Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 4, 2017.

Lord Raith, Monymaill and Balewarie[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Created presumably in error and good faith with a misspelling of "Balwearie"; the spelling has been corrected in the solitary link to this redirect, rendering it now redundant. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:45, 4 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.

Anti-virus signature updates[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is from 2008, and it currently not linked at all. It's a far-fetched search term at best. I propose its deletion. --DanielPharos (talk) 23:02, 4 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.

Gergely Sarkoezy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 13#Gergely Sarkoezy

Naziniger[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially offensive and very least likely to be searched for. Also not linked by one page. Created before deletion of its counterpart "Nazinigger" per 2006 RFD discussion. Same should go for this one. George Ho (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This seems useless. Wikipedia often covers topics that are regarded as offensive, in poor taste, and so on, but we do so when reliable sources point the way. I don't see a reason to keep this redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the 2006 discussion linked above. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:02, 8 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.

Other dimensions of the Discworld[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. Steel1943 (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect's title is unclear what "dimensions" it is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Some familiarity with the world is probably required here, but the dimension excluded seems to be the Discworld itself. It's a little opaque, perhaps, but I'm not too concerned, since no one without some familiarity is going to search something like this anyway. --BDD (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the page views suggest this is being used as a fairly common search term. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rubbish computer: The amount of page views are because of ... [1]. In fact, I'm half-tempted to withdraw this until BDD's concern can be resolved and at least a month or so has passed so that the page views probably disappear. Steel1943 (talk) 14:14, 5 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.

Tubeway[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 move target over the redirect. --BDD (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tubeway Army and Tubeway Army (album) receive more pageviews. --Nevé–selbert 18:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Tubeway Army would be a WP:PTM, so it wouldn't make sense to redirect there unless it can be shown that they were also known simply as "Tubeway". wikt:tubeway exists, but I'm unsure what articles would fit that definition. If there is something, it'd make sense to create a disambiguation page and Tubeway Army could be included as a "see also". Failing that, the only other option I'm seeing is to move the video game back to the base title. -- Tavix (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Tubeway (video game) to Tubeway per Tavix. Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the above proposal on the assumption that Tubeway by itself isn't used to refer to the band (and a quick google search doesn't suggest otherwise). – Uanfala (talk) 17:56, 14 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.

D'Israeli[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) 18:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per this move discussion, closing editor Bradv noted that there was not sufficient consensus for D'Israeli to redirect to Benjamin Disraeli, and hence further discussion was needed. I gave my rationale as to why I believe the British prime minister qualifies for a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT on the talkpage, tagging the redirect with {{R from alternative spelling}}. --Nevé–selbert 18:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is, per move discussion. This seems like unintentional forum shopping, especially since participants in that discussion have not been notified. The appropriate forum for further discussion is at Talk:D'Israeli (cartoonist) or WP:MRV. Station1 (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Station1: I completely disagree with that assessment. The closer noted that further discussion may be required regarding where D'Israeli should point, and since it's a redirect, this is where that discussion needs to be. -- Tavix (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination statement in the move discussion recommended that D'Israeli redirect to Benjamin Disraeli, but some of the comments in the discussion wanted it to go to a disambiguation page instead. As I saw consensus for the first part of the nomination statement, and not the second part, I closed it as such and was as clear as I could be in my close. This is an appropriate place as any to discuss where the redirect D'Israeli should point. Bradv 20:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not as concerned about the exact location of a new discussion as I am about the fact that the participants in the original discussion might not be aware of it. D'Israeli was not a redirect until the extremely recent closure of the RM made it a redirect, and I'm not aware of other RM closures immediately being taken to RfD or similar forums. Although I completely recognize that this RfD was brought in good faith, to immediately start a discussion that could change the result of a RM in a forum where editors who opposed the move are less likely to participate, in order to get the result originally proposed at the RM, has the appearance of forum shopping, imo. Frankly, I think the close was flawed in that the closer stated that "there is no agreement on where the plain D'Israeli title should redirect - to D'Israeli (cartoonist), Benjamin Disraeli, or Disraeli (disambiguation)" but chose one anyway. If there was no agreement, the closer should not have changed the redirect; usually when there is no consensus the status quo prevails. Nevertheless, the result was not unreasonable, and it should stand, unless consensus to the contrary is reached among all interested editors. Station1 (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note pinging @In ictu oculi, Martinevans123, Mackensen, Rjensen, Smerus, Bertdrunk, Dicklyon, SmokeyJoe, and SSTflyer:, the participants of the move discussion who have not yet commented here, so that they are aware of this discussion and can participate if they wish. Thryduulf (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Benjamin Disraeli, on the disambiguation page there are 3 movies based on a play, a play based on his life, a very minor cartoonist and one of the three most famous British PM of the Victorian Era. Bertdrunk (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect to the disambig page; no compelling primarytopic argument has been seen. Dicklyon (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anyone arriving from an external incoming link or bookmark to this title would be best served by the disambiguation page. I don't know what action the proposer here proposes. There is no good reason for a separate disambiguation page, as my comment at the RM discussion might be read as suggesting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect to disambiguation page. The only sensible answer.--Smerus (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect to the disambiguation page, per my rationale during the original move discussion. Mackensen (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Benjamin Disraeli. Is the assertion really that there's a primary topic for "Disraeli" but not "D'Israeli"? --BDD (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definitely, there is the assertion of no PT for "D'Israeli", regardless of "Disraeli". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes; several of us argued as much during the original discussion. There's a modern usage for D'Israeli (the cartoonist). Only a subject-matter expert is aware of the original spelling for Benjamin Disraeli's name, and they also know that he's not going to be found in a reference work under that spelling. Mackensen (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can see the argument for targeting the Prime Minister, but things are certainly helpful as they stand right now. The link to the British public figure's page is right there at the very top of the disambiguation article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This discussion was closed by its nominator as "withdrawn", but I have reopened this discussion since at least one comment (specifically 2, I believe) go against the close result, so this should be closed be a closer who is not involved in the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for any inconvenience Steel1943. I just thought, with the amount of keep votes, the chances of any other outcome were pretty much nill.--Nevé–selbert 21:58, 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.

Bushian[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 somewhere. Unfortunately, despite multiple relistings, there remains no obvious consensus about where that "somewhere" is. I could relist this again, but that's been tried three times already and this has now been open 2½ months so I'm unconvinced that that will help. So it seems to fall to me to see if I can extract anything useful from the comments. The options that are worth considering are the article Bush family or the disambiguations/set indexes Bush, Bush (surname) (a late suggestion by Ivanvector), George Bush or Presidency of George Bush. Deryck Chan did draft a set index article at this title, but that option was not well supported and would not be in accordance with the consensus to retarget it somewhere. A Wiktionary option was suggested by Steel1943 but Uanfala's comment that this would only be appropriate if there was no relevant articles on Wikipedia is persuasive, along with it being the first preference of no other commenter.
The "Presidency of George Bush" option was initially popular but with three commenters explicitly rescinding their !votes for this and comments by Ivanvector and BDD that it can refer to the policies, etc. of either or both George Bushes prior to their time as president I cannot conclude in favour of that target.
Several people commented, explicitly or implicitly, that the primary topic is one of the George Bushes and that most other times it is encountered with reference to other people it is qualified. Based on this I'm convinced that Bush and Bush (surname) should not be the target of this redirect. It is very unlikely though that this will refer to a use of "Bush" that is not a surname, based on standard English usage, and so if the target chosen requires a hatnote the surname set index page will be the better.
This leaves a choice between George Bush and Bush family. The latter has greater numerical support, and there is support for being too broad over too narrow - but on the other hand it is noted that the Georges are primary. Both Georges, and that they were president, are prominently mentioned in the lead of the family article while the family is only a see also at the end of the George Bush disambiguation. Putting this all together I think the best solution is to retarget to Bush family with a hatnote to Bush (surname). Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(pseudo-Neelix redirect) According to Oxford, this can refer also to the elder Bush [2], but I don't see this as a plausible search term. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Several other options exist. There's dabs at George Bush and Presidency of George Bush, the latter would work better if the term is limited to their respective presidencies. Bush family is another target if it's been used by other family members, such as either First Lady, Jeb!, etc. Getting even more broad is the dab at Bush, but I think that's a bit too broad. Hmm... -- Tavix (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Bush family, as probably the best redirect, since there are non-George Bush people this can apply to. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SIA. Per the dictdef, a reader searching for this term will be expecting to find Bushian policies - the presidencies of either President Bush. I'm drafting an SIA under the RfD banner. Deryck C. 16:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be awfully duplicative of the Presidency of George Bush disambiguation page. Why not just redirect it there? -- Tavix (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Deryck C. 18:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've drafted a hatnote inside comments on Presidency of George Bush, to go live if this is closed as redirecting there. Deryck C. 15:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Presidency of George Bush per Deryck. Bush per BDD and my response to him. -- Tavix (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC) updated 20:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Presidency of George Bush.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Presidency of George Bush but I want to make it clear that just an outright deletion would also be probably fine with me CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, scratch that, given how hopelessly unclear this whole situation is, I'd much rather that we just delete the redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, but to Bush. Sorry, Tavix, but I think the premise that the term is somehow limited to the Bushes' presidencies is false. Both George Bushes were public figures before their presidencies, and after. The term could also refer to Jeb Bush, or various uses outside the political family. Since it is so vague, I wouldn't oppose deletion, but retargeting to the presidency dab page seems like a kludge, resulting in the sort of redirect I'd expect to come up at RfD later. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My thought was one of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I know that the term is used outside of the Bushes' presidencies, but I figured it would be unlikely to see the term used in another context besides their presidencies. I don't think the term is that vague, unless someone might be looking for Ian Bush, but I'll concede anyway. After thinking about it some more, I'd rather it redirect to somewhere too broad than too narrow. -- Tavix (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can appreciate that someone is probably looking for a George Bush, but sometimes vague queries need vague answers. No wonder the term itself is only used once on Wikipedia. So anyone hoping for discussion of the term itself is bound for disappointment. --BDD (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD and Tavix: Wouldn't Bush family be preferable to Bush? The use of this term is seemingly limited to describing views held by members of that family.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not exclusively, at least. I'm seeing a few results for bushian vannevar -wikipedia, related to Vannevar Bush. --BDD (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be fine with that as well. My results brought up a lot of hits for Ian Bush, but it's probably for a different reason. -- Tavix (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Bush family and add the hatnote "'Bushian' redirects here. For the views held by the American engineer, see Vannevar Bush." (i.e. {{Redirect|Bushian|the views held by the American engineer|Vannevar Bush}}). Views held by the bush family are definitely the primary topic (e.g. wikt:Bushian).— Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a side note, I did find a few uses of this related to Kate Bush, but they were generally preceded by "Kate" and contained a dash.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well, this will likely be closed soon as "no consensus", but I believe that it would be possible to get some kind of majority opinion if this is relisted later on down the line in the future. I think. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to go on a limb here: Retarget to Wiktionary:Bushian. In related news, I'm WP:SURPRISEd that exists. Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to either Bush family or softly to wikt:Bushian. No other topics outside the family are called "Bushian". George Ho (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A wiktionary redirect would have been warranted if there didn't exist any relevant articles on wikipedia, but that's not the case. The primary uses of "Bushian" seem to all be about the the presidents (so a retarget to Presidency of George Bush would be sensible). But even though when used to refer to other people (like Vannevar Bush, linked above) it seems to often go along with a qualifier, this doesn't happen all the time. I think retargeting either to the dab page at Bush, or to Geroge Bush per Ivanvector below, is probably going to result in the least overall inconvenience for readers. – Uanfala (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's give this one more kick at the can. See further comments below.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to George Bush with a hatnote to other people with the surname Bush. So far everyone agrees that the current target is wrong, but each time this has been relisted we've moved further away from agreeing on a course of action, so here goes. The OED's definition specifies that this refers to either of the Georges Bush or their policies, not necessarily while president (it also mentions them as vice president and governor of Texas), and not expanding to any other members of the family nor other people with the same surname. This indicates that "George Bush" (either of them) is the primary topic for this term, or they are primary topics with respect to other people surnamed Bush who have been mentioned here. The use of -ian suffixes is fairly prominent in English to refer to a leading politician's policies, but we're hardly consistent on Wikipedia; Bushian is listed here, Nixonian points to Richard Nixon (not Presidency of Richard Nixon), Thatcherian points to Margaret Thatcher, Clintonian is a separate article, "Rooseveltian" doesn't exist (I tried to see if other same-surnamed presidents would have solved this problem already, alas not), and Fordian points to Henry Ford, not the same-surnamed president. Taking all of this into account, it's safe to say that someone looking for "Bushian" on Wikipedia is probably looking for one of the two Georges, but not necessarily their presidencies and it's impossible to say which George Bush, so the George Bush disambiguation page is the right place for them to land. Deletion is not warranted because there is a good place that this can point to, notwithstanding the fact that the redirect had 8 hits in the year preceding the nomination. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think casting the net a bit wider to include other members of the bush family (especially Jeb) doesn't do any harm. A hatnote as you've described is a good idea for either of those two targets.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:35, 9 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.

Dr mario series[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 Mario puzzle games#Dr. Mario series. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The target of the redirect is not a series article, and such an article doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Dr. Mario does seem to be a series, and the other titles are noted at Dr. Mario#Legacy. I'm not a fan of the format though... -- Tavix (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks like a series according to the navbox at the bottom. Plausible search term for mobiles and non-keyboard entry. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AngusWOOF: I agree there is a series, but the confusion I see lies in the fact that the target article is written/catered for the original game in the series. In other news, I was originally considering mentioning Dr. Mario#Legacy as a possibly retargeting option in lieu of a WP:REDLINK deletion, but it seems that Tavix either read my mind or beat me to it. (Guess we'll never know since I didn't include that retargeting option in my nomination statement.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anyone convert Dr. Mario (series) into a franchise page? It is now a redirect to List of Mario puzzle games. If not, then retarget to List of Mario puzzle games. George Ho (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    When I think WPVG, Salvidrim is the first name that comes to mind. I thought he might know someone who specializes in video game series articles, but now that I see he brought the Dr. Mario article up to GA status, maybe he'll have a go at it himself. :) --BDD (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)That is one helluva compliment, buddy :D ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @BDD: Yeah, either him, Sergecross73 or Ferret. Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Bah, the three of us have almost joined into a hivemind at this point haven't we guys :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added a hatnote to the List of Mario puzzle games. I think the Legacy section can be converted to a Sequel or series section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:17, 4 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.

Tetris: From Russia With Love[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 14#Tetris: From Russia With Love

TETIaIS[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot) Not sure what's going on with that "IaI" "Ia". From what I can see, it looks like Eubot translated "Я" as "IaI" "Ia" and I'm not sure why since I'm not familiar with Russian. Steel1943 (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you look at the redirect’s history, you will see that Eubot created it as an ASCII version of “TETЯIS”, replacing “Я” with “Ia” (not “IaI”). That is a reasonable transliteration in general, but since it is not Russian in this context but a stylized “R”, the redirect is nonsense, and should be deleted. Gorobay (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gorobay: Good catch. My eyes deceived me with that extra "I". Fixing my nomination statement. Steel1943 (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Faux Cyrillic is not transliterated in this manner. Thryduulf (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:38, 6 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.

Quinn (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 Delete. – Deleted by Patar knight, citing this discussion in their deletion notice. Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article's content; the subject of this redirect is only mentioned in the article as part of the title of a reference which is currently a dead link. Per the redirect's history as an article, it seems as though the subject of the redirect was an unofficial, unlicensed clone of the target subject. With this being said, the subject of the redirect would probably fail WP:NOTWIKIA as an article. Steel1943 (talk) 16:53, 4 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.

Emlith[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. Per searching this term on third-party search engines, the subject of the redirect seems to be some sort of unofficial video game clone of the subject of the redirect's target. Steel1943 (talk) 16:44, 4 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.

Bastard tetris[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. Per the edit history of this redirect, it seems as though the subject itself is a WP:NOTWIKIA violation. Steel1943 (talk) 16:42, 4 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.

2159 Kukkamaeki[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) 18:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) Asteroid named after a Finnish geodesist. ä and ae are not equivalent in Finnish, thus Kukkamaeki is not a valid substitution, as is visible also from its lack of google search results and lack of views. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm adding two similar Eubot redirects to the man himself. I figure this either is or is not a legitimate transliteration for him. --BDD (talk) 15:30, 4 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.

Other vampires of Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter[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) 18:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is unclear on what "vampires of Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter" it is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the article needs a serious reorganization, but from what I can see, there were some spin-off character lists that went by the "(grouping) of Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter" format. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:36, 4 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.

Other members of the Santangelo family[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is unclear on what members of "Santangelo family" it is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the redirect has outlived its usefulness and it is vague considering there are plenty of Santangelos besides the ones in the Jackie Collins books. 21:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngusWOOF (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - "Other" members... other than what? This is rather awkward, and I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:35, 5 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.

Rose street fighter 4 character file[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the title of the redirect is meant to refer to Rose (Street Fighter), but the redirect is quite an unlikely search term and could cause confusion due to the use of the word "file". Steel1943 (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not wikia of character files nor a notable media entry of that name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a likely search term, I can't imagine someone adding all of those elements into a search. Sergecross73 msg me 14:34, 5 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.

List of Non Playable Characters in the Street Fighter series[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 13#List of Non Playable Characters in the Street Fighter series

List of most viewed kpop music videos[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 13#List of most viewed kpop music videos

Redirects implying Bush's direct involvement on 9/11[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 16#Redirects implying Bush's direct involvement on 9/11

Wikipedia:PUMPRIME[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as implausible misspelling with no incoming links except its own listing as a shortcut. Mihirpmehta (talk) 06:40, 4 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.

Anni Sinnemaeki[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 13#Anni Sinnemaeki

That's hot[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 That's hot; retarget That's Hot to Paris Hilton. -- Tavix (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has been created as a redirect to Paris Hilton over and over, and it was deleted twice or thrice until re-creation. I converted That's Hot from a redirect to another target into a dabpage. If "that's hot" can't be deleted, then it should be redirected to the now-converted dabpage. George Ho (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as {{R from catchphrase}} and Redirect That's Hot to Paris Hilton. If the other singles or books are notable they can go in That's Hot (disambiguation) but the Sims track is hardly notable and is not even on the original soundtrack listing but some extended mix list. The Jesse G one is a maybe since it was released in 1981 but it itself doesn't have any notability nor does Jesse G. Also her catchphrase was trademarked and she settled the lawsuit with Hallmark. [3][4] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not turning it into an article, AngusWOOF? George Ho (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Almost forgot: "that's hot" is not mentioned in the "Paris Hilton" article. George Ho (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you have enough info to make it into an article about the catchphrase, along with first usage and trademark, and its related lawsuits, legacy, then go for it. I don't see it as a disambiguation though as the non-primary topic entries are not notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to create Draft:That's hot, but that would be forking. Like one or two draft pages that I struggled to improve, the page would be rejected over and over. I left a note at Talk:Paris Hilton, asking whether adding back the catchphrase in Hilton is okay. George Ho (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
George Ho, no one seems to have objected on Paris Hilton's talk page, so I think you have licence to go ahead and reintroduce the catchphrase into the article. – Uanfala (talk) 22:08, 14 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.

Paint chips[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 16#Paint chips

Espeize-Unduereine[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) Cloning of the (valid) redirect Espeize-Ündüreine. (Espeize-Undureine, also an eubot creation, is the proper no-diacritics form) Basque, not German, so ü isn't actually an umlaut here and thus not transliterated as ue as far as I know. Even if it was, though, the redirect title is inconsistent as it simultaneously uses 'plain' U for Ü. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:13, 4 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_4&oldid=1088107262"