Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 10, 2017.

How can a tram route cross a trolley bus route without short circuits[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. WJBscribe (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Implausible redirect - deleted in 2005, it has been inexplicably recreated. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and refine to Overhead line#Crossings. This was merged, not deleted, in 2005 so it needs to be kept as an {{R from merge}} for attribution purposes. It was deleted as part of a bulk nomination of 90 redirects in 2010, where it was apparently not individually examined as it was not mentioned by commenters who did not spot its history. As for the question posed by the title, the target section answers exactly that question so it is not misleading and takes people to the information they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've now tagged it with {{R from merge}} without prejudice to this discussion (although I firmly believe it should be kept). Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Exemplo347 its first deletion was not until 2010. On 2017 Feb 17 user Killa77killa re-created it with a bit of vandalism that I have sent you. Goodness knows how Killa77killa found their way to this title. It was speeditly deleted. But then PRehse came along and restored the edits from 2005 not realising that they had actually been deleted in 2010. However now that it has been restored, I propose:
  • Move to tram route crossing trolley bus route since we do not like titles which sound like WikiAnswers and point it to overhead line#Crossings. (I would like it kept as a record of my early work before I learned Wikipedia standards or is it that standards have tightened up in the last twelve years? Indeed I am tempted to update it with an example from San Francisco where a tram line merges into a trolley bus line!) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, if I remember rightly I nominated that ranting, rambling angry page for a Speedy when I encountered it. Your move proposal is sound - it's a plausible search term. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a simpler phrasing maybe Crossing tram lines or Crossing trolley lines or Crossing tram and trolley lines then opt for those, but I think RHaworth's version is better than the original question. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just created a redirect from Overhead line crossings to the article at Overhead line crossing (which is about spans by high-voltage electricity supply lines of rivers, valleys, etc) and added a hatnote to Overhead line#Crossing there. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak refine per Thryduulf because the article does answer the exact question posed by this title. Deryck C. 00:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move without redirect per RHaworth, especially taken within the spirit of WP:G7. -- Tavix (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC) clarified 21:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist so a log page can be closed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 21:54, 10 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.

Military and Hospitally Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem[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 14:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request deletion. The redirect was created by User:Wissenschaftler-Uni whose edits reveal a very poor grasp of the English language. This creation seems to be one of his/her many spelling errors, as the intention appears to have been to create "Military and Hospitaller Order....", which is the formal name of the redirect target. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 18:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete implausible typo. Hospitaler and Hospital though would be acceptable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:32, 14 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.

JAMALDINI[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 14:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely capitalisation and Jamaldini already exists. There's also a WP:COSTLY aspect here as the current target has over a hundred redirects. – Uanfala (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat off-topic discussion regarding a restoration of Jamaldini. -- Tavix (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Jamaldini, which should be restored as an article. It was redirected because it was an "unsourced article", but with no discussion of Jamaldini at the target, a redirect makes zero sense. It'd be better to seek deletion of the article at a proper forum. -- Tavix (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No objections to restoring Jamaldini as long as it can be reliably sourced. Regardless of what happens to that article, I don't see the point of the all-caps redirect: it's implausible as a search term and I don't see breaking external links as an issue (the article was at this title for the first 7 minutes of its existence 8 years ago – too little, too long ago). – Uanfala (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mention over a hundred redirects. I glanced through the list and there's several other former article redirects that fit this same mould. I'd be willing to put together a mass AfD including all of these. That way the merits of the articles can be judged and, knowing what normally happens with these articles, I bet this redirect would then be taken care of via WP:G8. What would you think of that? -- Tavix (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I'm currently making my way through the list: there are two redirects I'm planning to expand into articles and there are quite a few that will likely end up being retargeted. But that will still leave a hundred or so redirects, many of them former articles. Each one of them will have to be judged on its own merits, so a mass AfD nomination is sure to be the same kind of trainwreck that happened with the mass AfD for the jat clans last year. The ideal situation is where each article is either restored with proper references, or sent individually to Prod or AfD at a very slow rate – the community of active editors here is very small, so more than a single nomination once a month or two isn't likely to elicit much input. – Uanfala (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for your input, that makes sense. I'd be willing to help out where necessary. -- Tavix (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm going to collapse this and strike my !vote. While I still believe an AfD/PROD should happen, it's not really pressing in my mind and I don't want that to stand in the way of deleting this redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 04:14, 11 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.

Twyla[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 create SIA. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No obvious connection to the target Peter Rehse (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Create SIA for list of PTM names. There is a mononymous character named Twyla in the Monster High characters list but the character is not so notable as to be a primary topic or warrant the redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Name indices aren't PTMs since it's common for people to be called by one of their names, see MOS:APO. The character can be added to the index if she's mentioned somewhere. -- Tavix (talk) 12:42, 15 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.

Git wizard[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) 18:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting redirect to a living figure; no pages link here. OZOO 10:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Git perhaps? — Train2104 (t • c) 02:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Eh, this is a bit of pop culture filler, nothing more, and I don't see a good reason to keep it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not used in notable news sources. 14 views in 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:36, 14 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.

Tribes in Balochistan[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) 18:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An WP:XY situation on several levels. The Baloch people aren't the only ethnic group of Balochistan that is organised on tribal terms, nor are they predominant by a sufficiently large margin to be seen as a "primary" sense of the phrase. I don't see any relevant content anywhere, and although Balochistan seems like a potential target that could get expanded with relevant content, it is not ideal, as it doesn't quite subsume all the other places with the same name, which also have tribal populations of their own. – Uanfala (talk) 06:53, 10 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.

Communist Party of Nepal (disambiguation)[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, again. While the page is technically not a disambiguation, it functions as one. Opinions are split on whether or not the redirect remains useful, among other things. -- Tavix (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This has been cited at a precedent for handling vestigial redirects from a converted dab -> WP:SIA. This needs wider scrutiny, so must be relisted. (as I promised at RfD) Widefox; talk 05:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • For context, See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 9#Västra Frölunda IF (disambiguation).
  • WP:SETNOTDAB WP:NOTDAB MOS:DABNOTINDEX Set index articles are not disambiguation pages
  • " (disambiguation)" in the title means a disambiguation page. (more clearly than "List of.." means a list article)
    • SIAs are not disambiguation pages
  • Therefore a redirect with " (disambiguation)" which targets a list breaks ASTONISH
  • Don't confuse the reader by conflating disambiguation pages with lists. Don't ASTONISH them when navigating.
  • WP:G8 Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page similar to talk pages etc, a " (disambiguation)" redirect is a depependent on a non-existent or deleted page.
  • These vestigial redirects must be treated as such, and not WP:ASTONISH by landing readers on a non-dab page. To sum up, WP:SIAs are not 1% dabby, they are list articles. (as per my links and arguments in the see also, it is explicit that SIAs are not to be treated as dabs, and dabs not as SIAs. This guidance is in bold in multiple locations. It is implicit that dependent aspects, such as redirects with (disambiguation) are integral to dab/navigation only to aid linking and navigation, which do not apply when they are vestigial (i.e. when the dab is not there, they serve no navigational purpose per se, and should not be used to as they mislead that they're targeting a dab). This may be clear best practice to dab editors, but not currently explicit in guideline. My experience with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 9#Västra Frölunda IF (disambiguation) leads me to conclude that wider discussion is needed to clarify, and in particular that this is a clash between best practice at RfD, vs dab editors. A clash of two WP:LOCALCONSENSUSes. It would be very practical to acknowledged that dab work involves moving, deleting, etc and must not be bogged down by WP:BURO when the sole aim of such redirects is as part of an arrangement of navigation, we can't have the redirect wagging the navigation dog: It just isn't practical to focus on one redirect, when there's a higher worth of navigation with a set of moves, redirect, dabs etc that must be decided on - vestigial is worth reading for similarity as part of a navigation system. On the other hand, RfD has arguments for conserving navigation which may need balancing. Widefox; talk 06:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/meh. WP:ASTONISH says things like "The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or overwhelmingly confused by your article. For example, do not write, "Most people in Fargo, N.D. are dead. That is, dead tired by the end of a long work day"." - it has little/no relevance here; the average reader is very unlikely to be bothered about the distinction between a dab page and a SIA. Unless the nominator can clearly explain a problem that this redirect causes there is little point in spending time discussing it at RfD. DexDor (talk) 07:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ASTONISH - broadly this is a consistency with the user interface, but it surfaces in MOS:SUBMARINE (no pun intended) "Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Per the principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link. " and this is most pertinent in the whole of WP with things like MOS:DABPIPE. When users are navigating, we strip piping to provide the most WYSIWYG. Now, I believe this may be part of why having a redirect namespace " (disambiguation)" that's reserved for redirecting to dab pages exclusively is a consistency of user interface experience and ASTONISH that we should uphold. If we relax that, users do not know what to expect when navigating via a " (disambiguation)".
My understanding is that there's several good reasons for RfD CHEAP, but that must be balanced against a consistent user interface. We're not talking about articles, my understanding is that copyright doesn't apply to functional works (non-creative works like dabs navigation), which is another reason to preserve history. As dabs aren't generally allowed to be linked to, this seems like most/all of the precautions at RfD do not apply. Widefox; talk 11:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) As for what an average user expects, of course that's right. But UI expectations for average users are high nowadays, one of the reasons cited to preserve the redirect above was to enable discovery via the search box - but that's exactly the expectation we break if we don't maintain consistency, and there's practical reasons why disambiguation is much more strict about link ASTONISHment as navigation is a means to an ends - quick, easy, consistent navigation, no refs, no ext, so there's a thin end of the wedge argument that these highly specialised pages have to preserve their UI. It's difficult enough for average readers and editors to distinguish dabs/SIAs without conflating SIAs and dabs in best practice. Widefox; talk 11:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"It's difficult enough for average readers and editors to distinguish dabs/SIAs without conflating SIAs and dabs in best practice" The average reader doesn't need to know or care about the difference between dabs and SIAs because they both fulfill the same navigational purpose - of directing users to the non-primary topic article they are looking for. The only reason they are not all called disambiguation pages is because of an internal style guideline. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the crux of this? "both fulfill the same navigational purpose" (emphasis own). That assumption is just a conflation. "List xxx" shouldn't target a dab per WP:HOWTODAB. We treat them differently, and conflate them at a COST. That search use case is a hack (see AN) (not sure if it also risks mobile users using more data as lists are allowed to have more data - graphics etc. I'd prefer to know I'm always getting a dab. Less data. If I need to nav via a list it's better by choice not ASTONISH.) They aren't the same, and on mobile it is more pronounced - screen size, consistency etc. Agree about average user, but looks can be deceiving - dabs and SIAs are treated very differently (superficially some may look identical, I agree), which is the reason for having these redirects to avoid direct linking dabs. If all the dabs had such redirects, then this search would still be a hack, but would work. Widefox; talk 18:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC) (updated) Widefox; talk 13:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't confuse the reader by conflating disambiguation pages and list articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very old {{R from move}} redirect. Page was at the disambiguation title from 2008-2014, probability of breaking incoming external links is high. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any data for that? How do we balance that (currently unknown importance) external use case with WP internal consistency use case? What's the benefit if we know the cost? (the cost of maintaining a legacy namespace that's vestigial to an internal navigation system) Widefox; talk 11:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per {{R from move}} and that anyone searching for this title will end up with exactly the content they are looking for - a page from which they can find links to articles about communist parties in Nepal. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would anyone search for "Communist Party of Nepal (disambiguation)"? Standard procedure is to consider navigation via the primary topic Communist Party of Nepal, so they're assumed to have navigated via that. That search use case seems well established by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Widefox; talk 12:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any advanced user who expects a dab page with an advanced search using their experience of titles with " (disambiguation)" will be ASTONISHED to find no dab page! Widefox; talk 12:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • People search for "title (disambiguation)" when they know or suspect that the article they are looking for is not the primary topic, but they don't know what the article title is - for example the other day I was reading something which referred to an airline only by it's code "U2" and wanted to know which airline this was. I know that the U2 article is going to be about the band so I navigated directly to U2 (disambiguation) rather than spend time and data (I was on my mobile at the time) going via an article I knew I didn't want. Had I landed at a set index or a list rather than a disambiguation I would not have been astonished in the slightest because I would still have been taken to a page that listed the Easyjet article. I was not looking for a disambiguation page, I was looking for a page that listed articles associated with the title "U2" and I knew that I could find such a page at U2 (disambiguation). Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, a very informed user, and a very specific use case. What if you didn't know that U2 (disambiguation) targeted a List article with images etc, ie high data? Don't you think that on mobile, knowing it targets a dab is even more important, always?! That nav use case goes against the majority assumption of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we assume they go via the PT. Also, searching for "xxx (disambiguation)" without knowing a priori that it's got a PT or not only guarantees landing on a dab page. That is, unless we go against convention of " (disambiguation)" meaning "disambiguation" and relax them to redirect to other things, per this argument. i.e. if (disambiguation) doesn't mean a disambiguation page, it could also be useful in this way for other things...WP:DABCONCEPTs, Outlines etc. Many things can be nav aids, but something screaming "disambiguation" is best kept as disambiguation. This seems like a niche use cases. Be wary of breaking consistent UI. Conversely, by the same logic (against dabs=/=lists), we could have "List of ..." redirect to dab pages. If there's some level of equivalence, that's just the inverse use case. I repeat, advanced users may do lots of things but does that justify conflating SIAs and dabs? Widefox; talk 17:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • If the SIA/list is very well developed, with heavy data, usage, it might be worth it to set up a DAB/SIA with less data restrictions to point such a redirect to. If someone is using "(disambiguation)" in their search term, they explicitly don't want the primary topic, so insisting that they do because that's how it's supposed to be done seems unhelpful. A possible exception might be if the primary topic has a long hatnote with links to other articles, but in those cases, a DAB page should be created instead. Generally broad concept articles and outlines wouldn't be likely targets for a search with "(disambiguation)" which would be awkward (e.g. History of France (disambiguation), X-related topics (disambiguation)?). The exception would be if the BCA (or for whatever reason the Outline) has the only example of a list of relevant articles on Wikipedia (e.g. Microsoft_Lumia#List_of_Lumia_devices), but even then, it would be easier to spin out a list and target there instead. There is no equivalence, nor does there need to be, but in certain cases "List of..." redirects would be useful if they targeted DAB pages (e.g. List of Treaties of Paris could be useful if targeted to Treaty of Paris, which is a DAB page, which has such a list), but those cases should be relatively rare because of the nature of most DAB pages, unlike the other way around. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Erm, they seem very fancy when I've proved this use case doesn't work well for dabs currently. We don't have redirects for all dabs yet. Sorry to burst this, but I don't see anyone proposing these, doing these, and am convinced they are offtopic here - per guideline WP:D ..typing in a reasonably likely topic name.. (see WP:AN) In fact, it's become clear the search is just a hack (see AN). The consensus is such "List of.." redirects are invalid per WP:HOWTODAB. WP:G6 excludes creating such " (disambiguation)" redirects to single articles (WP:SIA is defined as being an article). Closer - please weigh search use case, redirects, against consensus linked Widefox; talk 03:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, and my previous posts at the Vastra Frolunda RFD, and the previous RFD for this redirect. These redirects are WP:CHEAP, helpful for navigation, and often the result of long-standing pages being moved because of a recent shift away from DAB pages to SIAs. The argument that these should be deleted because readers are simultaneously too stupid to see all the parenthetical disambiguation, including the common "X (disambiguation)"-titled pages and not realize they could search this way and that readers are so well-versed in the intricacies of the distinction between DABs and SIAs that they would get upset at such a redirect because it was misleading is an absurd one.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note WP:COSTLY is also an essay. The nom is about how costly. Not aware of trend/why OTHERSTUFF is relevant, and obscure proven unreliable navigation seems increasingly offtopic. Suggest taking them up separately elsewhere. Widefox; talk 03:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have proposed at WT:CSD#G6 and redirects ending in "(disambiguation)" that the speedy deletion criteria for pages ending in "(disambguation)" be changed to reflect that not all such pages are uncontroversial. Please comment on this proposal there rather than here. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the only reason for redirects with "(disambiguation)" is to mark intentional links to disambiguation pages. That some advanced editors have glommed on to the redirects for other uses is beside the point. There is a difference between disambiguation pages and other pages and keeping redirects such as this only compounds the confusion (among both experienced and neophyte editors). older ≠ wiser 21:55, 11 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.

White weapon[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. I'll also take care of the other redirects Godsy mentioned without prejudice against recreation somewhere else. -- Tavix (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

White weapon is currently a redirect to a deleted article Cold weapon. There seems to be some usage of the term (e.g. [1]). The article cold weapon was deleted on the basis that it was a made-up term. If that reasoning holds, this should be deleted also. MB 02:54, 10 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.

Significance (2014 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. Primefac (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. There's a couple projects in development according to IMDb, but no signs of moving into production anytime soon. -- Tavix (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete failed crystal. And it looks like the film plans were a mess according to these blog posts where the producers are slinging mud at each other: [2] [3] but it references an indiegogo fundraising amount. [4] Bottom line is that the film doesn't look like it is going to be made anytime soon. The author Shelly Crane has a stub-level page here. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:02, 16 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.

Seven Years, Three Days[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. Primefac (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. "Seven Years, Three Days" is mentioned nowhere on Wikipedia, and I was unable to verify that anything is even in development via IMDb. -- Tavix (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it's an indie film that would have been redirected by Jesse Zwick and produced by Adam Saunders, who teamed up on About Alex.[5] Neither of these folks have a Wikipedia article (the Adam Saunders that does is an Australian actor). So non-notable, not even a run at a film festival. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:10, 16 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 Key Man[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. Primefac (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL as the film is still in development. This could also be seen as WP:XY since there's a minor 2011 film by the name that appears in passing in a few articles. -- Tavix (talk) 01:20, 10 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.

By Virtue Fall[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 14:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL as the film is still in development. -- Tavix (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NFF Argento Surfer (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although he's the producer, director, and screenwriter, this isn't mentioned in his own article, so nothing worth redirecting to for now. Has been in development since 2011. [7] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:14, 16 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 Ballad of Pablo Escoba[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. Primefac (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL as the film is still in development. -- Tavix (talk) 01:13, 10 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.

First North American blizzard of 2010[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. Primefac (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These could be seen as confusing. Unlike tropical cyclones, winter storms don't have a rigid numbering system and the definitions of what qualify as a winter storm varies across sources. The fact that Fourth North American winter storm and blizzard target different articles help illustrate this. -- Tavix (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Very confusing, especially as the impacts of a winter storm can vary widely. What someone living in New York City may recall as "the first blizzard" may be what someone living in Boston would recall as "the second blizzard" since the first one was a minor event in NYC. We're not going to disambiguate by city, so get rid of them all. — Train2104 (t • c) 02:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They've been around a long time, and they probably have incoming links, but since they're outright confusing per nom, we should get rid of them. Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 10 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.

Redirect category[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) 18:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace to projectspace; not a generally accepted/acceptable pseudo-shortcut like 'MOS:', either. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia:Redirect category exists. This redirect is a non-encyclopedic, specifically Wikipedia related term that doesn't belong in the mainspace. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are some CNRs out of mainspace into project space that have value (c.f. the recently nominated Wikipedia Ambassador), most commonly when they of value to very new users who haven't learned about namespaces yet. Redirect categorisation is not something that most experienced editors need to know about, let alone very new ones, and I can't think of any other reason the project space page needs to be more accessible than usual. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 10 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_10&oldid=1088106781"