Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 18

November 18

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 18, 2015.

Zwolf

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. Just Chilling (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zwolf → wiktionary:zwölf  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:NOTDIC, Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. "Zwölf" is German for "twelve." -- Tavix (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC, WP:RFOREIGN. "Twelve" is not especially German, and we shouldn't have Wiktionary redirects from foreign language words. I don't really like Wiktionary redirects at all, but from a foreign language is just schlecht. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-English word, therefore not a suitable Wiktionary softredirect -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redirects to wiktionary?! will the Neelix wonders never cease? —МандичкаYO 😜 10:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikimandia: This redirect wasn't created by Neelix... -- Tavix (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, it was so silly I assumed. Thanks, struck. —МандичкаYO 😜 16:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix, Ivanvector, and 70.51.44.60. WP:RFOREIGN.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we did have a Neelix redirect to dozen from another language though. Legacypac (talk) 01:28, 20 November 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.

Bishop Albert

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. JohnCD (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This are, as you can check, many Father or Bishop George ____ in history. Google thinks I was looking for Father George Coyne and put him on the right. Like Lord Edward we don't need a DAB page either. Bishop first and middle name is even weirder. Neelix creations so can be G6 housekeeping per ANi Legacypac (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there are several Bishops Albert and many Fathers George -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:36, 19 November 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.

Verenigde State

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. JohnCD (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verenigde State → United States  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Verenigde State van Amerika → United States  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN because the United States has no affinity with Afrikaans. There was a previous discussion that was kept because people thought this was German, but compare the German de:Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika with the Afrikaans: af:Verenigde State van Amerika. -- Tavix (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN regardless of whether or not it's German. There are Germans in the United States, but the USA is not an especially German topic. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC) (also not especially Afrikaans; same rationale)[reply]
Comment. I'm not trying to shit-stir here but draw a line: what if it were Pennsylvania Dutch? Si Trew (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that, I don't think you're trying to stir anything. I don't think that the language of one group of people who happened to settle in a country makes a particularly strong case under WP:RFOREIGN, otherwise we could reasonably create an RFOREIGN redirect to USA from almost any extant language. I think it should be limited to languages of people who have had a notable and significant influence in United States history. I think that Germans did not although Pennsylvania Dutch probably did; Afrikaans speakers really didn't. However I'm not entirely convinced on this point. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does Pennsylvanisch spell it that way? That's a native Germanic language of the United States -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Wikimandia; WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. This isn't in Pennsylvanian -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no, in Pennsylvania German it's Vereenichde Schtaate vun Amerikaa —МандичкаYO 😜 09:50, 19 November 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 White Dog Cafe

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) sst✈(discuss) 09:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The White Dog Cafe → White Dog Cafe  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's not clear that the article will be deleted at AfD, but the business does not call itself "The White Dog Cafe" so we should not be adding "The" in front anymore then we should create redirects for The McDonalds or The Burger King (which is a character, not the chain that owns him). Legacypac (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, perfectly plausible search term. -- Tavix (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless - "the" is fine here, many of the sources provided refer to it as "the White Dog Cafe" or "the White Dog". It's superfluous and clearly not part of the proper name, but it makes a valid and plausible search. Unless the target gets deleted, then obviously WP:G8. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible synonym although "The White Dog" is a more appropriate redirect. There's a reason that Adjective Animal Alehouse is a trope --Lenticel (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we have White Dog Café to same target, but not The White Dog Café. As far as I can see, it shouldn't have the acute accent, so I've marked that one as {{R from incorrect name}}. (It's used that way in one reference.) I don't think that one should be {{R from title with diacritics}} since that implies it is correct. I realise that R is not (formally) part of this discussion, but bring it to your attention. Si Trew (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually three The White Dog Cafe. See http://www.whitedog.com/ Legacypac (talk) 07:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously necessary. People and journalists commonly add a "the" when discussing the restaurant, and the accent is common on the word cafe. Softlavender (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - THE makes no difference in search! —МандичкаYO 😜 14:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, but there's no need to leave readers with search results if we know the topic they're looking for. --BDD (talk) 18:40, 19 November 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.

John Porter (horses)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonsense disambiguation; implies "John Porter" was the name of horses. -- Tavix (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - well, it already has a valid G7 tag on it (thanks Rubbish computer) otherwise I was going to say it's probably harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that. It could be John Porter Stakes. -- Tavix (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Well then it's ambiguous disambiguation, "horses" could refer to either target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:11, 18 November 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.

Blank card

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. JohnCD (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank card → Playing card  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think in this context, a "blank card" would be a Joker (playing card), but it could also refer to other things. -- Tavix (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't see any evidence of a joker being called a "blank card" at any time. Rather than being blank, the joker is often the most elaborately-decorated card in the deck, maybe except for the ace of spades. I didn't see that this is one of the Tarot cards either, nor anything else that I could find. I see online lots of sites selling blank cards for various games, but that's not really a notable usage. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think you're right actually. I saw "blank card" in the article without actually reading it, and blank card in that context refers to something else. A little back story: I had always thought that Jokers had originated as an extra card that was thrown in to be used as a replacement in case you lost one. Hence "blank card" because it could be anything. I remember coming across a deck once where someone had sharpied over a Joker because they lost one of their cards and were too cheap to buy a new one. Turns out, that's not how they originated... -- Tavix (talk) 22:56, 18 November 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.

Blackishblue

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blackishblue → Midnight blue  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Blueishblacks → Midnight blue  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Blackishblues → Midnight blue  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

More made up words Legacypac (talk) 19:07, 18 November 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.
This discussion can be continued here. Collapsing this for now. -- Tavix (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Beeblebrox: I see you deleted these under the WP:G6 "uncontroversial maintenance" criterion. If you don't mind, could you point to the discussion where it was determined that any Neelix-created redirect could be uncontroversially speedy deleted? That would save us a lot of time here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm liking G6 If no special tag like those above can be used, the general G6 tag should be used instead, with a reason specified in the parameter of the tag - being "garbage redirects created by Neelix". I've been tagging the most obvious with R3 even though they are old, or sometimes as being invented by the editor, even though they are not articles and that is getting them deleted most of the time. Legacypac (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When you want to post template code, you can wrap it with the {{tl}} template, or use a <nowiki> tag. Also, as I said before, "created by Neelix" is not a criterion for deletion, let alone a speedy deletion criterion. Don't do that. Most of his redirects are no doubt garbage, but absent an actual speedy case, these should be listed and discussed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main discussion was here [1]. It's very, very long, but there is a clear consensus that the majority of Neelix-created redirects are undesirable, making a full week of debate unecessary. The worst of the worst have already been speedy deleted but there are still hundreds, maybe thousands, more. RFD will be backlogged for a long time if they are not dealt with expeditiously, but I have left open any discussion where anyone has commented in favor of keeping some or all fo a group. Personally I am inclined to think we should mass-delete all of them and let more responsible users re-create any that they believe have real utility, but so far that has not happened. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the explanation and I appreciate that a number of admins have already been working on this problem, however I disagree that the ANI discussion supported mass-deletion of the redirects at any time, and there are no policies I'm aware of which would support it (WP:IAR doesn't quite fit, WP:G5 is only for users who were blocked when they edited). Granted, it was not proposed (or I missed it). I wouldn't object at all to some kind of accelerated process for Neelix's redirects in particular, for example there are a few discussions open from several days ago which are obvious snow deletes but they haven't been actioned, however a few that were placed here today and also tagged by the nominator were deleted within minutes, leaving no time at all for anyone to object. I think more caution is warranted. In particular there was a discussion a few days ago about other colourishcolours redirects which attracted significant discussion, so the three above were not obvious cases. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree wholeheartedly with Ivanvector on this. Not all of Neelix's redirects are harmful and RFD is the proper forum to get this mess sorted out. G6 is for "uncontroversial" maitenence, and since this has generated a bit of controversy, it'd be best to let these discussions run their course. -- Tavix (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been going through these carefully and watching what has been deleted (they show red of course on the lists). I support mass deletion because thousands are just junk and massive effort is going into managing the few that have some use. I have not seen any deleted by admins as speedy that have serious utility. Created by Neelix may not be the only reason to delete, but it puts a BIG ? mark on the redirect or article. See how many have articles have already turned red [[2]], with others in process to delete and a bunch more turned into redirects (I turned 14 articles into redirects in one go myself) Legacypac (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ivanvector. I don't think admins have some magic ability to determine what is junk and what is not – they must separate their role as admin from that as "normal" editor. One admin doth not a consensus make.
For myself, I hadn't a chance to comment on these, even though I'd been involved in some other colourish redirects such as the greenolivish one. I know that the group of regulars here at RfD themselves could be in danger of looking like a clique, but I think they do represent quite a wide range of views and can on the whole be thought to reflect consensus reasonably. Yes, there are a lot of Neelix redirects to get through, but WP:NOTFINISHED, there's a lot of other stuff to get through too (yesterday I categorized about 150 London bus route redirects, which otherwise I would probably have dumped here, for example). Si Trew (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HP

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 HP (disambiguation) over redirect. Nearly all participants argued that HP should lead the reader towards the disambiguation page, and there is a slight majority favouring move rather than retarget. Deryck C. 14:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • HP → HP Inc.  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Does HP now always mean HP Inc. now that the company has been split? (e.g. is it the WP:PTOPIC with respect to usage?) Shouldn't it point to Hewlett-Packard instead as that was how it always has been since the beginning of Wikipedia? (e.g. is it the WP:PTOPIC with respect to long-term significance?) <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Defer - there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus yet that HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise should be separate articles just because of a corporate split. Probably this should be left alone until that point is settled. Not endorsing the current target, just saying let's wait. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to HP (disambiguation) now that there are two companies called HP. Also, horsepower. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to HP (disambiguation). For some readers, HP is the name of a condiment. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move HP (disambiguation) over redirect (it's the same as a retarget to the dab, but satisfies WP:MALPLACED). Even though my search is dominated by the corporation, it's ambiguous (now) whether it is supposed to be Hewlett-Packard, HP Inc., or Hewlett Packard Enterprise. -- Tavix (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move' DAB page over per Tavix. Unfortunately that's a move request, and although I think we should be able to deal with moves over redirects here at RfD, that is not consensus (is it? I'll be glad to be wrong.) Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with disambiguation page -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - HP is Hewlett Packard, one of the biggest companies in the world; HP sauce is apparently UK only has the important "sauce" in the name —МандичкаYO 😜 10:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's horsepower, hit points, health points, also, besides HP sauce and Hewlett-Packard; I would say horsepower is even more prominent than all other uses. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "horsepower" hardly prevalent? I think not, it's much more prevalent than anything else. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which Hewlett Packard? There's three: the pre-split company, and the two companies they split into (look at my !vote for links). -- Tavix (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move DAB page per 70.51. shoy (reactions) 14:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to HP (disambiguation). People will search for "HP" even if they meant to look for "HPE."—Best Dog Ever (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer & procedural close or Move as temporary fix all retargets above fail WP:MALPLACED so RM is the right venue, this is the wrong venue, hence procedural close. There's only one candidate for the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which is the status quo. Defer decision on that as current primary topic is OK for now, and allows an RM. I'm restoring the status quo as it's been changed without consensus. Widefox; talk 19:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I propose a WP:DABCONCEPT at the primary topic. Widefox; talk 19:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why? We already have mature articles on all of these things. DABCONCEPT is for dabs where a primary topic needs to be written about.

Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? HP redirects to a stub HP Inc.. To clarify - the scope of the DABCONCEPT would be the computer company's names - both former and current. Second thoughts just a dab is better and sub-listing the WP:PTM should be OK. Widefox; talk 08:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move dab over redirect per Tavix - there's valid concern here that the technology company (companies?) is (are?) not the primary topic for "HP". In that case, HP (disambiguation) should be moved over HP since there does not seem to be a significantly primary topic here, and especially less so since the Hewlett-Packard split (both the article and the actual company). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except that is best handled as a RM, the current target is a problem though, so don't mind a move. Widefox; talk 19:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably true, but we've had these discussions here before. If consensus here supports moving, I wouldn't object to listing a requested move at wherever it's supposed to be, as a confirmation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the disambiguation page to HP. older ≠ wiser 21:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are over 600 links to "HP", most of which were created before the creation of HP Inc., and thus intended for Hewlett-Packard. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as the vast majority of links to AT&T created before 2005 would have been intended to link to AT&T Corporation. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:38, 30 November 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.

Over producedly

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over producedly → Overproduction  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Over-producedly → Overproduction  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Overproducedly → Overproduction  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausibledly constructionedly redirectedly Legacypac (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deletingishly - irony alert. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:52, 18 November 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.

Lootergate

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. JohnCD (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lootergate → Hillary Clinton  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible search term pointing to an article which does not even contain the term. Scjessey (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's a real thing and related to Clintons "Lootergate - Bill and especially Hillary started to ship White House furniture to their personal home in Chappaqua, N.Y.. The Clintons claimed they were donated, but at only some were proven to be donated and meant to stay in the White House after contacting the manufacturers. The Clintons returned some of the furniture after pressure was put on them to do so". [3] I expect it could be reliably sourced with some digging based on that result. Legacypac (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A search of Google News yields very few results indeed. Certainly there is no mainstream media coverage other than mocking the term, it would appear. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a couple of the many results I found:
*Washington Post - "Clintons Began Taking White House Property a Year Ago"
*America Rising - "White House Cutlery Thief: Bill Clinton Jokes About Stealing WH Property"
*ABC News - "Clintons Return White House Furniture" --- Professor JR (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK that it be deleted from the Hillary Clinton as it currently exists, as the corresponding 'Lootergate' text to which the redirect referred users was blanked by another editor several weeks ago. If text is restored, however, as suggested above by Legacypac, then redirect link should be retained.--- Professor JR (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - random terms with 'gate appended aren't particularly notable. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP and WP:REDLINK. If this is a notable scandal (it might be: [4]) then someone should write an article (or any content at all) about it. If it's not and/or until we have content about it, just redirecting to one of the alleged perpetrators of the scandal is a BLP violation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: There was corresponding content previously, but it was blanked by another editor several weeks ago. --- Professor JR (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm good with Delete Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refuse jurisdiction (speedy close). Whether or not to include the content in Hillary Clinton's article is an unsettled content dispute between two editors, and I see no discussion about it on the talk page. Don't bring content disputes to RfD - settle it first, then determine whether or not there should be a redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not aware of any content dispute. As you said before, this is basically a violation of WP:BLP. Even the creator of this redirect is okay with it being deleted. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interpreting some comments above and reverts in the page history as indication of an unsettled dispute over whether or not to include content about this controversy in the article. Am I wrong about that? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, Professor JR agrees with the deletion of the redirect, but doesn't agree with my rationale. I am not and have never been involved in the content you are referring to, and I'm not sure why that would have any relevance here. It is my understanding from Professor JR that the content you are referring to has not been in the article for "several weeks", which implies stability, does it not? Anyway, since everyone agrees the redirect is no longer necessary, isn't all that rather moot? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant because if we're going to restore that content, then the redirect is fine. We routinely keep redirects from non-neutral but common names because they help readers searching for those names find the information they're looking for. If the content is not going to be restored, then the redirect is nonsense because we don't describe what it is. So in my opinion it depends on whether or not that content is going to be restored in Hillary Clinton's article, and it looks to me like that discussion is still happening. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "still happening". From what I can tell, the text in question was added on October 30 by Professor JR, who then created the "lootergate" redirect. It was then removed on November 1 (the following day), which was over two weeks ago, and according to the talk page archives "lootergate" has never been discussed at any time by any editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well fair enough. As the article is currently this redirect is nonsense, so we should delete it. If someone wants to recreate it and re-add the content to the article, then that will be a different issue. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my previous rationale. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:46, 19 November 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.

Hillary Diane

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. 14:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hillary Diane → Hillary Clinton  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Partial-title match, not a common way of referring to the subject. --BDD (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Googling gives pages of matches to Clinton for this string, because it is part of her name and she is famous, but I found a non-notable actress [5] by this name too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 17:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. We've had this since 2007, it's never pointed to anyone else, and there don't seem to be any other notable uses even if it is a partial match. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nobody in a million years would use this as a search term —МандичкаYO 😜 10:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - implausible search term. We already have Hillary Diane Rodham, which should be sufficient. Neutralitytalk 06:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. This redirect is harmless, and there is no better target. sst✈(discuss) 10:10, 25 November 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.

Frencher

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frencher → French kiss  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Frenchings → French kiss  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Lots of things are Frencher than other things, especially french people Legacypac (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - likely that the creator thought that taking the English colloqiual verb "to french" (as in French kissing) and tried to make a French verb infinitive out of it, which is just wrong. Unless they did mean "someone who frenches", and in that case it's just wrong. WRONG. Delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:09, 18 November 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.

Emballer

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emballer → French kiss  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I can't get any English results. Translates from French to English as "Pack" Legacypac (talk) 17:57, 18 November 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.

Galocher

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Galocher → French kiss  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a french verb meaning kissing in general. It does not seem to mean "french kissing" but rather "kissing" in french. Not a translation service Legacypac (talk) 17:55, 18 November 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.

Tongue wrestlers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tongue wrestlers → French kiss  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Tongue wrestlings → French kiss  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

the basic term is in use (mostly on Porn sites) but these are silly extended terms. Legacypac (talk) 17:50, 18 November 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.

Pash (kiss)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pash (kiss) → French kiss  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Pashing → French kiss  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Pashes → French kiss  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These are just wrong. Pash means a brief infatuation. noun informal dated plural noun: pashes "Kath's got a pash on him" Legacypac (talk) 17:45, 18 November 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.

Triple headers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Triple headers → Doubleheader  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Triple-header → Doubleheader  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Tripleheader → Doubleheader  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Triple headers are not double headers Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - indeed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:04, 18 November 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.
 Done for Tripleheader only, though I wouldn't object to someone doing the same with the others. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: Tripleheaders are also covered at Doubleheader (television), so a return to the status quo might be in order. -- Tavix (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good find. Red again. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bed dancers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 2#Bed dancers

Monica Lewinsky's ex-husband's wife

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted WP:CSD#G10. JohnCD (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Monica Lewinsky's ex-husband's wife → Hillary Clinton  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Apart from anything else, it's inaccurate – Bill was never married to Monica. Smurrayinchester 16:42, 18 November 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.

Blackishorange

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. as garbage created by User:Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC) ==[reply]
  • Blackishorange → Brown  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Orangishblack → Brown  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Blackishoranges → Brown  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Orangeishblacks → Brown  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Orangishblacks → Brown  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Purely invented compound words Legacypac (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - you can't make a compound colour with black this way. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:07, 18 November 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 YWCA Women of Distinction Awards

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 those with "Christian" in the name, keep the rest. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should not have "The" in title. Legacypac (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the ones that have "Christian" in the name - the agency distances itself from that former affiliation and the POV is not warranted. Keep the others as valid searches, and in particular redirects with "The" in them are perfectly valid. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Women of Distinction" without the The is a registered trademark of YWCA Canada. Legacypac (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Keep per Ivanvector. -- Tavix (talk) 16:39, 25 November 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 National Epic of Finland

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. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The National Epic of Finland → Kalevala  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Goes against the rule about "The" in title, especially since this term is not the name of the work of lit Legacypac (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - what rule is there against "the" in a page title? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:THE is a naming convention. It applies to article titles, not redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
surely we don't want to encourage millions of new redirects where we just add The in front of every noun? Legacypac (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's commonly argued here that we must delete bad redirects to discourage the creation of more bad redirects, but there is no guideline supporting that assertion. There's never been any evidence that having some questionably useful redirects inspires other editors to create bad redirects, and on the contrary some users browse in different ways. This particular redirect points unambiguously to the correct target, and redirects are cheap. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's commonly argued by me, for one, sometimes "winning", sometimes not. We have an rcat, {{R from incorrect name}}, as we do for {{R from misspelling}} and so on. This can be used to indicate that the title doesn't meet WP:TITLE. I'm aware that that guideline/policy is only for articles, but I have argued that since a redirect can be turned into an article then with some amount of common sense we should follow article naming conventions. The obvious exception with a redirect is the manner in which it diverges from WP:TITLE, which can be made explicit by the tag (or tags) saying it doesn't: which is one reason we have R from misspelling, R from other language, R from other punctuation, R from alternative name (R to common name), and so on. (Another reason, I guess, is that they can then be "fixed" in articles with less chance of another editor asserting WP:NOTBROKEN"– the doc at some rcats such as {{R from incorrect namem}} encourage this, others such as {{R from alternative name}} don't, quite rightly in both cases.
In tagging them thus, we've made an explicit statement that we know it doesn't conform to article title naming conventions but assert there is good reason for it. If this were used more, then over time, this might lead to fewer of them ending up here. It would not be a lot of trouble, when removing the RfD notice and adding the {{old rfd}}, for the closing editor to rcat it in such a way (would it?)
Perhaps I should start a discussion on the talk page to this effect, as I have virtually said the same thing in reply to one of BDD's below; and my point is not specific to this redirect. Si Trew (talk) 07:04, 19 November 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 US Virgin Islands

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 all. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The" is not part of the location name and is against policy. Legacypac (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all, having redirects that are plausible search terms is not against any policy. -- Tavix (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could see the "of the US" forms being called unlikely search terms, perhaps, but the first four are cromulent. --BDD (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Tavix. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all These all exist without the superfluous "the." "The Virgin Islands of the United States" is especially ridiculous and sounds like "The Northern Ireland of the United Kingdom" —МандичкаYO 😜 06:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Tavix. No reason to delete. Neutralitytalk 05:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first four, just to make my position official. No position on the others; they're unambiguous enough, but seem like really unnatural phrasing and unlikely search terms. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. No valid reason to delete has been suggested. You might not want to create redirects with a superfluous "the" but once they have been created, there is no benefit to deleting them. Rossami (talk) 19:20, 3 December 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.

White liners

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 6#White liners

The Sci-Fi Dine-In

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 8#The Sci-Fi Dine-In

SciFi Dine In

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 8#SciFi Dine In

Greyishblue

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greyishblue → Glaucous  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Grayishblues → Glaucous  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Blueishgrays → Glaucous  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Blueishgreys → Glaucous  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Invented compound words Legacypac (talk) 15:40, 18 November 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.

Desperativeness

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Desperativeness → Depression (mood)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Disheartenedly → Depression (mood)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Disheartenedness → Depression (mood)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Dishearteningness → Depression (mood)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These are unlikely search terms that don't serve the reader well. Shorter versions are all redirects already. Legacypac (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deletitude (action) - more implausible modifications. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 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.

Singlespeeders

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 except withdrawn Single speed. JohnCD (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Single-speed → Single-speed bicycle  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  (Withdraw this one)

If this was bicycle wikipedia these Neelix redirects might make sense but there are far too many applications for these terms to direct them to a bicycle article only. Legacypac (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep single-speed, delete the others. There are many things that are referred to as single-speed variants of a thing (such as single-speed AC motors) but only one thing is widely identified only by the name "single speed", and that is a fixed-gear bicycle. Search "single speed" on Google and you'll get pages and pages exclusively about bicycles. But delete all of the superfluously modified redirects - nobody is a singlespeeder, nobody goes singlespeeding on the weekends, nobody in the history of life, the universe and everything has ever singlespeeded, and so on. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can accept keeping single speed as a common term for this kind of bike. As a stand alone noun that is what it means. Legacypac (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all these are not about single speed motors -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:44, 19 November 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.

Print making in Japan

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 19#Print making in Japan

Grey economists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grey economists → Grey market  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Gray economists → Grey market  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Gray economist → Grey market  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Grey economist → Grey market  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Gray economically → Grey market  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Grey economically → Grey market  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Gray economical → Grey market  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Grey economical → Grey market  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Gray economic → Grey market  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Grey economic → Grey market  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I retargeted the better ones to Informal sector but these seem like some kind of special economist or something. Legacypac (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - dammit Jim! I'm a doctor, not an economist! Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • More likely some of these would describe an economist who is getting old. Legacypac (talk) 18:15, 18 November 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.

Dark marketeered

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dark marketeered → Grey market  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Dark marketeering → Grey market  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Dark marketeers → Grey market  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Dark marketeer → Grey market  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Dark marketed → Grey market  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Dark marketers → Grey market  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Dark marketer → Grey market  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Dark marketing → Grey market  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The term Dark marketing is being used for various internet marketing strategies - on Facebook for example. It has little to do with the target and should be deleted to encourage article creation and reduce the chance that we confuse the reader. The first one is just implausible and silly. Legacypac (talk) 15:05, 18 November 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.

Nearest neighbour clusterings

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 Nearest neighbour clustering, Nearest neighbour cluster, Nearest neighbor clustering, and Nearest neighbor cluster; delete the rest. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me, these search terms appear to refer to computer programming and other statistical concepts. Not related to target as far as I can see. Possible G6 as Neelix redirects per ANi discussion Legacypac (talk) 15:00, 18 November 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.

Single-linker

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) 22:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too.vague. Lots of applications for these terms beyond statistics/ These can be deleted G6 housekeeping as Neelix redirects per AN Legacypac (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete my first thought was of singly-linked-lists -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:45, 19 November 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 ten of spades

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ten of spades → Playing card  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • The four of hearts → Playing card  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • The five of hearts → Playing card  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • The deck of cards → Playing card  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • The playing card → Playing card  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I don't believe we need a redirect putting The in front of every noun based article title or redirect (there are redirects without the The in each case here.)Legacypac (talk) 14:18, 18 November 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.

Blattisocius aegypticus

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 (keep). These have all no been converted into stub articles by User:Wilhelmina Will. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete, redirecting species of animals to a list in the article of a higher level taxon (genus) is not necessary, because the article can be found anyway by the genus name alone. The link suggests there is an article on the species, instead its a loop to the list itself. That kind of redirect could be used for millions of species names without article, but it is not used commonly in wikipedia, not even consistently in the article Blattisocius, because it is not leading to any further information. Regiomontanus (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Taken CSD as WP:G8, redirect loop. Derisory stats (<1/day before this discussion), no links outside this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{R from subtopic}} -- I see no reason not to direct species to their genus articles if we aren't going to write articles on the species themselves. Just unlink the species from the genus article, which will remove the loop -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that we might, one day, write articles on the species themselves, therefore WP:REDLINK applies. Si Trew (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we keep them it would cost us a lot of effort to unlink dozens of species in thousands of genus articles and change them into redirects with no additional content. Up to now these articles have been treated the other way round (WP:REDLINK) by the biological wp projects and their members. --Regiomontanus (talk) 06:59, 18 November 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.

Kolompar family

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. These are already under discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 11#Domotor-Kolompar organization. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are Hungarian names. It is inappropriate to accuse all members of the family of being part of a crime family. There is policy against this. Legacypac (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They might be of Hungarian origin but they're not Hungarian names: Kolompár and Dömötör are. It looks like the (significant) diacrtical marks got lost in translation. Si Trew (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think. While of course it's plausible that there are other people in the world with these names, I don't think WP:BLP covers people who are not notable, just the people that we write about. Presumably there are other people in the world with the surname Dahmer, but having that redirect go where it does doesn't imply that they're all serial killers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:17, 18 November 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.

Separate home

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He set up 97 redirects to this target, but this group is especially problematic. For example, a couple could live in separate residences, which are not always single family homes. Some of these suggest segregated housing more then the target. Real estate is my specialty but I've never heard these terms used like this. Not helpful search terms. [User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete makes no sense. Separate homes could mean a divorced couple sharing custody, or separate work and family residences, or summer and winter homes -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seasonal homes would be second homes, wouldn't they? I think this is case even if there is more than one second home:
  • Lambert, Victoria (21 August 2014). "When one home just isn't enough, try 'mouseholing'". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 18 September 2015. The actress Stephanie Beacham, too, has second homes in California, Spain, England and North Africa {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
... and others (gsearch for "has second homes in"). Si Trew (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 70 & nominator. The primary meaning of all of these phrases is not the current target, and we don't really have articles for the actual primary meanings:
    1. The GBooks hits for "separate housing" are mostly instructing government workers on whether rooms in dormitories or boarding-houses should be coded as "separate housing units". Obviously dormitories are not single-family detached dwellings.
    2. The GBooks hits for "separate homes" and "separate residences" are mostly about couples living apart, but we don't have a good target for that: living apart is not necessarily due to legal separation but often simply for work, educational, or immigration reasons (see e.g. astronaut family or gireogi appa).
    3. Readers searching for "separate housings" are wildly unlikely to be seeking anything related to residential arrangements; as far as the eye can see, all of the Google Books hits are using it to mean "separate cases for different mechanical or electrical components", and I don't see any remotely good target for that.
210.6.254.106 (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Not useful, excessive redirection. crh23 (talk) 14:37, 18 November 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 Enemy Within (play)

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. JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Enemy Within (play) → Brian Friel  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete to encourage article creation. It shows in a template about the author, but redirects to the author, which if you follow the link at the author page you go back in a circle. Many of the author's plays are redlinked. Legacypac (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:G8 redirect loop, will speedy. If this were used outside the template, it might be a different case... but it isn't. Si Trew (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Circular redirects are not G8-eligible. For topics that will likely never have an article, they're ill-advised, but otherwise, they can save future effort. --BDD (talk) 16:58, 18 November 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 Enemy Within: The McClellan Committee's Crusade Against Jimmy Hoffa and Corrupt Labor Unions

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator, a stub on the book has been created. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Enemy Within: The McClellan Committee's Crusade Against Jimmy Hoffa and Corrupt Labor Unions → Robert F. Kennedy  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Kennedy wrote a book - but this includes the whole subtitle, which I understand is not how we deal with it? Maybe there needs to be an article about the book so is it appropriate to delete the redirect to encourage creation?. I have linked Kennedy from the dab page The Enemy Within so the reader can find some info anyway. [User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CONCISE. I'm surprised we haven't an article on this. Si Trew (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An article would either be at this title or The Enemy Within (Kennedy book). See WP:NCBOOKS, especially WP:SUBTITLE. In a "complete" encyclopedia, this redirect would either be an article or a legitimate alternative title (tagged with {{R from long name}}). I restored a few similar Neelix redirects that had been tossed out with the bathwater. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close I've created an article for the book, which is clearly a significant work (even republished in 1994). I've retargeted the redirect at the new article The Enemy Within (Kennedy book). Legacypac (talk) 18:59, 18 November 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.

Three-Handed

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three-Handed → Three-Handed Whist  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are a few different card games that are three handed. Any card game with three players is three handed. There are also other uses for the term as shown in search. This is not specific enough to direc only to this game. Legacypac (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ambiguous -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or DAB it as WP:RFD#D2 confusing per WP:XY. We have redirects Three-handed Theotokos → Trojeručica, Three-Handed Xiangqi → Game of the Three Kingdoms and some "three-hander" or "three-handed" stage plays. There might be just enough traction for a DAB (three entries plus search for prefix), but since a plain Special:Search returned these without ado, what's the point? Si Trew (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 70.51. Don't disambiguate - there aren't multiple things called "three-handed", there are just multiple things which can be described with the modifier "three-handed [thing]". WP:PTM. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:16, 18 November 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.

DIH (railway station)

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. --BDD (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DIH (railway station) → Diamond Hill Station  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A silly redirect created for a former disambiguation page DIH which has since been turned into a redirect as the abbreviation is certainly not commonly used for the station. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, harmless. Si Trew (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if you added a hatnote and this term is therefore correct, then there's no reason why a redirect shouldn't exist. Indeed, it'd pop up in the searchbox, letting a person get to it directly. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the MTR certainly uses DIH for Diamond Hill Station [6] -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE I have restored the disambiguation page, it was missing the ISO language code, and the dihedral group prefix, making a proper 4 entry page -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Five. Si Trew (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I get it. Keep the disambiguation page, but delete this particular redirect page since no other pages link to it except for this RfD (just as there is no such page as NOP (railway station), LCK (railway station), HAH (railway station), etc. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the hatnote at Diamond Hill Station since DIH no longer redirects there. Si Trew (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We should make some effort to check whether this is ambiguous, and retarget to DIH as an {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} if so. I suspect there must be at least one other railway station on Wikipedia using this code, but I can't find one right now, all I could find is ones like Dharuadihi Railway Station in India which don't have Wikipedia articles. (I also see the abbreviation DIH on Heimwehfluhbahn but I don't know why it's there.) 210.6.254.106 (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The German article is de:Drahtseilbahn Interlaken–Heimwehfluh. --BDD (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until articles about other railway stations called "DIH" are written. sst✈(discuss) 10:12, 25 November 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_November_18&oldid=1079637826"