Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 27

May 27

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 27, 2015.

Template:Unit

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 replace instances of these first; let me know if I overlook or mess up anything. --BDD (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Unit → Template:Convert  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Template:Units → Template:Convert  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  (added manually -DePiep (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • Template:Unité → Template:Convert  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  (added manually -DePiep (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Deprecate and delete. {{Convert}} covers. Using "unit" for conversion of quantity is misleading and wrong. The word 'unit' in this context means something else (mile ~ kilometre, but not 1 mile = 1 kilometre). On top of this, the documentation of {{Convert}} is huge already, we should not use mind space to explain this marginal option. Deprecate, substreplace with {{Convert}} and delete. DePiep (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Half a day later I have added Template:Units and Template:Unité for being similar. @Jimp and SimonTrew: pinged. -DePiep (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a duplication of {{convert}} now unused. Jimp 01:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Delete all three. Jimp 17:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a redirect, so isn't a duplication, it's always been a redirect -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added formally. -DePiep (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both {{unit}} and {{units}} as somewhat recent creations (2013) much newer than the {{convert}} it points to; which do no make sense as redirects, since "unit(s)" does not mean conversion. It could be a footer navbox for systems of units navigation -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete bothall. There has been a recent conversation at Template Talk:Convert about this. The basic problem seems to be that in French (and perhaps other Latinate languages) this is a false friend (fr:Template:Unité in French) where the template allows the editor to specify magnitude+unit but does not do conversion, and that GTrans and perhaps manual translators miss it (I was "accused" of this yesterday but I can't find it in the WP:PNTCU article that I was working on). So, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. I considered suggesting retargeting to {{val}} but that seems unnecessary, and the default formatting for val is to use thin spaces, not commas, for thousands separation, which I've not often seen in the wild (even though it's SI notation). Si Trew (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the French Wikipedia it does function more like {{val}} does here but the syntax is different to {{val}} as it is to {{convert}}. Having them redirect to either would introduce problems because of this "false friend" problem. Jimp 17:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We also have Template:Unité → Template:Convert (marked as {{R from other language|fr}}) but not Template:Unite without the diacritical mark. Probably should add that to the nom, I am reluctant to do so myself. Si Trew (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added and tagged formally. -DePiep (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete that one too, it's not even English, and the target is not a topic that has affinity for non-English languages -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Synthetic actor

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 Virtual actor. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Synthetic actor → Actor  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The current target is inappropriate for this term as it isn't mentioned there and doesn't refer to an "actor" generally. "Synthetic actor refers to a computer-generated entity in a virtual world" according to source. However, I'm not seeing any widespread use of the term and it isn't used anywhere at Wikipedia. Therefore, it should be deleted. Tavix | Talk  18:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to virtual actor, which does use the term once without introduction, although it describes (unlinked) other terms such as synthespian and Virtual human, which both also redirect there, Vactor which is a surname DAB, and Cyberstar, a DAB with this as a link (which was WP:DABPIPE through the redirect but I've fixed that). Si Trew (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Upcoming Albums in 2009

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upcoming Albums in 2009 → 2009 in music  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as confusing/nonsense. "Upcoming" hasn't referred to 2009 in a long time... Tavix | Talk  18:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as outdated and an unlikely search term. Also, there are no incoming links to the redirect from the article or talk spaces; any links are from user-type pages. —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No longer relevant or useful. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 21:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Otherwise, call me Marty McFly. Steel1943 (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely synonym since 2009 already happened. --Lenticel (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no need for this outdated redirect that no one would think of typing.--67.68.29.99 (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:COMMON --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Characteristic exponent of a field

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, redirect has been boldly retargeted to Characteristic_(algebra) and new content written there. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Characteristic exponent of a field → Perfect field  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per WP:REDLINK. This term applies to fields in general and appears (from my quick survey) to be capable of supporting its own (small) article. Mangoe (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that I've updated the target. I've added a definition to Characteristic (algebra) and changed the redirect to point there, so the original rationale no longer applies. I have no objection to the material I added being split to a separate article later. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

St Vincent's Catholic Primary School

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • St Vincent's Catholic Primary School → Acton, London  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete: Subject not mentioned in article. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete: It is mentioned at Mill Hill#Education (and a few other places). It could be worth a retarget, but my problem is that there are many schools with the same name. (My Google Maps search shows 12 schools in England, for example.) Since it's a primary school, none of them are likely to have an article per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES so it'll probably be best to let the search engine deal with it. Tavix | Talk  16:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing and as above. The school in Mill Hill[SV 1] would be a different one from that in Acton.[SV 2] That being said, nothing links to it, but I presume it was in an article at some time.
  1. ^ "Caritas Christi Urget Nos" [The love of Christ urges us to care for each other] (in Latin). The Ridgeway, Mill Hill, London NW7 1EJ. Retrieved 28 May 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  2. ^ "We grow, learn and achieve by following Christ". Pierrepoint Road, Acton, London W3 9JR. Retrieved 28 May 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
Si Trew (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wang Zongyao

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 4#Wang Zongyao

ZONG

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. --BDD (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ZONG → Zong Pakistan  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to the DAB at Zong, per my rationale at #ZoNG, below. I'm not convinced people searching for this particularlyoverwhelmingly want the mobile phone operator. Si Trew (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • retarget to DAB as proposed. I don't see the capitalization as significant. Mangoe (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to dab -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Because of Eve

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an incorrect redirect. These are two separate films (oddly enough, Joseph Crehan stars in both). Maybe someone saw the DVD cover and didn't read it carefully. Anyway, I don't think Because of Eve is worth an article, and probably neither is Street Corner, but that's another issue. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

ZoNG

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 Zong. --BDD (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ZoNG → Zong Pakistan  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No one is dumb enough to write 3 letters capital and one letter small. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep It is not the valid argument for deletion of a redirect that has been here for 6 years. Very similar and lots of requests for such types of redirects are made at WP:AfC/R and they are entertained as well.  sami  talk 08:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the DAB at Zong as {{R from alternative capitalization}}.
    • The target did have an entry there, but was listed via the redirect at Zong (mobile operator), which was then piped just to display "Zong": a rather unhelpful practice for a DAB (WP:DABPIPE, but even an unpiped R in a DAB is a bit iffy). I've fixed it with this change.
    • The count of hits (around 30 a day) is irrelevant, since we don't know how many people intended to end up at that article, accounting for around half the target's hits. If they did, the target might as well go WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and moved over the DAB page at Zong (the DAB, in turn, moving over the redirect at Zong (disambiguation)). Incidentally, stats.grok.se does not seem to be case-sensitive: stats for Zong, ZONG and ZoNG are identical: So the redirect hits could come as a split between the two R's.
    • "What Links Here" is more relevant, and nothing does (except this discussion). So, no hits to the target are caused by internal links, therefore must come from outside.
    • Sure, we could "break" external links, but they end up at a DAB where they are only one click away, so it is not a particularly serious breaking change. Otherwise we would be paralysed into never changing anything.
    • I think it perfectly reasonable that people typing on mobile devices, where one often has to shift each individual capital, might miss one. (You can usually put caps lock on, but it's not worth it for small words). Especially when the assumption is that the search is case-insensitive.
    • If nothing else, it needs a hatnote at the target to the DAB saying that "ZoNG redirects here. For other uses, see Zong (disambiguation)". ( → Zong). Si Trew (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the DAB at Zong per SiTrew. --Lenticel (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Remote Access Trojan

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. --BDD (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to section Remote administration software#RAT trojan horses, as per my rationale at WP:RFD#Remote Access Trojans (RATs), yesterday. While it is briefly mentioned at the current target, this section gives more information.

(I would be WP:BOLD and do so but I think that might confuse things while the other is under discussion, or be taken as pulling the rug from under others' feet.) Si Trew (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

40 series

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. Further action, including dabifying, can be done BOLDly. --BDD (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 40 series → KiHa 40 series  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I would like to delete this redirect so that a future article can go here. Right now its target is an article about a Japanese diesel multiple unit train introduced in the 1970s. However, in Japanese railroading "40 series" by itself can refer to a much older train, an electric multiple unit of the 1930s. Although the English Wikipedia has no article about this older type, the Japanese Wikipedia has an extensive one, so an English one should be written eventually. But if the current pattern of English article titles for Japanese trains is followed, the expected title for such an article is presently taken by this redirect. In fact the only current use of the redirect was actually supposed to refer to the older 40 series type, not the KiHa 40 series. Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It would appear to be a valid search term. If an article about the 40 series EMU is ever written, it can be created at 40 series and a top-hat disambiguator note pointing to KiHa 40 series added to the top of the article, but until then, there is no reason to delete this redirect. --DAJF (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anyone can just create the article over the top of the redirect, or move a draft over a redirect, without needing any admin action. Si Trew (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. OK, I have no objection to the preceding arguments, especially since the erroneous use of this redirect which I had mentioned above has now been removed, so I suppose this will be closed as Keep unless someone else offers a compelling reason otherwise. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate there are many "40"-series out there, such as HP 39/40 series , Series 40 (which should probably be renamed to be a disambiguation page) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not sure what you mean by "should be renamed...", 40 series (disambiguation) and Series 40 (disambiguation) are both red. Obviously if we make it a DAB we should create the standard "(disambiguation)" form, and probably the other added as a likely R, but Series 40 is an article not a DAB. Si Trew (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Series 40" should be renamed (probably to Nokia Series 40) to allow "Series 40" to point to the future disambiguation page -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With you, it was the "renamed to be a disambiguation page" that got me. Series 30, similarly, is an article, but unlike for Nokia Series 40 we don't have a redirect at Nokia Series 30. It should probably be treated similarly if we decide to make a DAB for series 40 things. Precedents for "Series X" being a short title to a longer article name include:
Perhaps surprisingly, my search for "prefix:Series" returns just 51 results. Most seem to have been prefixed as suggested, e.g. "Psion Series 7", and I think these are just remnants of various moves, on the whole. Si Trew (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Taured

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taured → List of hoaxes  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention in target article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete it is a nice creepy story that's known as a hoax. However, I don't think it's even notable to be in the target list. --Lenticel (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wednesday Group

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. One editor argued for keep, but they aren't that convinced about the exact target either. Deryck C. 20:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense. The Wednesday Group appears to be a book directed towards women. It is about problems in their relationships (I think?). Though I am pretty sure that it has nothing to do with politics. WP:SURPRISE for people looking for info on the book, and get taken to a page about a political party. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm no expert, but this book explicitly describes a Wednesday Group as being a faction of the Republican party. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "House Wednesday Group" apparently was a real faction of the Republicans in Congress that existed from the late 1960s through the mid-1980s, From the sources I can find, it is probably of enough historical importance to deserve an article. However, since we don't have any information about it, it's best not to pretend that we do. Perhaps the redlink will encourage someone to start an article about it. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a valid target, as shown here and here and here, among others. Perhaps Factions in the Republican Party (United States) is a better target? GiantSnowman 18:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to have to be mentioned somewhere, though. Otherwise it's just going to mislead readers. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IP. --BDD (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Party of No

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. 20:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible attack page; this appears to be a satirical term to describe the party, but since the term seems to be somewhat common, I am not sure. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep plausible search term, since this epithet appears with some frequency -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The IP is right, but it's not really covered anywhere on Wikipedia (it's mentioned in several places). I think it could make it as an article, similar to Democrat Party (epithet). --BDD (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I made this page, out of agreement with the epithet. Upon review it makes better sense as its own article or perhaps as a redirect to some page regarding criticism of the US Republican party. Lebanonman19 (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find such a page. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Reenergizational

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 as unlikely search terms for the target, except retarget Re-energized to Re-Energized. Deryck C. 20:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reenergizational → Energy  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Re-energizational → Energy  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Reenergisational → Energy  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Re-energisational → Energy  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Is this even a word? I can't find any actual usage of this anywhere. Not even Wiktionary has an entry... Tavix | Talk  07:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Omnilexica has an entry here. The word is also used in context on this blog. Neelix (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would readers searching for these terms want the general idea of energy, though? For that matter, would readers search for these terms? --BDD (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of any other articles they would be searching for by using these terms. It is possible that a reader would search using one of these terms; I certainly don't see any benefit to deleting these redirects. Neelix (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are implausible search terms and I'm still unconvinced that it's a word. Tavix | Talk  22:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's fair to say these are real words. There's probably a more linguistically correct way of saying this, but English is an extensible language. Something that energizes could be called energizational; something that reenergizes could be called reenergizational. (I think energizing and reenergizing would be the more common adjectival forms, but that's not especially important for this discussion.) We should be asking in what context a reader would likely encounter these terms. Unless their command of English is extremely basic, they can probably identify "energy" as the root of these words. So I suspect someone searching for these terms is not just looking for the general concept of energy. We're not a dictionary, and even if we were, the target article doesn't have these words or anything like them. We have to do better than this. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-energization → Energy  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Reenergization → Energy  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Re-energisation → Energy  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Reenergisation → Energy  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Reenergise → Energy  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Reenergize → Energy  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Re-energise → Energy  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Re-energize → Energy  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • re-energized → Energy  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Adding these to the nom. We should first decide where these (shorter) noun (and verb) forms go, and let the "-al" forms follow. However, none of these – either in the original nom or my addendum – has any incoming links except those related to this discussion.
(Re-Energized is an article, a song by Kim English, to which Re-energized redirects. That's fine.)
  • Delete all. None is mentioned at the target, nor anything similar.WP:NOTDIC and alternatives, such as the DAB at Recharge, seem too far out. Si Trew (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding to nom:
  • Reenergising → Energy  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Reenergizing → Energy  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Re-energising → Energy  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Re-energizing → Energy  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Delete all Theu could probably have individual pages on Wiktionary, but not on Wikipedia. Dimadick (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I've indicated above, I have concerns as to the plausibility of these as search terms, and whether just plain "Energy" would satisfy anyone using them. My concerns have not been addressed. --BDD (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sutton College

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was move Sutton College of Learning for Adults over redirect. SCOLA's name change seems to be complete, judging by its website. We don't always change titles immediately in such situations, per WP:COMMONNAME, but it seems safe here—surely people were already referring to it as "Sutton College". Si Trew is correct that a dab is not desirable here, so I'll simply hatnote to the former target. --BDD (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article. SCOLA is renaming itself as Sutton College on June 1 (typing this now so can copy later[1]) and would prefer outright deletion in lieu of move. Launchballer 18:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or turn into a disambiguation page - The former name of one of Birmingham Metropolitan College's campuses, Sutton Coldfield College, is in one of the introductory paragraphs of the article, and often referred to as 'Sutton College'. J Di 10:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ {{cite journal{{subst:!}}title=Scola to get new name in 'overhaul'{{subst:!}}publisher=Sutton Guardian{{subst:!}}page=6}}
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But we only have two, as far as I can tell. In that case, we're better off with a hatnote, per WP:TWODABS. Si Trew (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Rod Blasonofabitch

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy delete. Vandalism/attack page. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rod Blasonofabitch → Rod Blagojevich  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Attack page, despite the edit summary of the most recent recreation. Ordinarily I'd simply re-delete it, but the shitstorm kicked up by my previous re-deletion of what I interpreted as an attack has made me more attuned to process wanking. I don't see any sort of mention of this term in any of the Google News archives, and almost all of the hits from the regular search are either from user-edited sites or blogs. Horologium (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE Number 3 --Lenticel (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is clearly vandalism, so blatantly so that I've CSDd it.--Launchballer 07:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ex post facto note: There's a companion redirect, Rod Blasonuvabitch, that I have also tagged for speedy deletion. Tavix | Talk  16:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of people charged under Section 213 of the USA PATRIOT ACT

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. Looking at its original form, I strongly suspect it was WP:MADEUP by some schoolkid who wanted to call some classmates terrorists. --BDD (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of people charged under Section 213 of the USA PATRIOT ACT → Patriot Act  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's a joke redirect by a kid at school making a joke about his friends. We probably can safely delete this. It's not a plausible redirect in its own right. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusion. Target is not a list of people so charged. Si Trew (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did a search for Section 213 to see if there is such a thing. There is, it is the section about "Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant": "DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--
  • (1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);
  • (2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
  • (3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'."
    • Nothing to do with sentencing or with people related to this section. Dimadick (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, as well. Presumably later there is a section detailing the remedy if this clause is violated. Ultimately this is an amendment to US Code § 3003a - Additional grounds for issuing warrant] and does not of itself suggest any remedy (i.e. charge). Si Trew (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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/2015_May_27&oldid=955513437"