Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 1, 2017.

Conan the Conqueror (2017 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. Deryck C. 14:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, this film has been cancelled, which means it's no longer "upcoming", nor could it be released in 2017. -- Tavix (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (2017 film) as failed crystal. Redirect (upcoming film) to the Sequels section where it describes planned films that failed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:53, 4 May 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.

Template:R cm[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. Thryduulf (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also and similarly

Delete, unused, obscure. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

  • Note. I've correctly listed Template:R cs above, tagged the redirect page and notified relevant users. Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Even though I usually favor keeping most shortcuts, as seen by this recent RfD discussion, and while I think these are harmless if not useful shortcut redirects, I'm neutral on these two. They were created in 2013 by an editor who became inactive shortly after creating them, and who also created a large amount of similar shortcuts to redirect templates. I remember thinking at the time, 'Now why did they create so many shortcuts? It's not as if they plan to use them or others plan to use them.' So I tend to agree with the nom as to their obscurity and lack of use.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  02:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have no idea how these letters refer to the targets, so I'm going to call this nonsense. -- Tavix (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the confusion regarding these templates' purpose, as evidenced by the conversation directly above between Paine Ellsworth and Tavix. They're not in use currently anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:19, 10 May 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.

Homosexualism[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 Homosexuality. WP:SNOW retarget. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was set up in 2002 to point to homosexuality, and then in 2012 redirected to LGBT social movements. Since then it was changed back and forth with no proper discussion. To the best of my knowledge this term is an alternative spelling to "homosexuality," and this fact is reflected in many other languages. I tried searching the dictionaries, but OED and Mariam-Webster don't seem to have the word, dict.org[1], The Free Dictionary[2] and our own Wiktionary[3] support "homosexuality" view, while Urban Dictionary[4] provides both views. Looks like the LGBT social movements sense is rather a neologism on top of an alternative spelling, which is widely used in other languages. So far I see more sense in retargeting this page to homosexuality. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've left at note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies inviting them to participate here. Something in the back of my mind says that "homosexualism" has negative connotations these days, which isn't necessarily a problem (see WP:RNEUTRAL but something to be aware of), although I need to do more research on this one before recommending a course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to homosexuality. As demonstrated by the sources listed above, and a Google scholar search, this term is most reliably attested as an archaic synonym of homosexuality. There appears to also be a more recent collection of fringe uses of it in a variety of pejorative ways. Without going too far down that rabbit hole, LGBT social movements isn't a strong match for any of the intended meanings. Even if the fringe meanings were the ones we wanted to capture, homosexuality is still the best target.--Trystan (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Homosexuality, per nominator and Trystan. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Homosexuality or delete. With the possible exception of the unabridged OED, the only modern, major dictionary to retain the word is Collins, which calls it "old-fashioned". The only reason I can see to keep it at all is that it does get a few hits, presumably from some obscure link or other. (Incidentally, Collins also lists a related word, "homosexualist", with accompanying graph supposedly showing usage over time. Recent usage is zilch.) RivertorchFIREWATER 04:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the only time I've actually heard "homosexualist", anytime in at least the past decade, was Mark Ashton's megaphone speech to his friends toward the end of the film Pride — and he was using it ironically. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to homosexuality. That's what this term was traditionally used for — while it's true that it is generally used pejoratively these days if used at all, historically it was used even in more neutral contexts before the language on LGBT topics standardized. There's very little to no evidence that it has had any currency as a term for LGBT activists as distinguished from non-activists — when it meant anything at all, it simply meant people who were lesbian or gay period, and didn't even really include bisexuals or transgender folk, and was not reserved for people who engaged in lesbian or gay activism to the exclusion of lesbians and gays who just quietly lived their lives without ever doing anything activist in nature. Bearcat (talk) 13:41, 5 May 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.

Andres oend[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, or perhaps more accurately, "keep deleted". With no further input after the relist, it would seem there are no strong objections to the title being red. Should someone want to recreate it, it could be discussed anew as the creation of a human, rather than part of a somewhat suspect batch of bot creations. --BDD (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theres another to combine with this. Eubot. Si Trew (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - clearly indicated in the creation summary that this transliterates Andrés önd, which has been deleted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • taken to CSD right now. Thanks for reminding me of the previous discussion. I think there are a few other even more bizarre ones by Eubot. Si Trew (talk) 08:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: I didn't speedy it because I couldn't think of a criterion that fit. Is there a discussion somewhere about G6 applying to listed Eubot redirects? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Anthony Bradbury could explain why he thinks it's G6. -- Tavix (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel a different deletion criterion is more appropriate I will not argue. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Anthony.bradbury: I would have recommended deletion, but for the record this was not a speedy deletion candidate. G6 is for uncontroversial maintenance and similar, and there has never been a consensus that Eubot redirects qualify for that (not least because it got so much more right than it got wrong). The closest criterion is G8, but even then that is too big a stretch for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still feels like it's a stretch (and WP:G6 is very often abused, which is why I'm wary of stretching it). Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 20#Andres ond closed with keeping the redirect and restoring another one, and because there seems to be some disagreement over whether or not WP:G6 deletion was valid in this case. I know, I know, deletion review and all that, but let's just work it out here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:09, 1 May 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.

2017 Maria Sharapova tennis season[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 procedural close. Wrong forum - article is restored and sent to AfD. Deryck C. 14:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was just created and should be speedy deleted. Maria Sharapova does not merit a stand-alone season article per Tennis Guidelines.She has not won a Grand Slam event (nor is she in the top 5 having won a grand slam event). She isn't even close yet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore article and use WP:AFD. It's disruptive to redirect something somewhere and immediately afterwards take it to RfD. It's the article you want deleted, and WP:AFD is the place to do that. -- Tavix (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article per Tavix. RfD is not an end-run around AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. All the other articles of this sort have either been deleted or speedy deleted. I thought this was the best place but obviously not. I will do as asked. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:58, 2 May 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.

Aß fiber[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) feminist 09:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is conflation between a Greek Beta β and a German Scharfes Es ß. Am nominating this off the back of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_21#Ass_fiber. Deryck C. 17:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a plausible spelling error. Beta has hatnotes noting that it should not be confused with ß (eszett) or 阝 (Chinese radical). Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - does seem like a plausible spelling error. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure for what kind of reader this would be a plausible spelling error. I has received only 16 views for the whole of last year. – Uanfala (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noise level for redirects is typically around 2-4 hits per year. Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm used to seeing such pageviews (and up to an order of magnitude larger, i.e. 2-4 views per month) mostly in the context of delete votes. – Uanfala (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is a great example why pageviews shouldn't be a measuring stick for keeping or deleting redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Instead of looking at pageviews, how about sources? What do they offer? Much to my surprise, I did find this error in English-language sources: [5] [6] [7] -- Tavix (talk) 02:00, 13 May 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.

Nyet[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 redirect to wiktionary. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned on the target page. "Nyet" is indeed a common Russian word, but I can't imagine this arrangement helping readers. Those who already know the word will learn no more about it; those who don't are likely to only be confused. There was a DOS game called Nyet, a Tetris clone readers could be looking for, but we don't seem to have coverage of it or any other encyclopedic topic of the name. BDD (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:FORRED. Wikt:nyet notes that this is also a Danish word (the singular definitive of "ny", meaning, "new moon" or "waxing moon"). Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Soft redirect to Wiktionary per Patar knight. Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary. It gets around 3 hits a day, [8], and it is one of the most recognizable Russian words. We should take readers somewhere useful. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:10, 2 May 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.

Sueleyman Nazif[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 14#Sueleyman Nazif

Ubisoft SRL[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. 15:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda amibgous, since e.g. Ubisoft Milan is legally "Ubisoft Studios S.R.L.", and there was Ubisoft SARL as Ubisoft Casablanca, etc., and I don't think that it is a popular term either, as Ubisoft subsiidaries are not usually (neither in primary nor in secondary sources) presented with their legal name. Lordtobi (✉) 13:51, 1 May 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.

Gyoergy Luntzer[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. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can go by consensus, we don't do Hungarian names like that Si Trew (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We don't do Hungarian names like that unless there is evidence of use. In this case there isn't, so it should be deleted, but take the time to check in future. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gyoergy is a transliteration that is dated, but was used for this first name. [9] ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:50, 1 May 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.

Homeschool athletics[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. Two relistings and no additional comments in the 10 days since the last one so any consensus here seems unlikely. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No such section; presumably deleted or incorporated into section about social life etc. WP:RFD#D2 confusing. The only mention of this term (in its entirety) is via the transcluded navbox ({{homeschooling}}), where of course it navigates back to homeschooling. There is one other trivial mention of "athletics" about clubs home-educated children might join to socialise, but nothing particularly about how those clubs would differ from other athletics clubs. Si Trew (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:XY Otherwise you might has well have Homeschool (subject). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 1 May 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.

Hanneke Canters (1969-2002) Feminist Philosopher[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. There is a protracted discussion about what counts as "useful" with arguments on both sides. But on the whole, I find the "delete" side's arguments, that this title is poorly constructed and the article stayed at this title for only a few hours, more compelling than the "keep" side's argument that deletion will break external incoming links. Participants of this debate have warned about not counting heads in a RfD, but combining the majority favouring delete here and relative weights of the arguments presented, it does point towards the conclusion that deletion is the most plausible outcome. Deryck C. 17:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is extremely implausible as a search term. -- Tavix (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete technical, poorly constructed modifiers that list her occupation as a proper noun and her birth range when both are not necessary or helpful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless {{R from move}} that gets human views. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article was at that title for less than a day eleven years ago, and the views it gets (2 last month) are below the threshold of views I'd expect to be coming from the search box drop-down suggestions. – Uanfala (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This got 10 hits last year, which is a little more than double the noise level. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • 10 hits per year?!? That's laughably implausible! -- Tavix (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: I don't know why you're laughing. Everything I've seen suggests that every redirect, no matter how implausible, can expect between 2 and 4 hits every year - presumably from bots that the tool has failed to recognise as such. This means that around 6 to 8 real people used this redirect last year - what benefits will be had from making it harder for those people to find the content they are undoubtedly looking for? Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't fall for the page view fallacy, I prefer common sense. I could easily see those page views coming from Special:RandomRedirect, for example. So no, the page view tool does not prove that people are actively using the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really? There are more than 7.5 million in the aritcle namespace. Assuming that Special:RandomRedirect is viewed as often as the Wikipedia article (8.5 million last year) - something I think is exceedingly unlikely, then every redirect would get a random hit just over once per year, not 6 to 8 times. You can declaim the page view stats as fallacious if you want, but you will need much better evidence than that. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can use page views to make whatever claim you want. I think it's a laughable claim that people are actively using this redirect (eg: typing in "Hanneke Canters (1969-2002) Feminist Philosopher" into a search bar). I'll tell you what, back up your claim: If this term is being used, surely you'd be able to find the phrase somewhere, right? Find me a source outside of Wikipedia that uses "Hanneke Canters (1969-2002) Feminist Philosopher" and I'll change my !vote. -- Tavix (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous - you know as well as I do that people typing the exact phrase verbatim into the search bar is not the only possible way of using a redirect. I care that the evidence shows that it is being used (regardless of why) that it is unambiguous and harmless - if you can show me any reason at all how this deleting this redirect will benefit the encyclopaedia then I'll switch my recommendation, but all you've done so far is attempt to discredit the evidence that it is used. If we assume that all the evidence is wrong and this isn't used, and we delete it, what have we gained? Nothing. If we assume that the evidence is right, and we delete it, what have we lost? We've made it harder for people to find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's that? There's no evidence of this phrase being used outside of Wikipedia? That's what I thought. -- Tavix (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's that? There's no evidence of there being any benefit to deleting the redirect? That's what I thought. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:R#D8. -- Tavix (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:R#K5. We have evidence that people find it useful. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't. -- Tavix (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
<pantomime>Oh yes we do!</pantomime>. Seriously, we have evidence that the redirect was viewed 10 times last year in a way the tool classifies as human use. Based on experience we can say that 2-4 of those hits will not be humans but bots, leaving 6-8 hits to be accounted for. Statistically we can say that at the very most 1 of those might have come from the random redirect links. If someone did search this title, then there is no question that they got to the right article. This leaves 5-8 times last year that to the extent we are able to tell, this redirect enabled someone looking for this article to find it. This is either right or wrong and we can either keep it or delete it. Meaning there are four possible scenarios:
  1. People do find it useful. It is kept. The encyclopaedia benefits from people finding what they want.
  2. People do find it useful. It is deleted. The encyclopaedia is harmed because people find it harder to access the content they are looking for.
  3. People don't find it useful. It is kept. There is an infinitesimal overhead from potential vandalism, but in practice nobody gains or loses.
  4. People don't find it useful. It is deleted. There is a negligible overhead from the deletion, but in practice nobody gains or loses.

All the evidence, and the balance of probability (after all a human created it at this title), points to people finding it useful so scenarios 1 or 2 are the most likely but even if all four are equally likely then there is no harm from keeping this and potential harm from deleting it. There is no scenario in which deletion benefits the project, at best it's neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no use keeping redirects around that no one uses, they're better off deleted to save the maintenance burden. It's a shame you're obstructing that clean-up from happening—it's a lot of effort you're putting in to try to save a redirect that no one actively uses. That effort could be spent doing more worthwhile things, but here we are... -- Tavix (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is little use in keeping redirects that nobody uses, but (a) people do use this redirect (I know you don't think that the 6-8 people a year using this redirect are people who use this redirect, but they are) and (b) redirects that are truly not used but which are unambiguous, pointing to the correct target and not in the way of anything else are completely harmless. You're putting a lot of effort into something that, at best, will bring no benefits and at worst make life harder for around 6-8 people per year. That's the real shame. Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is little use in keeping redirects that nobody uses. Couldn't have said it better myself. :) -- Tavix (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking my words out of context - I had thought more highly of you than that. Perhaps you would like to respond to the points I actually made? Or perhaps you would prefer to just admit you can't find an actual reason to support deleting a redirect that is both harmless and in use? Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Defeat? You're the one in the minority here. -- Tavix (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Consensus is not found by counting noses, and I've presented evidence that backs up my assertions that this redirect is in use. All you've done is disagree with the evidence (without providing anything to back that up), repeated a few times your claim that this is unused (without providing evidence for that), ignored my requests for you to back up your claims, and then quoted me out of context. I'm not sure why you think you have the upper hand here? Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, let me clarify: you're in the minority in argument here. You've provided a page view link that (if anything) backs up my claim that it isn't being used. Remember, page views don't tell us that people are actively searching for a term and finding what they're looking for, it's literally just a note that the page has been viewed, which can happen in several contexts. I've asked for evidence of the term in use elsewhere. This would be an easy and concrete way to establish use, but you've balked at that every time I've asked. I presume it's because I'm correct: people simply don't use "Hanneke Canters (1969-2002) Feminist Philosopher" to refer to the subject. So why would they do so on Wikipedia? That doesn't follow. Stop clinging to a false narrative that the page view tool proves use and start using common sense. -- Tavix (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've presented evidence? The term is not used verbatim in online sources that I can find (which are a subset of all the possible places it could be used), but that is not evidence that the redirect is not used - the evidence that the redirect is used comes from, shockingly, the evidence that the redirect page is viewed. It's excruciatingly implausible that anyone will actively search this redirect while looking for something else. It's statistically impossible that more than 1 (and extremely improbable that more than 0) of these hits are from the random redirect tool. Commons sense to me says that when you have evidence that a tool which is specifically designed to record page views of Wikipedia pages records views of Wikipedia pages you treat that as evidence that the Wikipedia pages with views are being viewed unless you have evidence to the contrary. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary (repeatedly calling the page views fallacious does not make them fallacious, you need actual evidence to prove that). However, even in the unlikely event that 6 to 8 people last year ended up here without intending to, there is absolutely zero evidence presented or available (I've looked many many times over the years I have been at RfD) that this redirect or any other like it is actually harmful. The best argument you have for deletion is "assuming the evidence of use is wrong (even though this is unlikely) then nobody will gain or lose anything from the deletion." which is rather a contrast to "If we assume that the evidence is correct, when there is no evidence it is not, then there will be measurable harm caused to the encyclopaedia by deletion." Or to put it yet another way, if we keep we end up with either a positive (likely) or a neutral, if we delete it with a negative (likely) or a neutral. Why choose the latter? This is not a minority argument, this is WP:RFD#K5. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's boil it down, here. We're waging a war of WP:R#K5 against WP:R#D8, maybe WP:CHEAP vs. WP:COSTLY as well. You think it's useful, I think it's obscure. You think the page view tool proves people are actively using the redirect, I do not and counter that I do not think anyone is using the redirect to find information on Hanneke Canters. You think it's better off kept to aid anyone using the redirect to find Hanneke Canters. I think it's better off deleted to save the maintenance burden (rcatting, potential vandalism of the redirect, database reports, etc.). Is that a fair assessment of our differences? -- Tavix (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair summary of where we differ. I think the demonstrated utility and lack of harm outweighs the tiny cost - R-catting is a one-time time thing and the likelihood of vandalism is infinitesimal. Database reports might (depending on how well the report is written) add some time, but the encyclopaedia's readers must absolutely always come before its editors. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as "novel or obscure synonym". The article was established under this name back in the Wild-West days of January 2006, and stayed at the title for all of several hours. --BDD (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I just don't see it as really that helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. This has the risk of breaking external links. It seems unlikely that all the hits are coming from the search bar, since you would have to type "Hanneke C" before this result shows up.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be nice if we could measure or detect external links; as such, we just have to be smart about it. It's possible there are external links to this title, yes. But given how briefly the article was at the title, I don't think it's a stretch to say only the article's creator would create or disseminate such external links. There may be such links, and maybe people are still benefiting from them. But altogether, it seems implausible.
    As for the search box, yes, this would display below the actual article name. But if it shows up there at all, I bet people will click it. If you're reading Wikipedia, you're probably somewhat curious, and you may well wonder, "Where does that go?" --BDD (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An implausible pseudo-disambiguated title. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:32, 30 May 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.

Galician Universities[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 Galicia (Spain)#Education. Opinion is split but a decision needs to be made. The discussion headed towards a weak conclusion that Galicia, Spain being the primary topic for Galicia and that a leader typing this search term is most likely looking for Galicia in Spain, though not overwhelmingly so. Nevertheless, this is the most plausible outcome. Deryck C. 15:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not at target, we have Category:Universities in Galicia, but I would oppose a CNR. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- implausible redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as WP:XNR to exactly what Champion said. I am not doing it for the sake of it, I think it is where it should go. It's where I would expect it to go if I wanted to find out about Universities in Galicia. Si Trew (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. My first preference is List of universities in Spain which is by-default sorted by autonomous community (of which Gallicia is one). Category:Universities in Galicia is my second choice. XNRs are not harmful in and of themselves, the harm comes when there is disconnect between the expectation and the target - particularly in terms of type of content. Redirects from article space to reader-facing categories suffer only small amounts of this as the two namespaces both present encyclopaedic content, just in different formats. It is usually (but not always) best to take people to articles if that is what their search seems to indicate what they are a looking for. What we have here is a choice between a page in the format they expect but which is broader than what they are looking for and a category which matches the scope of their search but not the architecture. Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'DAB with whatever the relevant "List of universities in Poland/Ukraine" articles to deal with the issue of Galicia (Eastern Europe). Maybe move the cat to clarify the country as well. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll note that Galicia is a disambiguation, so there's no primary topic for the term. If this is to be disambiguated, what would it look like?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support creating a disambiguation page, which should list (at least) the following: List of universities in Spain, List of universities in Poland, and List of universities in Ukraine. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per Notecardforfree. When I left my comment above I didn't realise that Galicia was ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't have one article/list on Galician Universities, much less multiple ones where disambiguation would be required. The redirect averaged less than one view/day last year, so it's not like it's a well-used term. -- Tavix (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do however have multiple lists that include Galician universities and so I see no reason at all why we should make it harder for people to find the content they are looking for. Just because there are not that many of them does not mean that obstructing them a good thing or mean any benefits will come to Wikipedia from doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Galicia (Spain)#Education. Notwithstanding the lack of a primary topic for "Galicia", I just don't find it particularly plausible that readers would use a historic regional name like this. Note also that universities are not mentioned at Galicia (Eastern Europe). I wouldn't oppose deletion. --BDD (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. I agree with BDD: "Galician" might be ambiguous by itself, but inside the phrase "Galician universities" it can conceivably only refer to the region in Spain. The names of mediaeval regions that have been without any political relevance for centuries are simply not used like that. Which is the best of the three targets that have so far been proposed, I don't know. Retargeting to any of them would be better than deleting: we don't get rid of redirects if they have suitable targets. – Uanfala 00:05, 3 June 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.

Needle inside a ball of cotton[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. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Totally implausible redirect. I'd love to know how the author came up with this! Exemplo347 (talk) 09:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unlikely search term and who's author came up with this little bit funny redirect! lol. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 12:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are results on google books that make it clear this that he was compared to a "Needle inside a ball of cotton" (alternatively rendered as "a ball of cotton with a needle in it") because of his tolerance, which was nevertheless limited. At least one source describes it as a nickname. Not sure how widely used it is. – Uanfala (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:R3. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sources above show that it was used to refer to Deng Xiaoping, and that it has been the subject of academic debate. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The target does not mention "needle" or "cotton" at all, let alone the longer phrase. So, someone finds "Needle inside a ball of cotton" and says "what does that mean?" Looks up Wikipedia and finds himself surprisingly at Deng Xiaoping. Searches for that phrase in the page, finds... nothing but disappointment. That is not very encyclopaedic. If we have nothing to say on the subject, we should say so. Si Trew (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit target to mention phrase I am the creator, if you have any questions. Sources which corroborate the connection: this article by The New York Review of Books, this book by a Harvard professor, this article from British paper The Times, and more. Si Trew seems concerned that the article doesn't mention the redirect, so we should incorporate the phrase, which shouldn't be hard. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, add in the phrase, please (I imagine you already have but deliberately saying this before checking.)
And I see your Steel Factory and raise you Steel factory (all lowercase) which I shall redirect, as does steelworks, to steel mill: we can have them both together on whether WP:DIFFCAPS then kicks in. What fun! Which I imagine was the point, i.e. we don't need every imaginable redirect. That's what search engines are for. Si Trew (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to reliable sources using the nickname, and it's not plausibly ambiguous or otherwise confusing as far as I can tell. -- Tavix (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the target mentions the term, we should keep it (thus struck my delete, above). But it's a good rule of thumb that if we don't say anything, we should say so. Si Trew (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The phrase is still not mentioned in the target article. Just to clarify, adding such content does not undermine an ongoing RfD, and may do much to help bring it to its conclusion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give time for the discussion on the article talk page to proceed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A check of sources should reveal when the subject was first tagged with this altname/nickname, so mention can be made at an appropriate point in the target article, Deng Xiaoping.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  00:53, 9 May 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.

Seasea[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 See-see partridge. Deryck C. 15:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a connection between the redirect and the target. Seaching my favorite search engine showed no results for the Seahawks several pages deep. -- Tavix (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google returns results relevant for football teams for "jacjag", "oakrai" and "dalcow". On the other hand, "denbro" and "houtex" don't have football results on the first page. That's all I've checked, but at least for some teams, three letter abbreviation of team name and city gets some results. Plantdrew (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability of the blend word. General searches show local businesses starting with Sea Sea or Sea & Sea. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could this be a misspelling for Seesee, which redirects to a species of fowl? – Uanfala (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to See-see partridge per Uanfala (where Seesee redirects), I found at least one example of the confusion appearing in a possibly reliable source [10] (although that uses "sea-sea"), so it's not impossilbe this will get used for that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the bird is where it will go, we should have a "redirects here" and a hatnote to CC. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no objections to resonable hatnotes, and that suggestion looks perfectly reasonable to me. Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a WP:PTM, though. Is it referred to as "see-see" alone? --BDD (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at least according to the OED entry for "seesee" (and the examples given there). – Uanfala (talk) 22:31, 16 May 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.

Hybride Technologies[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. The nominator wasn't sure what they wanted done with this redirect and nobody else seems to have an opinion either so there really is no consensus to do anything here! Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Target holds no information on the given subject, except for a single mention. Lordtobi (✉) 08:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We could probably redirect this to hybrid technology or some such. But since it is a Ubisoft brand name I am Not sure. (I have never worked for Ubisoft, never want to.) Si Trew (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Combine with the one I have below. for similar. Si Trew (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:17, 1 May 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.

A (betu)[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. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot). I think when we are taqlking about alphabets and so on, we must be 'very particular. That is what people are searching for. You cannot back-form it in this way WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If this pointed anywhere, it should point to A and not Å; but it would still be deletable as a WP:FORRED. Sideways713 (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was created from Å (betű). That redirect got updated by a bot when the target, Å, was moved to A with kroužek. That move was reverted and the article moved back without creating a redirect. This left Å (betű) pointing to a deleted page, so it was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G8. I don't know why we had a redirect with the disambiguator in Hungarian, but I don't really think it or the version without diacritics are useful. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 1 May 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.

Mojave Greens[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 Crotalus scutulatus. (non-admin closure) feminist 09:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not mention anything about the Mojave Greens Flow 234 (Nina) talk 10:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Mojave green the snake. There was an Australian football club that went by this but it was not notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - this target is wrong; retargeting to crotalus scutulatus (the target of Mojave green) is fine, but that purpose is served equally well by deleting the redirect and letting the software do its job. Especially so owing to the odd capitalization. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget the software doesn't automatically do a {{R from plural}} even when people do see search results. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 10 May 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.

South Carolina Hawks[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. 15:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not mention anything about the South Carolina Hawks Flow 234 (Nina) talk 10:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete too vague which school can claim that as the mascot and be the most notable of the bunch. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:44, 4 May 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.

Illinois Ironmen[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. 15:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not mention anything about the Illinois Ironmen Flow 234 (Nina) talk 10:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete although there are schools in Illinois who go by the Ironmen, there aren't any that specifically say "Illinois Ironmen". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:48, 4 May 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.

Florida Redbacks[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 Eastern Australian Football League. Deryck C. 13:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not mention anything about Florida Redbacks Flow 234 (Nina) talk 10:45, 1 May 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.

Guillemot, Inc.[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. 13:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Completely contextless, likely a hoax. Lordtobi (✉) 10:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is a very strange one. I am trying to remember who said, in print, couldn't tell a guillemet from a guillemot. I have it in my bookshelf but cant think of the name, about 1950. Paddy Richards I think. Si Trew (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Guillemot" is the last name of the five founders of Ubisoft, yet this redirect has to do with neither Ubisoft nor Ubisoft Halifax, let alone that Canadian corporations do not include commas in their legal names. Lordtobi (✉) 10:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine they just registered any legal name they could to be on the safe side. But it is not encyclopaeidic. Si Trew (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The page that links to this redirect is Sprung (video game). The copyrights in this game credit it to Guillemot, Inc., as well as this press release. This PDF, titled "Information concerning the candidates for the Board of directors", states that Yves Guillemot is the director of Guillemot Inc., both in the US and Canada. While I cannot find evidence pointing towards this, I believe that Guillemot, Inc. and Ubisoft Halifax are the same company., given that both are located in the US and Canada, and have connections to both co-founders of Ubisoft. -Einstein95 (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Under Quebecian law, I was able to find a company named "Guillemot Inc." (w/o comma!), that is/was located at 440-6300 av. du Parc, Montréal (not Halifax!), so the current target is definetly wrong, also considering that Guillemot Inc. was registered 1997, and Ubisoft Halifax acquired in 2013. Also, your above statement saying that Ubisoft Halifax operates in the U.S. and Canada is false, as it only operates in Halifax. Now refining, in Montreal, there are two more Ubisoft entities: Ubisoft Montreal (the development studios) and Ubisoft Canada (the marketing office), the prior is located at 5505 Boulevard Saint-Laurent, while the latter is at 250 rue Saint-Antoine Ouest, so neither is related to Guillemot Inc. invalidating all likely targets for the redirect. I suspect that Guillemot Inc. is/was pretty unrelated to Ubisoft in general, why else would the licensing be handeled by a second hand and not directly Ubisoft Entertainment SA in France (HQ) or Ubisoft, Inc. in California (North American publishing and distribution home for Ubisoft since establishment in 1991)? According to Bloomberg, "Guillemot Inc operates as a subsidiary of Guillemot Corp. SA", the latter being a hardware manufacturer/designer. I found the German Wikipedia article (which, though, is farily horribly sourced) on the case stating that said company is a different company from Ubisoft, though from the same people, which is nowadays held up by Claude Guillemot (rather than Yves, who is the director of Ubisoft). Talking around alot of corners here--tl;dr--Guillemot Inc. is a subisidiary of Guillemot Corporation SA, which is unrelated to Ubisoft (and especially Ubisof Halifax), and we have no information at all regarding that company, wherefore the redirect is implausible and should be deleted. Lordtobi (✉) 11:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:42, 1 May 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.

Coty Inc Class A[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 14#Coty Inc Class A

Texas Instrument Inc[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) 20:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely for readers to look for/link to this article from an incorrect spelling of the company's name coupled with its corporate form. Unlikely typo. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think the Google test is an appropriate indicator of the likelihood, and the exact form (singular + Inc) gets over 11,000 Google hits, including news articles. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Even though I have lived in Texas and have a TI calculator on my desk right now (an old one), I think this is very likely. In my profession as an engineer, people would often kinda disambiguate in speech in a noisy environment by shouting "Texas Instrument Inc" and in sign language in a noisy work environment (and I am talking factory floor not Dilbert). The fact that there is an "S" missing, perhaps, is because when shouting across a factory floor an S sibilant doesn't carry too well. I think this is a very likely search term. I am not American. Si Trew (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's weird. You'd expect me to be the first person to want to delete this as clutter... I am not doing this on purpose to make a point or oppose the nominator, who I respect very much. Weird why my opinion is what it is. Si Trew (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I change my mind. Delete. People will be better served to find what they are looking for when this is not here. Si Trew (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is simply not true, User:AngusWOOF. The NY Times has made this exact mistake, including here, here and here. And one of the examples you cite is already a WP redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll strike my vote as someone finds it useful, even though it should be marked as {{R from typo}} and maybe {{R from singular}} AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{{R from typo}} now marked. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is this a useful {{R from typo}}?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm persuaded by the New York Times links above that this is a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as nom) per discussion above. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:14, 1 May 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.

News coverage[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to News. Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that "News coverage" is a synonym for "media bias". I would have thought it meant more how many inches of print or minutes of a newscast was taken up by a story. Newsworthiness is red; Newsworthy redirects to News values. There must be something better. Airtime is a software program; All the news that's fit to print is red, Column-inch would seem stretching it. Si Trew (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to News#Newsworthiness. Normally I'd say delete to encourage article creation, but "news coverage" is such a common term... — Train2104 (t • c) 22:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please remember that every arbitrary selection concerning trustworthiness among a list of choices necessarily introduces bias. Bias need not even have a bad connotation but merely hint at the fact that news agencies, news papers, etc. do not - in fact: can not - present a complete and neutral coverage of the worlds affairs and state. When you are not presented with the complete picture, what do you get? Newsworthyness is always dependent on someone's opinion (/prejudices) about the worth of a news fact. While neutrality may be attempted in the editorial offices - it will rarely be achieved. And you have a growing host of media and press products where neutrality isn't even attempted because that would be in contradiction with the business model as is traditionally the case with e.g. yellow press. Selection is bias. -- Kku (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless some sort of WP:DABCONCEPT can be created at this title, the title itself is vague and could refer to multiple different subjects, as already shown in this discussion thus far. Steel1943 (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to News. Coverage, in this context, simply means "the activity of reporting about an event or subject through various mediums". I'll also note that Coverage#Media and journalism exists; however, News includes Broadcasting. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to News per Godsy. -- Tavix (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to News per Godsy. Used this way, it's not vague; someone talking about "news coverage" is typically talking about the contents of the news (the published news, in a Platonic sense, i.e. the stuff getting covered in the media, not merely what stuff is going on at the moment), not anything else. Nyttend (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Godsy. The current target makes this a WP:RFD#D3 case, as it suggests that all news coverage is biased in a way which implies negativity. Suggested target is much better. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:16, 1 May 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.

Slaphead[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 Moved. I've moved Slaphead (album) to Slaphead and redirected Slap head to Slaphead. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slaphead formerly targeted Hair loss until today when it was retargeted to where it targets now. I am unsure if the term "Slaphead" has any encyclopedic connection to "hair loss" at all, considering that the two terms seem to be connected only by the "Urban Dictionary". Steel1943 (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of slaphead being used for hair loss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:55, 1 May 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.

Gueenes[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) 15:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) well the council of Guenes might be, but the council of Gueenes isn't. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This does get uses, many of them robotic and plenty of OCR error's for "Queenes", "Queen's", "greens", etc. but I think there are genuine human uses among all that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We know it's linguistically wrong, and all instances I've found on DuckDuckGo are machine transcriptions. Deryck C. 13:15, 11 May 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.

Infovia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete both the nominated redirect and Infovía. -- Tavix (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) I am only listing this because it might be a bit prejudiced on the bot's side. I would say Weak keep. Si Trew (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (along with Infovía) as this is not mentioned in the target article or anywhere else on en.wp that I can find. The Spanish article is at es:InfoVía, but that has never existed here. Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 1 May 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.

Blue Byte (version 2)[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. 15:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was originally a doubled article with what was "Ubisoft Blue Byte" (falsely), and then moved to the current name, redirected again to "Blue Byte". Lordtobi (✉) 09:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:55, 1 May 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.

Ubisoft Romania[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. Default to keep. Deryck C. 13:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading, Ubisoft Romania (located in Brăila, rather than Bucharest) was a marketing office, and not the studio it currently redirects to. Lordtobi (✉) 09:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:55, 1 May 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:Gears of War/Sandbox/Ubidays[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect to a page where nothing about what the infobox formerly included is present. Lordtobi (✉) 13:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning User:Lordtobi. Do you want to combine these with the other Ubisoft ones from yesterday? Si Trew (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think so, this is a cross-namespace redirect of no real use, purpose, or sense, and adds atop of what we have with the Ubidays redirect, so it's its own case, probably a speedy? Lordtobi (✉) 08:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects from user subpages to article space are completely harmless and as there is no indication that user:Gears of War wants this deleted there is absolutely no reason or benefit to deletion it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Seeing that the "Ubidays" redirect, which this redirect formerly targetted, was also deleted, makes this redirect context- and use-less. Do you think you would change your vote? Lordtobi (✉) 15:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lordtobi: I don't see why it would change my mind? It hasn't made this userspace redirect any less harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A related redirect User:Next-Genn-Gamer/Sandbox/Ubidays was deleted by RHaworth as WP:R2. I'll note that the deletion was incorrect as the redirect is not in the mainspace. However, I won't object to the incorrect deletion if this redirect is deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the spirit of WP:G8 because the content the redirect depended on, Ubidays, has been deleted. The user in question has since gotten a name change and has been inactive for about two years so I don't anticipate a response from them. -- Tavix (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I concur with Tavix's reasoning. Deryck C. 13:12, 11 May 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.

Democratic Primary Results[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. Retargeted Democratic Primary Results to Democratic Party presidential primaries and Republican Primary Results to Republican Party presidential primaries. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous, not suitable for a disambiguation page. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:04, 1 May 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 Explorers Guild[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all. Technically this is an "unbundle" decision as there is consensus to delete all except "The Explorers Guild" which has yet to reach consensus. So I'm closing it as delete all without prejudice against recreating "The Explorers Guild" and adding relevant information to the target article. @AngusWOOF: You're free to do as you see fit. Deryck C. 13:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Assassin! was very ambitious about this one. According to his crystal ball, there was to be at least a film, a TV series, and a franchise. Unfortuntely, his crystal ball was a bit faulty and there isn't even a single mention of "The Explorers Guild" anywhere on Wikipedia. That leaves deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. There isn't a Guild of Explorers on Wikipedia either. Thryduulf (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep original, delete rest Keep just the original book title The Explorers Guild. [11] [12] There is no volume 2, or TV series or franchise. A section under Other ventures should be added to Costner's article about his collaboration with Jonathan Baird (unknown where he has a Wikipedia article) on the book. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:00, 4 May 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_May_1&oldid=1143743596"