Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 17, 2017.

Draft:Template:Stub-shark[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 speedy delete. This falls under G7 as the only history at both the redirect and the target is from the nominator. -- Tavix (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shark stub and Dogfish it's not similar Builder8360 (talk) 17:31, 17 August 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.

Hockey at the 2016 Olympics[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 Field hockey at the 2016 Summer Olympics. (non-admin closure) feminist 04:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Makes more sense to redirect to Field hockey at the 2016 Summer Olympics as that is a more well-known competition by far and "hockey" can mean either ice hockey or field hockey depending on the part of the world. Page was previously targeted there but was retargeted by Sportsfan 1234 recently. Starting this discussion here rather than edit war. Smartyllama (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am the one who originally created the page, and directed it to the hockey at the Winter Youth Olympics page. However, that doesn't matter and in fact I thought I had created a disambig. page which seems to have not worked. I was aiming for the same thing as in 2012. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to a disambiguation page. I see now you did create the page originally, then it was retargeted last year, and you retargeted it back this week. Thanks for clarifying. Smartyllama (talk) 17:16, 17 August 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.

Liberal bias[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) feminist 04:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

The redirect should target Liberalism#Criticism and support or be deleted due that "Liberal bias" is refering to bias in general not only in the media, example is in Liberal bias in academia that is used as in general and doesn't have nothing to do with the media. Rupert Loup (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Think that converting it to a disambiguation page is a good idea. I support it.
  • Keep. I agree with the consensus of the previous discussion about this redirect. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notecardforfree so what we should do with the link in Liberal bias in academia or any link that is refering to liberal bias in general? Rupert Loup (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rupert loup, I based my vote upon the argument that the target for "liberal bias" should match the target for progressive bias and conservative bias. We can always add a hatnote at the top of the media bias article to let readers know about the liberal bias in academia article. My opinion would be different if we had a wide range of articles that began with "liberal bias in ...", but as far as I can tell, the only other article/redirect of this kind is liberal bias in Wikipedia, and that isn't even a standalone article. Also, as far as I can tell, we don't have a generalized article about political biases (though the bias article covers a broad range of topics). If we did have a generalized article about political bias, then that could be a good target too. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the consensus in the previous discussion. I wouldn't object to a discussion about all the bias redirects being considered for together but I do think they should all point to the same target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 24 August 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.

Draft:Magnolia changhungtana[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) 19:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft redirect should not exist Builder8360 (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep: WP:RDRAFT says it all. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 15:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After see that I wonder how another article don't have marks of draft redirect by moving Builder8360 (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The author of the draft is requesting deletion, surely that'd fall under the spirit of G7. -- Tavix (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One of the main reasons I object to the routine deletion of draft → main redirects is that they obscure the location of the article from those who worked on the draft but in this case the person requesting deletion is the only author of the draft and the only significant contributor to the article post-publishing so WP:G7 would apply were it not for KGirlTrucker81's keep !vote above. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 24 August 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 Recurring Characters on 6teen[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) 19:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word "recurring" is unclear and ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no such list of recurring characters. The page only lists the six main characters. Also uses caps on Recurring Characters which isn't the right format. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but not because "recurring" is either unclear or ambiguous (it isn't). Rather there is no list of recurring characters at the target or any other page I can find. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 24 August 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.

Minor characters of 6teen[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) 19:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The section is unclear on what is meant by "minor character". Steel1943 (talk) 04:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, as there is no such list of minor characters on that article, and minor ones shouldn't be listed anyway. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While "minor character" is sometimes ambiguous that is not the problem here. The issue is that there is no list of minor characters (by any definition) at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 24 August 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.

Redirects from non-main characters of 6teen[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) 19:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of these characters are mentioned or identified at 6teen#Characters or even 6teen. (Note: Starr (6teen) is a {{R with history}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I haven't seen any recent efforts to reconstruct a notable recurring characters list on the main article, so there's no value in keeping these redirects. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As these characters are not mentioned on the target article. While content from Starr (6teen) was noted to be merged after an AfD there is n content from it in the article presently (I have not looked to see if there ever was) so we do not need it for attribution purposes. However if content was merged it would be a good idea to note this deletion on the target talk page so that if the content is restored the history can be undeleted at that point. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 24 August 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.

6teen All Characters[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) 19:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The target does not contain all characters in 6teen, but rather just the main characters. Steel1943 (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a search format of "(show) All Characters" is not used on Wikipedia, and should not be encouraged as a feasible format. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. I disagree with AngusWOOF that we should always discourage search terms like this if we do have the relevant content, but I do not propose to encourage their creation either. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 24 August 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.

Characters of 12 oz. Mouse[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 25#Characters of 12 oz. Mouse

Blair–Brown 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. Ruslik_Zero 20:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bizarre redirect, Blair was irrefutably the dominant figure of his ministry for ten years. --Nevé–selbert 10:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I know nothing about British politics, but the fact that there's several incoming links (Blair-Brown government has 17 mainspace links!) shows that it's being used. -- Tavix (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have fixed those links as this redirect should not be used. It is strictly informal and refers more widely to the four Labour ministries between 1997 and 2010.--Nevé–selbert 21:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that makes sense. How about a retarget to New Labour then? -- Tavix (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess that would make sense. As long as it is tagged {{R unprintworthy}}.--Nevé–selbert 22:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am strongly opposed to a disambiguation as I don't think it's ambiguous, so in an effort to build consensus, I am amending my !vote to retarget or delete per Deryck. -- Tavix (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should this be retargeted to New Labour?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 12:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate then delete. This title is ambiguous: it could either refer to the 10 years when Blair was Prime Minister and Brown was Chancellor, or the entire 13 years when Blair and then Brown were Prime Ministers. I don't think there's enough reliable source use of this word to push us either way. New Labour is a faction of Labour that started before 1997 and continued beyond 2010 so I wouldn't say that's the obvious target either. I think we should fix this by changing the targets of incoming links to these titles. Deryck C. 11:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I fully concur with Deryck. Ambiguous and blocks the search function.--Nevé–selbert 09:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    information Note: I amend my !vote to delete or retarget to New Labour.--Nevé–selbert 16:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to DAB: Not at all bizarre -- see, for instance, GBooks. Given that it is ambiguous whether it includes or excludes Brown's period as PM, it would be better to have one of "Blair-Brown government" and "Blair/Brown government" as a 2-entry DAB page, and the other as a redirect to the DAB. Then any further use of it should be picked up as ambiguous by a bot. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 14:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Creating a disambiguation page would be a complete waste of time and space. Searching Blair Brown government using the search function ought to be completely satisfactory for most people. The first result is Blair–Brown deal, followed by Blair ministry and Brown ministry. A disambiguation page would be an utter embarrassment.--Nevé–selbert 21:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a term that should have a target rather than a permanent redlink because it:
  • has been used on numerous occasions in real-world RS;
  • has been used numerous times within WP.
  • is likely to be used in future edits.
  • is unlikely to ever require a full article (only a little more than a DICDEF)
  • requires contextual disambiguation (and so probably can't redirect to a full article)
It could be a redirect to a section of an article that details the ambiguity and provides links, though what article that would be is a puzzle. Or it could be DAB (and a deliberate TWODABs at that). Perhaps there are other options that serve both reader and editor? ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 05:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. As opposed to what? 587 results? I strongly favour deleting the redirect, but retargeting the term to New Labour is in my opinion the saner option than what you propose.
  2. Not any more. Those links have since been fixed.
  3. You cannot predict the future. "Blair government" (42,500 gbooks results) and "Brown government" (13,900 gbooks results) are links far more likely to be used in articles.
  4. That is a bit of a red herring. Nobody is arguing whether or not this is a {{redirect with possibilities}}.
  5. There is absolutely no need whatsoever for "contextual disambiguation". The search results offer just as much anyway.
The redirect is definitively unprintworthy. One should note that referring to Her Majesty's Government by the name of one of her ministers rather than the ruling political party has never been a formality in British parliamentary politics and is merely shorthand personality politics. Retargeting to New Labour is the only compromise I reckon there is.--Nevé–selbert 16:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. I'm convinced by Hydronium Hydroxide's arguments that this will be used again, given its history and continuing use in reliable sources. Such items are best not left to the unpredictable nature of the search engine, particularly when people will likely arrive here by following a link and thus most likely be invited to create an article rather than presented with search results. Thryduulf (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He has provided no evidence in stating that the term would be used again. For the record, I have fixed all incoming links.--Nevé–selbert 16:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that given the number of incoming links from articles that you have changed it is likely that (a) new links will continue to be made, and (b) that links from places other than the English Wikipedia will exist currently and will continue to be made in future. We should not make it more difficult than necessary for the people using those links to find the content they are looking for. Benefits to readers are significant, benefit to editors is possible (no need to check for and delete any recreations), and the cost to editors is minute (maintenance of one small disambiguation page that is unlikely to grow). Benefits to readers always count for significantly more than costs to editors anyway, so really there shouldn't be any significant support for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Deryck. I'm sure there are all sorts of situations where outside sources write about two concepts together, but that doesn't make a good case for a disambiguation page, especially one with just two entries. --BDD (talk) 19:41, 25 August 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.

Methamphetamine and sex[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 Party and play. (non-admin closure) feminist 04:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or stub, the target has no relevant info on methamphetamine and sex. Klaun (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 10:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Ruslik0. Yup, this seems obvious now. -- Tavix (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak refine per Angus. This section is what has remained from the more extensive previous content on metamphetamine and sex. This is the only article that discusses the topic at all. – Uanfala 16:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retarget as suggested by Ruslik below – how haven't we spotted this article... – Uanfala 21:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a reasonable search term and Methamphetamine#Sexually transmitted infection, as suggested above, most likely contains the type of information the searcher is looking for. Deli nk (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an ambiguous redirect title pointing to a partial topic match. I've been reliably informed by the developers of mw:Search at Wikimania last week that page views will soon be turned on as a metric for ranking search results, which strengthens the case for deleting these partial topic match redirects and letting search do its job. Deryck C. 11:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-target to Party_and_play (Chemsex already redirects there.) Ruslik_Zero 18:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:34, 17 August 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.

Desert Archaic Culture[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 speedy delete, X1. There's sort of no consensus here, but no one supports keeping as is. This option allows someone else to recreate the redirect, pointing wherever, without the Neelix baggage. --BDD (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not all North American archaic cultures are in the desert. However, this does seem to be a legitimate topic for an article. I suggest deleting, to create a red link and encourage article creation. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per X1 criteria. Another implausible redirect created by Neelix. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oiyarbepsy, can't Desert Archaic Culture be regarded as a subtopic of Archaic period (North America)? – Uanfala 12:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uanfala It certainly can be. However, that article doesn't specifically address desert cultures at all, only discussing cultures from much wetter parts of the continent. If the article was expanded to actually discuss the desert cultures, I'd have no problem keeping the redirect as is. However, as the article stands now, it's not a suitable target. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, the redirect is marginally useful: readers following it will find out that the Desert Archaic Culture is a kind of North American archaic culture. I think this utility is of the same magnitude as the benefit of redlink encouragement of article creation if this gets deleted. – Uanfala 10:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to Archaic Southwest which seems to cover the topic. Mangoe (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:10, 17 August 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.

Lists Bosnians and Herzegovinians[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. Ruslik_Zero 20:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlikely that a user would combine the plural with the omission of the "of". UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's standard search term shorthand, and yes, many people omit "of" in searches. The Transhumanist 08:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the spirit of WP:RTYPO, there are multiple errors here (plural "Lists", missing "of"). --BDD (talk) 19:34, 25 August 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.

1-900-MIXALOT[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. Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't normally redirect from lyrical phrases to the songs in which they are found. Especially when the phrase is not found in the target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This connection is quite notable, even if the phrase is not mentioned in the article. The connection is rather unambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add "R from quotation" or "R from phrase" (whichever one that would be the equivalent of R from lyrics) [1] [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:09, 17 August 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.

Alasdair Seton-Marsden[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 Charlie Gard case. (non-admin closure) feminist 04:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Target article not on this topic Whizz40 (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That;s where the link came from. It may be the only use. Whizz40 (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC) Propose to Delete. Whizz40 (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense but the article barley mentions him and, unless you understand the context of who he is, it's unlikely to serve that purpose for most readers. Whizz40 (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "the context of who he is"? I don't know anything about him except that he stood as a UKIP candidate and was involved in the Charlie Gard case. Roberttherambler (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, redirecting to Chelsea and Fulham (UK Parliament constituency) is confusing for a reader from around the world, that's all I'm saying. It would take them some time to work this out from the article, if at all. Whizz40 (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I did think of creating an article for Alasdair Seton-Marsden but I have so little information that I thought it would immediately be deleted as non-notable. Roberttherambler (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Charlie Gard case. Where there is information about him, unlike in the present target where he just gets a list entry. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 24 August 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.

Hinduism in Ascension Island[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) 19:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

You wouldn't learn anything about Hinduism at the target, but you would learn that there's no permanent residents on the Island. Any lasting impact of Hinduism is nil. -- Tavix (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already wrote a list a few months ago: List of places where Hinduism isn't noteworthy. -- Tavix (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it doesn't look like anyone on Ascension Island practices any religion ... Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 24 August 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.

Pone (honorific)[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) feminist 04:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect was created by Neelix also may qualify for WP:X1 for redirect created by Neelix. 38.96.9.224 (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Linked from Pone, and reflected in text of Lithuanian_name#Ponas/Ponia. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 09:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hydrondonium Hydroxide. Note that simply being created by Neelix is not a reason to delete a redirect, speedily or otherwise, as they created a great many useful redirects in addition to the useless ones. Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 24 August 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.

National Archives of Morocco[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 25#National Archives of Morocco

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_August_17&oldid=1088107885"