Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 20, 2017.

Booetes[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 all. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate bot replacement of Greek diaresis with oe thinking it was an umlaut. Lithopsian (talk) 22:14, 20 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.

FOXNews[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) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No affinity for this capitalization, note that there are a whole lot of similar redirects, not all of which I am sure of. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, harmless. -- Tavix (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to it being harmless, in at least 2 of their logos found using google image search for fox news logo it's not clear how many words the name of the company/channel is. Thryduulf (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm inclined to just leave this be as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – seems harmless and it's plausible that someone would type it. Politrukki (talk) 17:49, 1 March 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.

Interstate 80N (Pennsylvania)[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. I'll go ahead and refine to the History section to reduce the likelihood readers just mistake this for an error. --BDD (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No indication in the target page that the route was ever numbered as such. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there was this, from back in the day when Interstate 80 ran along the Pennsylvania Turnpike. The segment east of Harrisburg was Interstate 80S (Pennsylvania). ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zoom in on the map, and you'll see it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:17, 20 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.

Wet winter climate[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) 21:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No connection to the target Peter Rehse (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Wet season which is more general and discusses wet winter, wet summer, and other wet climates. If the search were dry summer wet winter climate or vice versa, then there's a match for Mediterranean, but as it stands, it doesn't particularly point to that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Having a particular pattern of certain seasons isn't the same thing as having a particular climate. Given the unhelpful ambiguity here, I'd rather that we just let people search. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While wet winters are a characteristic of the Mediterranean climate, they are also found in other climates and so are not a distinguishing characteristic. After a lot of searching, I can find no article that would assist in disambiguating this search as wet winters are mentioned in passing in various places. Precipitation#Role in Köppen climate classification comes the closest but that is again mostly in passing and the section is a very high level gloss that would be slightly misleading combination with this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 7 March 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 Situation Room[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 as proposed. Deryck C. 17:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Situation Room (disambiguation). I see no evidence to suggest that the news show is WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT over either the actual Situation Room or Situation Room (photograph), both of which are often known as "The Situation Room". Cúchullain t/c 21:14, 20 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.

4664[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 6#4664

Southpeakgames[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) 19:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. Lordtobi (✉) 18:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it's the name of their website, and SouthPeakGames is their twitter handle. Is that enough to keep it around? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AngusWOOF's findings are enough for me at least. Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and WP:CHEAP. A plausible search term. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:28, 6 March 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.

SouthPeak Interactive Corp.[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) 19:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, as the "Corp." was never officially used by them or secondary sources, though their legal name ended on "Corporation" for a few years. Lordtobi (✉) 18:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is the name as listed on OTC Pink: SOPK. I don't see why it should be deleted, even if it isn't their current name it was the official name. --Svgalbertian (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Svgalbertian and {{R from former name}}. Thryduulf (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above and my comment below. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • While the above comments are argumentatively correct, I would like to note that the last legal name for the company was SouthPeak Interactive Corporation, and the redirect has the Corp. as abbreviation, while the trading name was SouthPeak Games since inception. The reason for the listing was the the abbreviation "Corp." was never used by them or secondary sources (as I now know, apart from OTC Pink), and also because I think that it is a very unlikely search term. Lordtobi (✉) 14:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirects are cheap and the term is unambiguous. More examples of usage in secondary sources are Reuters and Bloomberg, here and here respectively, from a quick search search. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Both pages depic the stock from OTC Pink so that does not put weight on the argument, wherethough WP:CHEAP is a better one. It is just the detail above I wanted to inform about and resolve the communication issue. Lordtobi (✉) 15:08, 6 March 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 talk:Articles for creation/20,000 Leagues Under the Sea: The Adventure Continues[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) 19:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old AfC page that was reformed into a redirect to "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea: The Adventure Continues", which itself was a redirect to "20,000 Leagues: The Adventure Continues". The last of those was then redirected to "SouthPeak Games", becuase of which all three link there now. The target page, however, includes no information on either of those. Lordtobi (✉) 16:53, 20 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.

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea: The Adventure Continues[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) 19:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Originally linked to "20,000 Leagues: The Adventure Continues", which was since redirected as well. No information available for either of those at target page. Lordtobi (✉) 16:51, 20 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.

20,000 Leagues: The Adventure Continues[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) 19:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No information available at target page. Lordtobi (✉) 16:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination above. 2.247.244.122 (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article and send to WP:AFD per WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT since the redirect was formerly an article that was blanked and redirected. Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I'm normally very supportive of actions like Steel describes, in this case the article was an unreferenced stub about an unreleased game that is very borderline for even asserting importance so it stands no chance at AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 7 March 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.

CAD model[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 computer-aided design. (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd redirect. It points to 3D modeling#Models, but the #Models section hardly mentions CAD. I could see a redirect to Computer-aided design itself, but at that point there's not much difference between "CAD" and "CAD model" (since both would link to the same target). Primefac (talk) 15:51, 20 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:Editing Tips and Tricks[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 an overall consensus that the current targets are incorrect. There is general agreement that the two Wikipedia: redirects should be retargeted to Wikipedia:Tips#Tips on editing. Consensus is much less clear for the two Help: redirects but there is a very weak preference emerging for having them point to the same target, which is what I'm going to do, but with no prejudice against a new listing for continued discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather sure that users looking up this phrase may not neveccarily be looking for information about wiki markup. They might be looking up information about possibly article layout guidelines. I'd be inclined to say that unless there is a more helpful target, these pages should probably be deleted per WP:REDLINK Retargeted to Help:Editing since this seems like a rather helpful title for a Wikipedia how-to guide. Steel1943 (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete: People are not likely to write any more tutorials of this sort (I'm not aware of any new ones in years), but the exact phrase is probably too exact for it to be something someone would enter as a guess (e.g. a noob looking for how-to info).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Wikipedia:Tips#Tips_on_editing. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. The odds are highest that a novice user following that link will want help with wiki markup. The generic advice about article content and layout is a much less likely target. By the time the new user is ready to worry about style problems, they are likely to also have a clue about how we name those style guidelines. I'll also note that this naming closely mirrors the Editing help link that shows up next to the 'save changes' button while you're in edit-mode. Rossami (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget per Champion as it at least covers "tips" (although I'll note Wikipedia:Editing tips is red). I'm also fine with deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget the first two to Wikipedia:Tips#Tips on editing and the last two to Help:Editing. --BDD (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD. WJBscribe (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point all to the same target. I have a weak preference for Wikipedia:Tips#Tips on editing, but as long as they all reach the same target page that's the important thing here as for this sort of thing it's really a toss-up whether the target will be in Help: or Wikipedia: space so whichever people guess they should get to the same place. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There probably aren't any two namespaces with blurrier boundaries than Wikipedia and Help, but if users specify one or the other, I think it behooves us to try to give them something in that namespace first. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. I think it is more important to give them the content that most closely matches what they are searching for than to match the likely arbitrarily-chosen namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point—I can appreciate that what comes after the colon is more important. But as long as we have something as vague as "tips and tricks" in both places... for that matter, I'd be fine with deletion as well. I think these are both implying something more comprehensive and help-focused than we actually have. --BDD (talk) 22:04, 9 March 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 Avengers (film project)[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. I'll retarget to The Avengers#Media and entertainment as the alternative to deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally thinking of just WP:BOLDly retargeting these redirects to The Avengers#Media and entertainment to match The Avengers (film). But then, I noticed that Film project and Film Project do not exist on Wikipedia, rendering the disambiguator undefined here... Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wonder if these were created with Marvel Cinematic Universe in mind. It's a multi-film project centered on the Avengers. Either way, I don't think either of these are likely search terms. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a film project anymore so not useful to keep around. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to The Avengers#Media and entertainment per Steel1943's proposal. That gets the reader to a useful list of The Avengers films. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect as serving the project and its readers by sending them to where they can explore the topic directly and in detail. Now that we have multiples Avengers films, we might better determine the best target, and not delete it because the best target has not yet been determined. Redirects are cheap and do not have to meet the notability criteria of their topics. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:20, 20 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.

Sean Sphincter[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. I find that this is extremely borderline between no consensus and keep, but it's now a week after Politrukki's comment and the mention is still in the article, so that in combination with the lack of anyone firmly supporting deletion after its addition just pushes this over the line to keep. Should there be a consensus to remove mention from the article though this result should not stand in the way of a fresh nomination of the redirect if anyone desires. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Created in good faith, but an obscure, one-off pejorative name not mentioned in the target article. Compare to Lyin' Ted, Little Marco, or Crooked Hillary. BDD (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google News claims 3500 results for the quoted phrase but of course, they're lying, because Google thinks that actually having the term in your search result is archaic 20th-century thinking, like democracy. Someday you'll just get a button "Where does Google want me to go today?" and there won't even be a place to type in irrelevant text words. Still, by now there are reasonably sufficient sources to pass the GNG for an actual article about the typo incident: [1][2] [3][4] To be sure, I don't think a separate article is needed, but I take it as a given that if something can exist as an article it can exist as a redirect. I assumed that the incident would be in the Sean Spicer article, given the publicity about it, so I'm actually kind of curious why it isn't. But that too is irrelevant - I can't tell you how many times I look up a science term and get redirected to an article that doesn't mention it at all! Which is frustrating but not so frustrating as not even getting that much of a hint. Wnt (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, Wnt. I and many RfD participants typically cite a term's not being mentioned in the article where it redirects as a reason to delete. When you've looked up those science terms, presumably you either do or don't already know about the relationship between the term and the target article. If you already knew, was the redirect helpful? If you didn't, were you confused or frustrated? Personally, I see this as a matter of "accountability" for redirects. Not every one needs explicit mention, but the relationship should be clear to a general reader. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: Per your suggestion, I've added a bit about the interchange in this edit. It's not exactly a high matter of state, but it's an interesting glimpse at the sort of small acorns from which great oaks grow. Wnt (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – while I don't find this redirect particularly useful (per BDD's reply above), I'm leaning towards keep. Before Wnt's edit I absolutely would have supported deletion, but now at least the minimum BLP standards have been fulfilled (note that I nominated Lyin' Ted because the name was not mentioned in target article or in any article, AFAIK). I do think that added content may give undue weight to the biography, but it seems that the has edit stuck, and has remained in the article for more than two weeks without any objection. Hence my concern may have been unfounded. Politrukki (talk) 17:45, 1 March 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.

Cultured Code[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 6#Cultured Code

Verdurous[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 6#Verdurous

Battle Angel (2011 film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This WP:CRYSTAL redirect is particularly egregious. The film is scheduled for release in 2018, not 2011. -- Tavix (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a potentially misleading redirect. For the reader, it is either a surprise (if he/she is sure there is no such 2011 film) or a wild goose chase after a 2011 film. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' per above. There is no 2011 film by this name, the closest being Battle: Los Angeles but that's nowhere near close enough for this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failed crystal considering 2011 has passed and the film was not released then. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:24, 25 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.

The Greys (film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete both. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Another film still in development. At this stage, anything can change, even the director, so a redirect of this nature is premature at best. Again, we do know that it wasn't released in 2014. -- Tavix (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a redirect that sends its reader on a wild goose chase. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFF. He's a connected director as of 2011 but filming hasn't started. 2014 hss passed. [5] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:27, 25 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.

Murder Mystery (film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete both. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This is another film in development. It definitely wasn't released in 2014. -- Tavix (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a redirect that sends its reader on a wild goose chase. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NFF. Only a bunch of announcements in 2012 and Madden is the director, but it says nothing about whether filming has begun, and the target article says nothing about it being something he is actively focused on. 2014 has passed so that's a failed crystal. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:29, 25 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_20&oldid=1138581514"