that purpose, either. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom to allow a search of "Ancient jerusalem" to get to the user's intended target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can have that, User:Shhhnotsoloud. What would you think would be the user's intended target, or are you just guessing? I agree it is ridiculous to keep them when the search engine has got a bit better over the years, but WP:RCAPS still stands. It doesn't say just to avoid them but other things in MoS say actively to create them. Ancient Jerusalem is to same target. You're a bit hoist with your own petard to say to allow a search for "Ancient jerusalem" when that is exactly the capitalisation of this redirect. What target would you think they intended? Old Jerusalem Old City (Jerusalem)? Si Trew (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: Simply deleting this won't magically change the search results, it will send people by way of Ancient Jerusalem without question. Only by deleting both will someone get a "did you mean" page. Si Trew (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer if perhaps Ancient Jerusalem was listed here too, but I ain't the nom so hesitate to do so. Si Trew (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't listed because I'm in favor of the correctly capitalized Redirect. The point here is the lower case "jerusalem," not the search terms themselves. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that Aj should go to the same place as AJ which it would if the Aj redirect didn't exist. I was assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the redirect of AJ to History of Jerusalem was valid (since it's not up for discussion). Keep per user:EurekaLott below is an equally acceptable result but needs maintenance if the target of AJ moves. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right! I hadn't thought of that. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 20:11, 12 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.

Samurai Gourmet[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) 17:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on an article by Anime News Network,http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2017-02-02/samurai-gourmet-netflix-series-trailer-introduces-protagonist/.111758 this is not an alternative name for the target article, but an entirely different television series based on another manga called Manga-han Nobushi no Gourmet by Shigeru Tsuchiyama. The only connect these two have are a similar premise and the staff of the live-action adaptation of Kodoku no Gormet have moved on to Samurai Gourmet. —Farix (t | c) 22:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is problematic if true, but the connection I found between Kodoku no Gourmet and Samurai Gourmet is that both are created by Masayuki Kusumi [1]. The other interesting find is that I'm finding Kodoku no Gourmet referenced as Kodoku no Gurume as well, and both list Masayuki Kusumi as a creator [2].
Since both Kodoku no Gourmet and Samurai Gourmet have the same premise, and are created by the same person[3], I would say that Samurai Gourmet is a Netflix adaptation of Kodoku no Gourmet'.
Zorantb (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They're not the same show. Kodoku no Gourmet is a live-action show with six seasons. Nobushi no Gourmet is another manga by Kusumi and is in its third season. ANN article: "Tsuchiyama began the manga based on Kusumi's "Nobushi no Gourmet" essays in 2013 in the Gentosha Plus online magazine. The manga is ongoing and is in its third season. The story follows a 60-year-old retired salaryman who enjoys eating and drinking at restaurants by himself. He rejects the idea of living in excess now that he has free time and money to spare, and instead wants to live the simple and rustic life of a samurai eating food he likes as much as he wants." There's also a third live-action adaptation of Kusumi's work called Kinban Gourmet Bushimeshi! . AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1821575/
  2. ^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2146543/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm
  3. ^ https://shuffleonline.net/2017/01/11/samurai-gourmet-manga-adapted-to-live-action-netflix-series/
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. Redlinks encourage the creation of articles, and there seems to be a desire for one here. If they're different shows, and the target article doesn't discuss the other show, a redirect doesn't make sense here. -- Tavix (talk) 19:17, 19 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.

Major achievements in soccer by nation[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) 23:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very vague. You might think we have an article that fits this description—maybe we do, but I wasn't able to find it. --BDD (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have done so. that, by the way, redirects to WP:FOOTBALL. So the boot is on the other foot ahem ahem. Si Trew (talk) 20:05, 10 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.

Metric football[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete both. Moving redirects is silly IMO; if someone wants to create a redirect at Dive Ball or wherever they can go ahead and do so. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure joke synonyms. Compare to Divegrass (RfD), or deleted redirects to American football American fatball (RfD) and American egg throwing (RfD). Good for a laugh in an internet discussion, but not terms we can really discuss in an encyclopedic context. --BDD (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well some people are taking WP:BOLD while a discussion is open. Si Trew (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "metric football" as obscure joke at best and Retarget "dive ball" to Gameplay of Pokémon. Google search seems to point out that it is mostly pokemon related --Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case it helps a close, I don't oppose any sort of change of "Diveball" related to Pokémon, whether it's retargeting or renaming or what have you. --BDD (talk) 17:09, 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.

Sinsinwar[edit]

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

Carboniferous Peirod[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) 17:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely misspelling of "period". This redirect was created so recently that it wasn't patrolled until I tagged it for RFD. Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unlikely typo, especially If someone's going to take the time to spell carboniferous correctly. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. Plausible, especially if the word was misspelled because of a typing mistake instead of the searcher just not knowing how it is spelled. --Mr. Guye (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:RFD#K2 keep, does no harm. since eioui are all together at the top of the keyboard, I think this is a likely misspelling, even though I am a pedant, I should keep this one. Gets people to where they are likely to want to go. One letter off on a long spelling, they're not looking for deoxyribonucleic acid. Si Trew (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirects for typoes make sense for the few very frequently mistyped combinations. – Uanfala (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And you have never known seven year olds to play with dinosaurs? They play with tablet computers now... still I was offered a game of darts from a seven year old the other day. I wonder whether we have kiddy fiddling, but it is strange to be a man, in this day and age. Anything one does is wrong. Si Trew (talk) 09:13, 19 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.

My Free Sport[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) 15:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"My Free Sport" is not mentioned at any of the articles listed at this disambiguation. Accordingly, I have no idea which article(s) this should be referring to. -- Tavix (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable brand [5] and the company that owns the trademark isn't notable for EN Wikipedia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' to check I typed in the Wiki search bar "MyFreeSport" and the first search result was to Sunday Sport (a weekend tits-and-gossip publication by David Sullivan, your honour, or your worship, whichever is the case). That was my first search result, so I would imagine that this is not notable. I checked it because it may have been that competing against The Sun (British newspaper) Sullivan actually gave it away for free; even Orwell had opinions on giving away newspapers for free (i.e. more or less he wouldn't get paid., in "A Penny Newspaper" in As I Please vol. 1, I think, bur as usual I am going from memory. Nothing attested to this phrase and patently the search engine does it better. Si Trew (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a lttle wrong, it was "A farthing newspaper" ([[6]]). The search links back to here at WP are not so good. Si Trew (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC) And I should disambiguate that, as the DAB does, "David Sullivan (businessman), British pornographic magazine publisher and football club owner". I should be WP:RNEUTRAL after all. Si Trew (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One cannot hope to bribe or twist
(Thank God!) The British Journalist
But seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there's no occasion to.
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.

Kemono[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 30#Kemono

Mueeslix[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Procedural close: target has been deleted. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) WP:MADEUP. Museelix is not a Kellogg's brand. Si Trew (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shhhnotsoloud:, pizzicato, I checked the history and Eubot made it and I listed it here (shhh, don't tell anyone else). I didn't WP:PROD it and nobody else did, and I wasn't there when it didn't happen. Si Trew (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh, you prodded the target. The fun ensues. We're all Agile programming around here, can't wait seven days. Si Trew (talk) 20:38, 10 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.

Ummendorf (Boerde)[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) 15:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) It is not in Boerde, but in Saxony-Anhalt. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 16:59, 7 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.

Huerguina[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 Withdrawn by nom while unopposed. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) not Germanic but Spanish Si Trew (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn', I missed. There's another with the u turned to ue. I missed. Si Trew (talk) 16:57, 7 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.

Moberly, MO mSA[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, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) Listing only because I can't remember the consensus on these mSA or MSA redirects when they have the state in them. Si Trew (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I asked and nobody told me where those were until you did. I remember having the discussion, but not which way it went. If you see some of my other listings for eubot creations, you will see that is why I don#'t just slap a keep on it. All very well saying wait, and do some research. I asked for the research here and waited for it. We don't always delete them. That is why I listed it here. There have I think been discussion about Minneapolis, mSA and many others. Now it can be deleted, then? The general guiding light is that "mSA" is fine as a {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} unless there is confusion with another article, or have I got that wrong? Si Trew (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We delete these mSA redirects because A.) they're invented—there's no evidence of the term being used anywhere outside of Wikipedia; and B.) they're ambiguous—from looking at the name, there's no way of knowing if it refers to a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or micropolitan statistical area (μSA). - Eureka Lott 04:42, 11 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.

History of the United States (1991–present)[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. Retargeting to History of the United States not because there was consensus for that specific outcome, but simply because no one supported the status quo. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY, there is no reason to prefer the present target over History of the United States (2008–present). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Year as of this post = 2017

Nope, it's 2017. Get rid of it.--Mr. Guye (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, is it? I know you piped graduated to High School diploma but that is not what a graduate is in the UK, it means someone who has a university degree. I am not questioning your certificate, only it was confusing to pipe that. There was no need to do so. Si Trew (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
tHAT'S A bit weird, we don't have High School diploma. hmmm.... obviously High school diploma... Obviously we could create it... odd it hasn't been already (I don't mean today, I mean ever.) Si Trew (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm what I mean is it is not a diploma from High School and is not spelled that way anyway, but I don't think we should add to the burden at RfD with unnecessary creations. Ignore. Si Trew (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Si Trew: There are various levels of Graduations, the lowest of which is for a High School Diploma, and then ascending to University degrees (Associate's, Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctorate). The verb "graduate" just means to complete any degree, whichever the level. The noun "graduate" is anyone walking at a Commencement ceremony, whichever level it is. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:19, 20 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.

Brock Allen[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) 15:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a WP:PTM as Brock Turner isn't known by his first + middle name. Therefore, someone searching using this term isn't going to be looking for the target. It's also the first + middle name for Brock Stewart and Allen is a popular surname, so several other people with varying degrees of notability have the name. -- Tavix (talk) 14:16, 7 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.

Annual World Environment Review[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) 15:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to have been some sort of one-off thing back in 2007. It is used as a reference in the US article but it's not limited to the US; I've seen at least some Australian pages which reference it. It's either a case for WP:REDLINK or outright deletion. Mangoe (talk) 13:48, 7 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.

The old queen[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) 15:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created this redirect a week ago, after listening to the Pet Shop Boys song "Dreaming of the Queen" (see here). Around two minutes in, Tennant sings about being "in the nude", presumably in the presence of the British royal family, and dryly acknowledges that the "the old Queen disapproved". I immediately thought of the Queen Mum, so I created the redirect to go there. However, having listened to the song several times since, he may still have been referring to the Queen as in Elizabeth II. Not sure whether we should keep this. --Nevé–selbert 09:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Victoria was pretty old (81) too, and Elizabeth II is 90. Not as old as 101, but still vague and could refer to any of the above. This could also refer to other countries' queens. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It is an ambiguous term. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete, but there is a good spoonerism that a toast to the "Dear Old Queen" was said by Spooner as the "Queer Old Dean". That may be apocryphal, but I think it is one that Spooner did actually say, so there's an offchance it could go there, yet it is not at that target: most Spoonerisms were made up after his death, and this is probably one of them. Si Trew (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment when we have the proclamation, "The King is dead. Long live the King!" I am not sure really. I think probably a delete because it was never pronounced "The Queen is Dead! Long live the Queen". 22:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)
  • delete As Revd. Spooner is not a reliable authority. Definitely not. No, actually delete this because old queens may not be a dime a dozen, but certainly they are too plentiful to pick one. Mangoe (talk) 13:48, 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.

Roxton, texas[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) 15:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currently Roxton, texas is a blue link while Blossom, texas is red. Is it better to create Blossom, texas or to delete Roxton, texas, or not do anything?

My belief is that Roxton, texas is of benefit to very, very few people and this benefit is outweighed by the clutter and violation of the MOS it causes to occur in the form of the message (Redirected from Roxton, texas) Siuenti (씨유엔티) 09:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Siuenti (씨유엔티) 09:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

procedural comments
  • The point is to have a discussion on these things, so maybe we can get a guideline such as "keep old ones but don't make any more" Siuenti (씨유엔티) 17:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, please don't make edits when you feel they create clutter and violate the MOS just so you can start discussions like this. That's disruptive. - Eureka Lott 17:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No it can be discussed here at redirects for disussion. I checked your talk page, and there is nothing on there about it. Si Trew (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean if you want to give me a hard time about creating a redirect please do that on my talk page not here.
more procedural comments
  • Close this thread. Any uninvoled Admin, please close this thread. The Redirect was already deleted as a G7. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, it shouldn't have been speedied. Speedy deletion is intended for uncontroversial cases, and since there was already a keep !vote here, there was clearly disagreement about the best course of action. - Eureka Lott 04:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect - I agree with EurekaLott that speedy deletion should not happen when there is an active discussion in which disagreement is apparent. Fastily, please understand that a redirect debate is going along regarding Roxton, texas. I am aware the person who started it was the one who asked for a delete, but there are people in the discussion who feel the redirect should be kept. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- Tavix (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A miscapitalization of the sort is plausible. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Miscapitalizations like this are harmless. If created, these should generally be kept, but spending effort to create these redirects is a lot of busy work (even if it's just getting a bot to do this). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:51, 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.

United Kingdom/Basic Topics[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 14#United Kingdom/Basic Topics

List of ISO 639-3 language codes reserved for local use[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 14#List of ISO 639-3 language codes reserved for local use

Encyclopedias about Africa[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) 15:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odd cross-namespace redirect. – Train2104 (t • c) 06:07, 7 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.

HCSS (Album)[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) 15:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No more affinity for a capitalized disambiguation than any other disambiguated title; WP:COSTLY. The content moved to HCSS (album) originated here, present for less than a day. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Album with cap A is not useful to keep around. 09:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngusWOOF (talk • contribs)
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.

Bjoerk's sixth studio album[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) 15:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) Same rationale as below, I believe we have consensus that "Bjoerk" is not a good transliteration for "Björk", although it's not clear-cut. Si Trew (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Is it useful to have (artist)'s (ordinal) studio album redirects? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 09:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not an good transliteration of the word "Björk".--Snaevar (talk) 16:23, 7 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.

Wanderlust (Bjoerk 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. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(All eubot). Transliterations of "Bjork" to "Bjoerk" on which consensus seems to be that is not a good transliteration in English. Add that to the possessive case in the DAB part of the name, I think these make unlikely search terms, but a couple of them might be OKish. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, to start off. Si Trew (talk) 02:54, 7 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.

M. Kemal Atatuerk[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) 16:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) Fairly obvously Turkish, not Germanic.. but some of these form go delete, some stay. We have Kemal Atatuerk and that does seem to be used beyond WP, but this one with the particular "M. " I couldn't find from a basic gsearch being used beyond WP and mirrors (nor with "M" without the dot) Si Trew (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. An obscure given name abbreviation in itself might be fine, and so can a rarely used transliteration, but please not any combinations of these. – Uanfala (talk) 16:46, 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.

ThEYR[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) 16:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) The transliteration of "Th" for thorn "Þ" is obviously sensible, but when this is all caps, it isn't really sensible to put "Th" in mixed caps. We have THEYR to the same target. Si Trew (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete we also have Theyr so agreed we don't need the mixed cap stylization. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 09:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not see the need for mixed cap styles.--Snaevar (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlikely and bizarre combination of lowercase and uppercase. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:16, 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.

Eminoenue[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete as unopposed. -- Tavix (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) Not germanic but Turkish. Si Trew (talk) 02:30, 7 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.

Ville Poerhoelae[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete as unopposed. -- Tavix (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) Not Germanic umlaut but Finnish. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 02:06, 7 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.

Namik Kemal jokes[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) 16:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) Target mentions that they are named after Namik Kemal. With the extra (or lost) "K" here, this might be better redirected there than where it lies now, but not sure. Si Trew (talk) 02:04, 7 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.

Bjoerk (album)[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) 16:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) We had a previous discussion about another of her albums, which went delete, because nobody in English would write it "Bjoerk". I imagine this will be the same, I'll try to find previous. Si Trew (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_25#Greatest_Hits_.28Bjoerk_album.29, delete. Si Trew (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_7#Bjoerk, technically retarget per nom (me) after relisting, but actually we all did a lot of work to sort out name DABs and so forth. Si Trew (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, all album covers show Björk back in the 1990s. Bjoerk is not used in English music reviews. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 09:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not an good transliteration of the word "Björk".--Snaevar (talk) 16:28, 7 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.

Edigue[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 as evidence of use has been provided. -- Tavix (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) Lede starts "Edigu (or Edigey) (also İdegäy or Edege Mangit)". Does not say "Edigue". Si Trew (talk) 01:43, 7 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.

The work of the United States Government[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) 16:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vague search term. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm probably making this up, but what springs to mind is the president of General Motors saying "What is good for General Motors is good for the United States. And vice versa." in the Roosevelt era. I am probably totally way off there, but it kinda rings bells with "Let's get America working" and other slogans like that. Still, as you say, it would be rather vague. Delete. Si Trew (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That did remind me of Make America Great Again, yes like We, the citizens of America are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and restore its promise for all of our people., etc, etc. Typical stuff. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still, the Gettysburg PowerPoint Presentation is the best. Si Trew (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This isn't a list of works kind of search as with people, and even then it wouldn't be formatted as "The work of" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 09:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What sprung to mind was the text on {{PD-USGov}}, but something copyright related is not a likely target for this vague search term either. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're on to something though. Copyright status of work by the U.S. government defines in the very first sentence what "the work of the United States government" is (as defined by copyright law). Work of the United States Government redirects there too. Are there other non-copyright meanings where a retarget there might be confusing? -- Tavix (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're getting at, but that would be published works of the US Govenment, wouldn't it be? I don't think that is what is meant by this. I tried Work of the Federattion of the United States and so on, without any joy. 22:18, 7 April 2017 (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.

Numbuh $1.50-and-11/2[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. The same will go for Numbuh $1.50-and-1½ since all comments were about the character(?) itself and not just the formatting. -- Tavix (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) "Numbuh" One, Two Three and so on are well-attested and explained in the article, saying it is so spelled in this series. However, I think this particular one might be made up. numbuh is red, too. Si Trew (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is Numbuh $1.50-and-11/2, I think Twinkle got confused with the dollar sign or that $1 is a parameter or something, it replaced it with %. Will try to fix. Si Trew (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not a notable character to warrant a redirect like the first five numbuhs. Numbuh should redirect to this article and hatnote to number. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 09:23, 7 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.

080808[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) 15:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target Pppery 01:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Pppery and any other participants: This likely refers to "8 August 2008", which IS mentioned in the article. Whether that means that this redirect should be kept is a different matter. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dates should not be written without separators of any sort, as doing so causes confusion. Pppery 01:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • In an article you are completely correct, however that does not mean that other forms of writing the date cannot be useful search terms. I have no opinion about this one, but don't dismiss it out of hand. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unclear date without separator. If there were precedent for disambiguating year-month-day combinations, this would definitely be a candidate for that. (The first thing that comes to mind when I think August 8 2008 is the 2008 Summer Olympics opening ceremony, whose date was deliberately chosen) – Train2104 (t • c) 03:14, 1 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) 01:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It also tends to be used by telephony providers for their service lines. Back in the days of rotary telephones that would be a sodding awful number to choose, but not only is it common but advertised, as if the MFTB tones come through on your telly. Si Trew (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I initally wrote here rotary dialling, which is red, as is US sp. rotary dialing. I changed ot to rotary telephone, but I think we perhaps should have R's to there. The target is {{R from verb}} rotary dial. I'm supposed to be the one deleting redirects, not creating them.... Si Trew (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which country uses 080808 as a service number? Most have 0 going immediately to operator? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:22, 7 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.

Dubya[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 nicknames of Presidents of the United States#George W. Bush. -- Tavix (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This term is not mentioned at the target beyond the infobox and titles in references. The term is not explained, its etymology and so on.

This is a disparaging term to a living person that fails WP:BLP. There is no mention in the target of why this name was applied to this person, and it implies that the former President and Governor of the State of Texas had some kind of dookickey accent. It should be deleted if we don't have good WP:RS to this term. In the alternate, the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:SimonTrew_posting_BLP_violations_at_RfD should be immediately dismissed, which accuses me of a BLP violation against "Dubya" (not against George W. Bush or the Governor of Texas, what my alleged BLP is about "Dubya", but from Wikipedia I have no idea who that is, because the target certainly doesn't tell me how that nickname came about). We could regarget top W, if we're being pedantic. Si Trew (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close Clearly a bad faith nomination, related to a discussion active at ANI, simply a waste of time and not funny. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, actually. I went to the target expecting to find why George W. Bush is called "Dubya", and found absolutely no information on it. I believe, without checking, that it was a disparagement of his accent, that he was seen as rather a cowboy hick who pronounced "W" as "dubya", and that was labelled by a New York journalist as a bit of a joke remark and stuck. However, the article doesn't tell me whether I am right or wrong on that, because it says nothing about how he acquired his nickname. So, we have a nickname some may see as disparaging to an article that doesn't explain why he got that nickname. We don't say anything about it beyond it being listed in the infobox, there is nothing in the running text that says how he got that nickname. That's clearly a WP:BLP violation, then, if you assume that "Dubya" is or was meant to be disparaging. Si Trew (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned at List of nicknames of Presidents of the United States, as well as a couple of sources on List of nicknames used by George W. Bush. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we all know that it is a common nickname of George W. Bush. The fact is, the article doesn't say so. I should be happy to read quite how he acquired that nickname, because the various accounts i have heard, hearsay, are that he got it at school, a journalist labelled him with it and it stuck, that he called it him himself because he couldn't pronounce "W", that his parents called him that for the same reason as baby-talk, and so on and so on. I think we should have some information on it, really. I saw those refernces, and the list says "based on the supposed pronunciation of W in Texas", but that is hardly good enough, and is not at the article (and also not in the refernce quoted). We shouldn't send people round the houses to look up lists of nicknames of presidents of the United States. It should be in the article. It isn't, therefore it is unattested, and is a BLP. Each article has to stand on its own feet, you can't say "oh it is mentioned in some other place somewhere, that's good enough". Si Trew (talk) 01:28, 7 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.

Wikipedia:DUTY[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 Wikipedia:Duty. -- Tavix (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retargeting to Wikipedia:Duty, there are presently only four incoming links to this redirect to an obscure essay. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per the Champ. Seems to be the more plausible target --Lenticel (talk) 00:46, 7 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.

3.1415926535898[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) 17:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Violates long-standing consensus-fortified and reinforced precedent: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_5#3.14159265358979323846264338327950288, [9],Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_10#3.1415926535897932384626433515_.E2.86.92_Pi and other consensus. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all as accurate and harmless. Given that people keep creating these they obviously find them to be of some use, and we can either leave them as they are not hurting anything or discuss them time and again without achieving any benefit to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I second, I created 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128481117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381964, which got listed, but that title is too big. This is more reasonable than before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UpsandDowns1234 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Pi#Approximate value would be better for the calculator question. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all — Wikipedia derives no benefit from deleting these.  allixpeeke (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all – Wikipedia derives no benefit from keeping these, and some are truncated, rather than rounded, so are technically wrong. Furthermore, they are long enough to be unlikely to be properly typed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:29, 4 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) 00:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. As it happens I know Pi to ten decimal places, but that's just a party trick: in real life, five or six at most is enough, because if you are actually doing anything in engineering with polar geometry then any other kind of errors and estimations dwarf the precision after a few digits. It is not totally stupid to take Pi = 4 for many purposes, because it makes it lovely in fixed-point binary representation so that the top two bits of a number tell you what quadrant of a circle you are in, and that is good enough for many application purposes. Listing it, as titles, to this degree of precision/accuracy is just ridiculous. We also have 2.7182818 -> e (mathematical constant) but I don't know how many other weird ones we have down that route. (I take User:Arthur Rubin's point about cutoff, but I think that is the least of our worries). Si Trew (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salt if they are deleted there is no point having more discussions about them for the next 314 years. If they are kept urge people not to revisit the issue for the next 314 years. Per WP:TALKEDABOUTIT and negligible cost/value. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the previous discussions. I can't imagine anyone trying to use more than 8-10 digits of pi to legitimately be looking for the article on Pi. Anything above that is just silly. I believe this to be the work of a couple rather bored editors who need something better to do. -- Tavix (talk) 19:13, 19 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.

Baruch Obama[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. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very obscure spelling error, averages close to 0 hits per day JZCL 14:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Close to zero is not zero. If it helps a few readers a year, especially those for whom English is not their first language and "Baruch" is the more familiar spelling, it's worth keeping. Jonathunder (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but just typing Obama would also get them to the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's an assumption on the users of English Wikipedia.  ;) But it's fine, even attempting to type in "Baruch" will give an option for Barack Obama in the search box, unless Wikipedia has been tailoring to my recent searches? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 125 hits last year is far from unused. How many people use it on any given day is irrelevant, it matters only that it is used at all. Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wyatt Cenac. The name "Baruch Obama" comes from one of Cenac's 2008 Daily Show reports. The report, titled "Baruch Obama," investigates opinions of elderly Jewish Floridians on then-nominee Barack Obama. I edited Cenac's article to include a brief mention of this report. I think redirecting readers to that article will provide more useful context regarding this term. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not a good target. Baruch and Barach are alternate spellings of the same name, meaning "blessed" in Semetic languages. Jonathunder (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathunder, I understand that (I speak Hebrew, btw), but WP:SMALLDETAILS matter and I think readers who search for this specific phrase will be better served if they are sent to an article that has info about the Comedy Central piece. At least for me, when I put "Baruch Obama" into google, the first search result is the Comedy Central video. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:33, 3 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) 00:24, 7 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.

Aasbuettel[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) 16:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) nothing wrong with this as such, but I'm listing it because of the discussion we are having about Buettel and so on. Si Trew (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. If there's nothing wrong with this, there's no reason to list it here. Stop wasting our time. -- Tavix (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tavix: The nominator is currently involved at a discussion at ANI. Might be worth mentioning this. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tavix: The ANI discussion was raised by User:Champion about my joke in reply to yours about "gov.texas.gov" which you "found humorous". I think you are involved in it, too. I ain't wasting your time, I keep loads of these, it is the ones I am in doubt of that I list. Personally I would delete the whole damned lot of anything Eubot ever created, but that is not the consensus. So it ain't me wasting your time, it is Eubot. Si Trew (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are the one that nominated a redirect that has "nothing wrong". Don't do that, it's a waste of time for everyone involved. -- Tavix (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I listed it purely to tie it to the other discussion. I should have linked to that other discussion, grant you that. But I am in a bind when we don't have any kind of WP:X1 consensus for mass deleting these, so I must take them to RfD if I feel there is any doubt about them. If you look above, the fact that two "Bjork" (but not "Bjoerk") albums got deleted, but "Bjoerk" itself is OK, does not make these thing very clear-cut: that is why I ask for consensus here. You had your opinion when saying we don't need an WP:X1, and generally I agree, but then you can't complain when RfD gets full up with Eubot redirects. As I have said many a time, about 90% I keep without question (I also tend to rcat them to a more relevant redirect category), silently, without reward or promise. Necessarily, the ones I don't are going to be ones to complain about. I really don't see that listing a redirect created by Eubot that is the same stem word as another for which there are different opinions, is at all a "waste of time for everyone involved", let alone any other editor (Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit) who may wish to get involved. The discussion there has four for keeps, one comment, and one suggesting a disambiguation, so it is by no means settled. Si Trew (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You listed the other redirects because of a concern for confusion with Frederick H. Buttel. That's a valid concern, but it doesn't apply to this redirect at all. Unless there's a Frederick H. Aasbuettel I don't know about? -- Tavix (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Si Trew is wasting our time. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not every keyboard has diacritics. Of course the Target Article isn't even a stub. It's a 1-sentence wonder, but that is a separate issue. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 19:16, 10 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_7&oldid=1088107966"