Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 11, 2017.

Into The Storm, (Book One), Crusade, (Book Two), Maelstrom, (Book Three), and the new book, Distant Thunders, (Book Four)[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. 17:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Highly implausible term. Pinguinn 🐧 22:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. The page history has an entry that the article was merged by user:Soap to the target article, however the page history of the target contains only this edit by Soap at the relevant time, indicating that no content actually was merged. WP:MAD therefore does not apply. Thryduulf (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. This seems useless and just not helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:14, 13 January 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.

Sleeping Beauty & Other Stories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. The discussion has established that this title refers to a story collection which Wikipedia has no information about. Deryck C. 17:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what "& Other Stories" refers to. Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete "Sleeping Beauty & Other Stories" is the name of at least two collections of fairy tales and similar stories, neither apparently notable. There is one mention of this title on Wikipedia, at List of American Thomas & Friends video releases#1995 but anyone expecting a compilation of folk tales will be rather surprised I think by that obscure target. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 12 January 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.

Mirror, mirror on the wall[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 24#Mirror, mirror on the wall

White horse rider[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. 17:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Note: This redirect is a {{R from history}} (formerly an article) that was redirected to its current target in 2007. Steel1943 (talk) 20:44, 11 January 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.

História em quadrinhos[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 soft delete as unopposed. Deryck C. 17:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title means ‘comic strip’ in Portugese. The target article is about Brazilian comics specifically, not Portugese-language comics in general, so it is not appropriate. Comic strip is not appropriate either, because the Portuguese language is not especially relevant to the topic of comic strips. Since there is no appropriate target, it should be deleted. Gorobay (talk) 19:05, 11 January 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.

Chinese quotatifs[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. 17:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“Quotatif” is not an English word. It is not a Chinese, Japanese, or Korean word either. In fact I can’t find any language in which this word means ‘quotation mark’. So I think it should be deleted. Gorobay (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Based on Google results "quotatif" is a French word, and "quoatifs" is the (or a) correct plural for that word, but I can't find what it means - google translate doesn't recognise it, and there is no entry in either English or French Wiktionaries (although the latter does have wikt:fr:Modèle:et-conj-kirjutama-quotatif, which is something to do with Estonian conjugations). Whatever it means it isn't a term that is used in English at all, nor in any Chinese, Japanese or Korean language as far as I can tell. Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't that a misspelling of "quotative". But then, it's a grammatical category and I haven't seen it used to refer to a punctuation symbol. – Uanfala (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not specific to Chinese or other Asian nations. Not used together in any news articles or books. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:21, 12 January 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 andrews osborne academy[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. 17:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's just cluttering up the search box. There's no reason to have this lower-case version with the definite article hanging around. Herostratus (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Definite article is not used with caps in the webpage. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:23, 12 January 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.

Manny Taur (Monster High)[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. 17:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely minor character in Monster High created and re-created by a Long-term sock-evading editor. I couldn't get rid if it with CSD G5. All the notable characters from the franchise have a doll and a profile on the Monster High official website, and would be listed already. This isn't the case for this one. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article has some history upon it. It was edit hijacked into some else's bio, but that person was deemed not notable and deleted. Then the sock editor copy/pasted Monster High wiki page to the article, and that was removed. Any major edits of content since have been from the sock editor in different incarnations. Bottom line is that the article history doesn't need to be preserved. As for whether Monster High characters should have redirects in general, the redirects for Monster High characters should only be for characters that have significant sections in the series as with Frankie Stein, Draculaura or Cleo de Nile, which for right now are the 6 main characters. You're looking at creating potentially 70 characters and 140 redirects for "name" and "name (Monster High)" of which Manny Taur is not even on that list of 70. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:14, 12 January 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.

Alex (Street Fighter character)[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 retargeted as proposed. Obviously uncontroversial. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Alex (Street Fighter character) should be redirected to Alex (Street Fighter) as it about the same subject Dwanyewest (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

User:Fondrenmustangs/sandbox[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 deleted, G8. -- Tavix (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. A redirect internal to a users' own userspace is completely harmless and I can't see how this violates WP:NOTWEBHOST. If you think the target page should be deleted then you need to nominate it at MfD and this redirect will be deleted per WP:CSD#G8 if consensus agrees with you. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears ACWC did so at the same time they opened this RfD. In light of which I'd propose that this RfD be procedurally closed, to avoid redundancy/bureaucracy. If the MfD closes as keep, then ACWC can always renominate this redirect if they would like. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 13:49, 11 January 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.

Xbox Windows[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 5#Xbox Windows

New Xbox[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 31#New Xbox

Pear Linux[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 article restored. Feel free to nominate at AfD if notability concerns still remain. -- Tavix (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Short lived stub with notability issues converted into redirect, not mentioned in current target or indeed anywhere else. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert to article without prejudice. From a quick google search it appears that the subject is more notable now than it was when it was redirected (I'm seeing quite a few independent reviews for example). I don't know if it is notable enough for an article, but there is enough potential there that I'm not comfortable deleting it as a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to article per Thryduulf. If there are notability concerns, these could then be properly gauged at AfD. – Uanfala (talk) 00:21, 12 January 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.

Dscdbuilder[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, unopposed. -- Tavix (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:25, 11 January 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.

Communist era[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 3#Communist era

Kaizer Chiefs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn as nominator. Should've bothered to Google; redirect should most probably stay as is. (non-admin closure) --Nevé–selbert 22:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be retargeted to Kaiser Chiefs as an {{R from misspelling}}. --Nevé–selbert 02:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Based on google searches the football team is the clear primary topic. Anyone searching for the band is already served by a hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I didn't realise that. I ought to have checked before nominating the redirect for discussion. Closing.--Nevé–selbert 22:12, 11 January 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.

Republican debates[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, but without prejudice towards the creation of disambiguation pages at one or both of these titles. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect title does not have a year in it, vague as to what debate exactly could refer to. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • note I've added Democratic debates to the nomination as we'll want to do the same thing to both. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig. These redirects were both originally created for the 2008 debates, the Republican one was updated in late 2011 to point to the 2012 debates (there were no Democratic ones that year) and both updated in August/September 2015 to the present 2016 targets. They both get a lot of hits, even continuing after the election is over, so they are obviously useful search terms for their current targets but there may also be other debates about republicans/republicanism and/or democrats/democracy somewhere. My feeling is to disamiguate them between the US part debates for 2008/2012/2016 (and any others there are articles for) an other targets. This would also help prevent links going to the wrong place - I fixed one such at Duncan Hunter presidential campaign, 2008 which was obviously intended for the original target. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Democratic Party presidential debates exists as a potential target (but not the corresponding Republican Party presidential debates). That still doesn't address the global perspective concerns, of course. - Eureka Lott 17:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would probably be best would be to have these redirect target List of Democratic Party presidential debates and List of Republican Party presidential debates. These lists would list all of the historic party debates but have a link in the infobox to the current electoral cycles' debates (similar to a sports team's current season). The list articles could have hatnotes pointing to other countries' Democratic and Republican parties' debates (which might redirect to the parties themselves if there is no page yet for the debates or the debates are not deemed notable enough for a standalone article). If there are more than three or so parties, the hatnote could link to a dab page. I think this is most appropriate because the US party debates are most likely the primary topic and for what people are looking. The only problem is that someone would need to write the list articles first. –Grondemar 21:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We just might want to do different things to these. To my ears, "democratic debate" sounds like the process of talking things out in a democracy, which might get pluralized. "Republican debate" doesn't sound as natural to me, but might be used in the same way. But even then, those are Wiktionary-style "non-idiomatic phrases" that don't mean anything more than the sum of their parts. I think I'm leaning towards deletion. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would support DABing between different possibilities over deletion. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. What's next? Republican press conferences? Also the target is too U.S.-centered. There are many Republican and Democratic political parties around the world, and this could mean any sort of debate, whether it be running for a position or legislation/parliament proceedings. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig seems to cover all the cases, including the fact that the redirect is getting hits.  Handles all existing history for these redirects, plus the potential for list pages and the French debates.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Democratic Party presidential debates and Republican Party presidential debates, respectively (I'm in the process of drafting the latter article). I'm sympathetic to the disambiguation suggestion, but AFAICT there isn't any content on those debates to link to. -- Tavix (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Angus and Steel. I think I got too excited to create an article that I forgot to consider that "Republican debates" would encompass other parties and other debates outside of the U.S. Presidential election. For example, according to Republican National Committee chairmanship election, 2011, there was a debate between the candidates for the RNC chair. This seems way too vague to dabify/SIAfy/listify, but I'd love to see someone try. -- Tavix (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Drafts of the proposed disambiguation pages may help form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:44, 11 January 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.

Moonless[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 Wiktionary soft redirect as most plausible outcome. Deryck C. 19:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, does not seem to be a plausible search term. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment should it go to Moon (disambiguation) and the definitions for moonless be added to the wiktionary box? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I certainly wouldn't object to that. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose that option. In most cases, {{R from antonym}}s to disambiguation pages could lead readers to finding nothing they are looking for. I think this is one of those cases. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to wikt:moonless. The redirect does seem to get some usage, and the Wiktonary page provides both definitions I could think of. -- Tavix (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also support a soft retarget over to the other website. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:29, 23 January 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.


Barbara and Jenna Bush[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 complicated. There is universal agreement that the current target of these redirects is incorrect. There is significant support for BDD's proposal for retargeting, and some support for Unscintillating's late proposal to restore an article, and overall the discussion has been open plenty long enough. As the outcome of this discussion, I am going to retarget both redirects to George W. Bush#Family and personal life. I will also start a discussion at Talk:George W. Bush as to what to do with the drafted article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY it is true that they are both mentioned, but unlikely to be helpful to the reader for the target is too long. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The target is too long" is not an issue. To solve that, all you'd have to do is add an {{anchor}} to where they're both discussed and refine the redirect to match the anchor. -- Tavix (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. They already have separate articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC) updated 18:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per BDD. It can be expanded upon in George W. Bush's family section along with adding the redirects here. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify: I agree that since they have separate articles a dual page is not necessary. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep or Retarget per BDD. Barbara and Jenna Bush must be kept since there is non-trivial history that was merged per WP:MAD. Jenna and Barbara Bush has some history but I don't think it's a requirement for that one. Regardless, there's several links from both redirects that would be broken if deleted and they point to the correct place—somewhere that discusses both people. Less so now that they are adults, but since they're twins they are likely to be referenced together, so this would be a likely search term. -- Tavix (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Updated !vote to include BDD's suggestion. I do agree that's a little bit better of a target. -- Tavix (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD. Anyone searching for this will find more relevant content at that target. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see that any of the redirect targets worked well.  I also checked on Google books and Google news and see that the twins as a group continue to attract media attention in 2016.  "First twins" gets coverage, but doesn't seem to get as much as "Bush twins".

For your attention, I've mocked up a revision in userspace inserted a revision under the redirect at Barbara and Jenna Bush, based on oldid 46408980.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That seems anachronistic. Such an article only really made sense when there weren't standalone articles on each person. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem then and now is good factoring.  The problem then was the bundling of two distinct topics into one article.  The problem now is that there is no good place to discuss the smaller topic of the Bush twins as a group.  I say discuss, because we've also tried a dab page without success.  This is a separate topic that needs to be defined.  I suppose you could create a subsection at "Bush family".  Unscintillating (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's unusual to relist a discussion for the third time, but towards its end a new propsal was put forth by Unscintillating and it's fair to let it be evaluated by the community.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD. No sense in restoring the old twin article, these two aren't THAT notable. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I'm making the division worse here, but I stand by the idea that we should just get rid of these redirects. The individuals have a particular notability by themselves. I don't believe that we should necessarily lump them together. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But who's doing the "lumping"? This isn't arbitrary, like us redirecting Tiffany and Barron Trump to Donald Trump#Family. Barbara and Jenna Bush were frequently discussed together, which is not surprising, given that they're twins. That said, Wikipedia remains inconsistent in its treatment of such pairs. See Talk:Winklevoss twins for an unsuccessful attempt I made to sort it all out. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The news media may have lumped them together more often because they are twins. Being at the same stage in life means they're doing similar things.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it matters why the media have lumped them together, only that they frequently have. Thryduulf (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Friday and Saturday, US news channels, including NBC Today show, ABC Friday evening news, CNN, WSJ, Washington Post, and Time were talking about and showing pictures of the Bush twins for a letter they sent.  Next to the top on Google News right now there is "The Hindu" article on "Bush twins write heartfelt letter to Obama sisters".  "First twins" also got coverage, such as "Sasha (15) en Malia (18) kennen de Bush-tweeling al langer. ... Deze keer willen de voormalige "First Twins" de Obama's dan ook gepast ..." in the VRT Nieuws‎.  Doing a WP:BEFORE D1 on Google books for "Bush twins" on the first page shows books ranging from 2001 to 2016, with snippets such as 2007, "For instance, the controversial Bush twins' speaking role at the Republican convention was covered frequently by cable news providers, and they were lambasted by a number of commentators."  Like I said, I suppose this could also be done in a section at Bush family.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as an article and point the other redirects to that per Unscintilating. They are notable individually but they are also notable together so we need three articles (in exactly the same way that we have articles on Bee Gees as well as Barry Gibb, Robin Gibb and Maurice Gibb), ditto The Corrs, Brothers Grimm, and countless others where people are notable both together and separately. There is no significant coverage of them in the Bush family article so that is not as good as a separate article. Thryduulf (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in regard to restoration as an article - All of the examples provided above have done very notable things together. The Corrs made music together; the Brothers Grimm authored together. Barbara and Jenna Bush haven't done anything that rises to that level; no more than, for example, Malia and Sasha Obama have. I fear this would be a dangerous precedent to set, as it is common for the news media to refer to siblings as groups in the manner Unscintillating provides examples of above, which could spawn many other sibling group articles (below the "family" level) consisting of individuals that lack notable accomplishments together. This makes me think of Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited, but that isn't really applicable to what I'm trying to express. If only an article like Family of Barack Obama (with a section like Malia Obama and Sasha Obama custom tailored to this kind of redirect) existed for George W. Bush, so we could retarget these there. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well if you want to merge Unscintillating's article draft to the Bush family article then I'm not sure I'd go against that, but as it might be a bit undue I'd want the opinions of the editors of that article before an actual merge. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's something to consider. I'd thought of that as an option myself, however, I didn't make that suggestion because it doesn't fit with the style of that article.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I don't really think it fits either which is why my first choice is restoration of the article. As to not doing notable things together, they did when they were children and they still do occasionally today, e.g. the letter to Obama's daughters. Most important however is that they were notable as a pair, and that pairing remains notable (notability is not temporary) even if its mostly historical these days, so the article or section about them as a pair is what best suits our readers. Thryduulf (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to set index (or dabify) for now - George W. Bush is currently a Good Article. Adding the section about the Twins may or would affect the article's GA status unless I'm wrong. The George Jr. article may need major improvements, even as a Good Article. I read Barbara Bush (born 1981) and Jenna Bush Hager; merging both is impossible as both are separately, independently notable. Id est restoring back to an article might risk duplicating both articles unless people agree to merge both articles. George Ho (talk) 00:31, 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.

Next Alberta Senate nominee election[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 2012 is long gone, and neither the current target nor Alberta Senate nominee elections have any information about future elections, although the latter article does imply it should happen in 2018 previous ones have been rescheduled. In the absence of a good target I favour deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 11 January 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.

Current pendulum for the next Australian federal election[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 23#Current pendulum for the next Australian federal election

Candidates of the next Australian federal election[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 23#Candidates of the next Australian federal election

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_11&oldid=1088107439"