Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 2, 2017.

Democratic Elections- Some Prerequisites for Fairness[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) 23:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No such book title etc. A search only returns Wikipedia mirrors. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:56, 2 February 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.

Black hole FAQ[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) 23:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFAQ. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black hole FAQ
You do lack
A reason to retain
Black hole FAQ
You do lack
You do lack (You do lack)
(Delete, with apologies to Chris Cornell) - Eureka Lott 06:13, 4 February 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.

Apache (computer game)[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 Apache (video game). (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the target article (Team17) does not list a game titled "Apache". Either retarget or delete. Lordtobi (✉) 21:15, 2 February 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.

Loudest man-made sound on Earth[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. I'm performing an WP:INVOLVED close given the clear consensus and backlog. -- Tavix (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The target does nothing to verify if this is true or not. -- Tavix (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am very surprised that we don't have a List of loudest sounds article, particularly given a search on the Guiness Book of Records finds at least 30 different "loudest" records, although there is no single record really equivalent to this search therm. I'm equally surprise that none of the obviously related articles such as decibel or loudness give any examples of things of varying typical volumes. I recall seeing such comparison diagrams in books I had as a kid, so it's clearly something that people will be interested in and something we should probably have if it can be sourced. I'll leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Acoustics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional sound production as they're likely to have some relevant ideas. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I think this is the table you're looking for. ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed, now how to make that more easily found! Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment, while searching related to the redirect below I've found the following statements:
    • Mines on the first day of the Somme - the sound of the blast was considered the loudest man-made noise in history.
      • Lochnagar mine - "The sound of the blast was considered the loudest man-made noise in history up to that point, with reports suggesting it was heard in London. They would be surpassed a year later by the mines in the Battle of Messines."
    • Mines in the Battle of Messines (1917) "The sound of the blast was considered the loudest man-made noise in history
    • Pickett's Charge - "It may well have been the loudest man-made sound on the North American continent until the detonation of the first atomic bomb at Alamogordo, New Mexico." [appears only in a footnote as a quote from a source used to reference a different claim]
    • Rocket engine test facility - "The sound pressure level of large rocket engines has been measured at greater than 200 decibels — one of the loudest man-made sounds on earth." [unsourced]
    • Cwm y Glo - "The explosion was at the time believed to be the loudest manmade explosion ever".
  • Loudest band has an article, with the highest figure mentioned there being 139dB. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This NASA document about notes that "the largest sound power levels ever experienced at NASA Stennis was approximately 204dB, which corresponded to the Saturn S‐IC stage on the B‐2 test stand." but this is not mentioned in our article about the Saturn V. Thryduulf (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this could be expanded into an article. Laurdecl talk 06:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 20:05, 2 February 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.

Loudest Man in History[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. I'm performing an WP:INVOLVED close given the clear and unanimous consensus and the backlog. -- Tavix (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This was created as a joke redirect to Billy Mays. The current target is problematic as well, as it doesn't say who the "loudest man in history" is. Either way, I doubt its plausibility as a search term. -- Tavix (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I actually think this is a plausible search term, but the closest thing to a suitable target we have that I can find is Alan Myatt who holds the world record for the loudest cry by a town crier (112.8dB). However, a search for "Loudest" on the Guinness Book of Records website finds three record holders who have produced louder sounds Jill Drake (Loudest Scream, individual - 129dB)[1], Luca Zocchi (Loudest whistle - 125dB)[2] and Alpaslan Durmuş (Loudest vocal bass note - 117dB)[3]. We don't have articles on any of these people, and at I think it unlikely they are notable. Dan Harris (coach) (article currently at AfD) has a sourced statement that he has been called "the loudest man on the planet", but that's not measured. Given the lack of a good target, I'm left with deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For one, screaming isn't the loudest thing a person can do. Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting purely on technical grounds because of the excessive size of the logs currently transcluded on the main page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 20:05, 2 February 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.

Loudest noise in recorded history[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. Deryck C. 12:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where should this point? Most sources say that the loudest sound ever was the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa, including our article, however some sources do say it was the Tunguska event. The loudness of the latter is not mentioned in our article. Based on the preponderance of sources I'd suggest retargetting to the eruption but I wouldn't be opposed to a page that discusses the issue of loudest sounds if one is created (see also #Loudest man-made sound on Earth). Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm thinking this should point to a "list of loudest noises" or related article. I'm wary of it redirecting to a single event since the answer is not definitive. Deletion might help that list get created. -- Tavix (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 19:54, 2 February 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:Epithelial cell[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) 23:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per its edit history, it doesn't look like it was created in error. However, Epithelial cell already existed for about 8 years before this nominated redirect was created. Steel1943 (talk) 16:52, 2 February 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.

Mike Jordan[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) 23:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Figure that it's time to discuss this: See Talk:Mike Jordan (racing driver)#Requested move 24 May 2015. Should this redirect target Michael Jordan (disambiguation) ("Keep") or Michael Jordan? Steel1943 (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as with Mike Jackson and Ron Reagan. Even though Michael Jordan has the "Be Like Mike" campaign slogan, he has not gone by Mike Jordan in the preponderance of his news articles and books. His coverage under the name Mike Jordan would be comparable to the others on the dab page. Although he did go by Mike Jordan in college, the question then becomes whether his notability as Mike Jordan in college would be enough to claim primary topic of that version of the name. [4] [5] And having gone by Michael Jordan, the others listed have likely changed to Mike Jordan or added middle names/initials to distinguish themselves. The searcher for Mike Jordan would best be served going to that list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AngusWOOF. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I guess. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The name "Michael Jordan", with no context, automatically means the basketball player to me, but if I hear "Mike Jordan", I imagine you're talking about someone else. I can't remember ever hearing of the basketball player being referred to as "Mike Jordan" in items published since my earliest memories, the 1990s. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 5 February 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.

Extra embryos[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 14#Extra embryos

Supplemental angle[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 14#Supplemental angle

Supplementary question[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 14#Supplementary question

Supplementary oxygen[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 14#Supplementary oxygen

Supplementary staffing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 14#Supplementary staffing

Supplements and complementary and alternative medicine[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) 22:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like classic WP:XY. Steel1943 (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term exist and is used. A simple google search will lead you to a multitude of sourced using the term for this specific meaning. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • All versions of the term I can find do not include the "Supplements and..." at the beginning. Steel1943 (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is the "sCAM" acronym as defined for example here. Alexbrn (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even if this has been used occasionally, the wording is clumsy and awkward. I also recommend deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:34, 13 February 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.

Supplementary budget[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 14#Supplementary budget

Additional customs 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 delete. -- Tavix (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what "additional" refers to. Also, Customs duty also targets Tariff. Steel1943 (talk) 08:40, 2 February 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.

Additional extended coverage[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) 23:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what "additional" is supposed to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 08:38, 2 February 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.

Additional information of Japanese industry[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) 23:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Additional information" is vague. That, and "Japanese industry" isn't exclusive to the Shōwa period. Steel1943 (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Do we really need more "Further reading" or "Additional information" searches? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:27, 6 February 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.

Additional information about Nirvana (band)[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) 23:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Additional information" is quite vague. In addition, even with that, the current target wouldn't be correct. Steel1943 (talk) 08:35, 2 February 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.

Additional deviating definitions[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) 23:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what this redirected meant to refer. At the present time, the redirect's target section doesn't exist, but either way, the redirect itself is quite vague. Steel1943 (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete does not seem to be a plausible search term, and if this is linked, it should not be. Vanamonde (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:28, 6 February 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.

Additional Dame of the Order of Australia[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) 23:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase is not mentioned in the target article. For this reason, unless this term refers to a specific honorific title of some sort, the word "Additional" is vague and confusing. Steel1943 (talk) 08:00, 2 February 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 other countries battleships[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) 23:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what "other countries" this redirect is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As unnecessary. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 09:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "other countries" are the ones without their own lists, but there's no need for an "other" redirect that doesn't even have the proper apostrophe in countries'. This is basically the same thing (just in a different namespace) as the miscellaneous categories mentioned at WP:OCMISC. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing --Lenticel (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term "minor navies" at the target is also confusing, but that's a different issue. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:30, 6 February 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 other Happy Tree Friends characters[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 14#List of other Happy Tree Friends characters

List of other black holes[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) 23:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is unclear on what black holes it is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 07:48, 2 February 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 other characters in Transformers: Animated[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) 23:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what characters this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there might have been a bunch of lists that were merged, but now there are too many Others on the list for this to be useful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:32, 6 February 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 alternate history United States Presidents[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 14#List of alternate history United States Presidents

Fictional president[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of fictional politicians#Presidents. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents aren't exclusive to the United States. Steel1943 (talk) 06:35, 2 February 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 Fictional Acting U.S. Presidents[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) 23:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that all examples of presidents in the redirect's target page portrayed "acting presidents" in their respective roles. Steel1943 (talk) 06:34, 2 February 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:Garbage[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 14#Wikipedia:Garbage

List of other fictional United States Presidents[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) 23:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This redirect may have had a purpose redirecting where it does back during the previous RfD, but at this point, the redirect is a circular reference to itself since any "other" list is at its target, confusing readers who may be at the redirect's target, then try to find "other fictional presidents...". Steel1943 (talk) 06:31, 2 February 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 other fictional politicans[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) 23:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what "other" is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 06:23, 2 February 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 other media for 24[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 14#List of other media for 24

List of other royal and princely houses in the line of succession to the British throne[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) 21:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what "other" is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 06:11, 2 February 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 other Norse sagas[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) 20:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what "other" is meant to exclude, as implied by this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

It must have had an important purpose, once. At present, doesn't appear to link to anything notable.

dino (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I see a Saga#Other but not sure what that means for the titles that are placed there. Is "Other" a classification of a Norse Saga? I don't see this being useful. 18:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngusWOOF (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:34, 6 February 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 other MS Paint Adventures 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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the vague use of the word "other", there doesn't even seem to be a list of characters at the target article, nor does it seem that such a list exists. Steel1943 (talk) 06:02, 2 February 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 other South Park residents[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 14#List of other South Park residents

Latin name[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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguate possibly not the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for the term Prisencolin (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • disambiguate? Not sure what else to include in a dab page besides Roman naming conventions. Search engines (checked Google and Bing) turn up a lot of pages that aren't related to scientific names of organisms (most of the first page of results is about names for people). "Latin name" is sloppy and unencylopedic as a synonym for "scientific name" and shouldn't be linked; scientific names aren't necessarily derived from Latin and those that are Latin derived wouldn't be recognized by somebody speaking classical Latin.
Having a dab page would resolve incoming links. Plantdrew (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Latin name" is sloppy and unencylopedic as a synonym for "scientific name"
That may well be, but that’s how it’s often used.
Search engines (checked Google and Bing) turn up a lot of pages that aren't related to scientific names of organisms (most of the first page of results is about names for people).
Yes, but I think that’s due to sites listing baby names and their derivations. (It seems to me science pages are less likely to employ heavy-duty SEO.) Get past that first page; it quickly tilts in favour of plants, birds and bugs. —Wiki Wikardo 08:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate or Retarget if a suitable target is found. While binomial nomenclature is latin, may things have latin names, and I don't think that is the primary topic of all that we cover that could go by this name.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 16:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It's a common colloquialism, and nobody has presented a plausible other target, so there's nothing to disambiguate with. Mangoe (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see Latin name as bolded in the lead paragraph, commonly used term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:14, 2 February 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.

Politics of Taiwan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 13#Politics of Taiwan

Secaucus Junction (IRT Flushing Line)[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) 19:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is useless and potentially misleading because no such subway station exists, unlikely a plausible search term since there are no blueprints or maps for a potential station at Secaucus. Since the extension proposals were rejected, very unlikely a new station will be built there for the foreseeable future 173.3.76.153 (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The redirect's creator was not notified of this discussion. I'm doing so now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as with those film article disambiguators whose proposed dates have past. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not because of the disambiguator. That is irrelevant. It is because there are no plans at all for this imaginary station. epicgenius (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well there IS a Secaucus Junction station, just not for this particular subway line. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. The subway station is imaginary and exists only in some ambitious rail planner's head. epicgenius (talk) 04:24, 4 February 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.

Carter Proft[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) 21:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's zero mention of a "Carter Proft" anywhere on Wikipedia. The connection between the redirect and the target is unclear. -- Tavix (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Completely aside from this being a implausible redirect, the subject being an obscure journeyman in the German minor-leagues, this is absolutely a WP:XY deal. What makes his playing for the Chiefs a more likely redirect target than, say, the Kassel Huskies, the team he's been playing for for three seasons, or any of the other amateur and professional teams for which he has played to date? Like a number of other hockey redirects recently XfDed, this is the creation of an editor who was community banned from new redirects after creating hundreds like this to plump up his article creation count. Ravenswing 04:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ravenswing. Better to leave it a redlink so that when he does become notable per WP:NHOCKEY then he can have a page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:08, 2 February 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.

Neopunk[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. -- Tavix (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, so the connection is unclear. However, the nominated redirect is a {{R from history}} that was blanked and redirected. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep there's a book that connects it to the pop punk bands like Green Day, Fall Out Boy, Bad Religion, which the article has lots of. [6] Other news articles show usage. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:11, 2 February 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.

Pop punk rock[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) 19:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a made-up term since per the article, the subject of the article seems to be a mix of Punk rock and Pop music. Either way, "punk pop rock" is not mentioned in the target article, and for that reason, these redirects could have a WP:XY issue. Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not seeing "Pop punk rock" in Google searches and not in target article — Iadmc♫talk  21:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not a likely search term but the logic is very simple, since "punk" is short "punk rock" then "pop punk" could be referred to "pop punk rock". Also this term is indirectly included in the article in the title of one of the sources.--MASHAUNIX 23:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least they're looking for the pop punk music with this term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:04, 2 February 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.

Easycore[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. There's no clear direction to where these redirects would point if kept, and there's a majority in favor of deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The terms "easycore" and "easy core" are not present in the target articles. Steel1943 (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to hardcore punk or pop punk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - The consensus seems to be that this topic isn't that notable. I'd rather that, to prevent confusion, we just get rid of these redirects. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:42, 12 February 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_February_2&oldid=1140553439"