Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 24

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. The general conclusion of the discussion below is that these phrases can mean multiple things and there's little appetite for a disambiguation page. Deryck C. 23:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fast men → Fast bowling  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Fast-men → Fast bowling  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] Legacypac (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Fastmen → Fast bowling  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] Legacypac (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Fast man → Fast bowling  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] Legacypac (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Fast-man → Fast bowling  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] Legacypac (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Fastman → Fast bowling  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is an album and song Fast Man Raider Man, but frankly this could refer to a runner or other things. Too imprecise to target anywhere. Legacypac (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Brian Leiser per hatnote on current target. sst✈^discuss 09:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That hatnote is wong. The target says Leiser is known as "Fast"; the hatnote implies he is known as "Fastman" whereas the target only gives that as an etymology. Si Trew (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - defined at the target. Unless there are competing usages, which I can't find. There is a song "Fast Man" on Fast Man Raider Man which might be worth a hatnote, and it's possible that a fast man disambiguation page is warranted if there are other possible matches. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All? How could "Fast men" possibly refer to this no doubt singular (in both senses) man? Si Trew (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was confused with thinking that they retargeted to Brian Leiser. D'uh. Si Trew (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the DAB suggestion, I'm warm to that, but having a quick search around I'd say the existing DAB at speed record is only a click or two away from anything else that seemed plausible. We could add (general) entries to it, for example, aviation and space speed records are not well covered at that DAB. (I couldn't find anything along the lines of Aviation speed record.) That being said, these are "fast" men, not necessarily "the fastest".

Or how about List of hunger strikes? Si Trew (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all I've never heard any of these used this way. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete all Googling "Fastman" gives a spatter of surname hits, with the only consistent other hit being an aftermarket throttle body manufacturer. The only thing we've mentioned so far that has shown up is the album, four pages in. There's every indication that nothing that we would have an article on which dominates these words/phrases. Mangoe (talk) 15:02, 1 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.

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. There's no consensus on a course of action except everybody wants them changed, so we default to delete. (Thanks also Tavix's relisting comment.) Deryck C. 19:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Appropriateness → Morality  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Appropriately → Morality  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These terms are quite different from each other. It might be appropriate to delete this but not an issue of morality. I speedied a bunch of other bad redirects to this target. Legacypac (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete WP:ASTONISH, misleading; not synonyms or even related in any way -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How appropriate. I was going to weakly suggest retargetting to Propriety (at least the first), but that is itself an R to Morality. It targeted Proper from its creation on 4 June 2006 by User:Mrzaius until it was retargeted on 19 April 2013 by User:Neelix These two were both created on 10 April 2008 by Neelix, and retargeted from Proper to Morality on 17 January 2009... over three years before Propriety was. We could put all three back to proper. Si Trew (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Si Trew, just do it. Legacypac (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was unsure that appropriate and proper had the same etymology (not that that matters greatly, WP:NOTDIC) but they do: both ult. from from Latin proprius 'one's own, private', although they come via different routes. I'm disinclined to be bold when something is being discussed, and since they've been around for at least a couple of years with no quibble, they can wait another "week or so" (RfD header). Si Trew (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect everything to Wiktionary. And perhaps trout Neelix for creating them. Oh, and can someone (by which I mean @Si Trew) give a full list of exactly what we are discussing here? The nomination seems a bit... dispersed. --NYKevin 18:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NYKevin: I'm not going to do that: it's a bit of a tar-pit about which ones are "distinct" and which ones are conjoined; also the day had turned so I didn't want to lump them in on a previous day's nomination, especially if (for the added noms) it could seem at a glance that I'd put words in others' mouths. I realise it's not ideal as we have it, but I don't think combining them now would make it better. But if there is consensus to do that, I've no objection. Si Trew (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete all We do not have to trap every Google search, and we do not need to agonize over every one of Neelix's eccentric redirects. There's no obvious place to point these derived forms of generalities, and we shouldn't waste further thought on the matter. Just get rid of them. Mangoe (talk) 22:50, 24 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 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 those where the ASN is mentioned on the article, as described by Si Trew. Deryck C. 23:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion for AS10310

Not sure what this refers to. In any case, it's not mentioned at the article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 06:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it's the Border Gateway Protocol address for Yahoo -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even less interestingly, it's also a part number for a Kyocera black toner cartridge, a wind generator, and an elecrostatic removal wristband (i.e. antistatic wrist strap). Si Trew (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it's available for most common ASNs :) --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment added 35 other Border Gateway Protocol redirects to this discussion found at Special:PrefixIndex/AS1 through Special:PrefixIndex/AS9. I think that's all of them. Apparently all created around April 2015 by one user. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it's the sort of information that could go in an infobox. {{Infobox network service provider}} has it, for example. But strictly speaking, info in such a box should be elsewhere in the article too (I think). Si Trew (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a lot of these are used, e.g. Singapore Internet Exchange links quite a few of them. But still, they should be at the targetsSi Trew (talk) 09:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, except keep three created by User:Huggi:

• AS32421 (to Level 3 Communications), created in April and was retargeted (double redirect) by a bot in August; has it in an infobox.
• AS6939 (to Hurricane Electric), has it in an infobox..
• AS41095 (to IPTP Networks), has it in lede of target.

It's not at any of the other targets that I could see, but I may have missed some. Modified after additional targets added. Si Trew (talk) 09:46, 12 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 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 disambiguate as proposed by Tavix. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 05:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Court uniform and dress → Court uniform and dress in the United Kingdom  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Pages like this turn up from time to time, though more often related to the US. We shouldn't redirect "Foo" to "Foo in Place". If Foo is exclusive to Place, the extra verbiage is unnecessary. If not, better to tag the page with {{globalize}} then to rename and do nothing else with the base title (cf. WP:NODEADLINE). I propose retargeting to Court dress, unless it can be demonstrated that this term is particular to the UK, in which case the target article should be moved (back) over the redirect. BDD (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Do what BDD said. Anyway, this could be expanded to include other parts of the British Empire. Si Trew (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget as above, though in fact this is all about judicial courts, globally. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• retarget per nom -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget as above. Apokrif (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• There is also Court uniform and dress in the Empire of Japan, so this is not a UK-specific term. Gorobay (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The hatnote at Court dress gives me pause whether retargeting there is a good thing, since they appear to be separate topics. "Court dress" is about the dress in a judicial court, whereas "Court uniform and dress in the United Kingdom" is about the dress of a royal court. Unless I'm wrong, it's perhaps best to make this into a {{conceptdab}} for now, linking to the UK and Empire of Japan articles and perhaps a see also to Court dress. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with that. Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. I was sort of assuming the dress for both types of courts would be similar enough, but maybe not. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 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.

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) 13:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hertfordshire bus route 8 → List of bus routes in London  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:G3, WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. (Declined at CSD.) No part of London buses route 8 is in Hertfordshire. Could refer to several local bus routes in Hertfordshire numbered 8, none of which is particularly notable. Si Trew (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I'm fine with admins being strict with the CSD definitions, but there's no info on this at the target and the route 8 that's listed there is not this, so misleading as stated. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:28, 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 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 delete as status quo ante. Opinions below are split between "delete as harmful because of ISIL fringe theory" and "keep as useful because it's a plausible descriptive name". Since the redirect is recently created and the last RfD (originally to a different target) was closed as delete rather than retarget, I'm closing this discussion as no consensus and enacting the outcome of the last RfD. Deryck C. 23:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Israeli Secret Intelligence Service → Mossad  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Wikipedia neologism that doesn't appear in Google search (except as Wikipedia result). Also, see the prior deletion discussion, at which the suggestion to redirect to Mossad was discussed and rejected. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is a descriptive name, combining "Secret Intelligence Service" (MI6) with "Israeli", so would be equivalent to saying "Israeli CIA" and redirecting that to Mossad. The Mossad is the foreign intelligence service of Israel, so the equivalent to the British SIS (MI6) and the U.S. CIA; the prior deletion discussion seems to be completely lacking in acknowledging that. However, it's a rather poor term to use, since most people call the British one MI6 and not SIS. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely search term -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact, the previous deletion discussion rather explicitly covers that. That a combination of words can be understood to be talking about a specific subject does not mean a redirect is justified. Otherwise we might as well have Israel's version of the CIA or MI6, The top secret government group in Israel that has missions and collects intelligence as redirects, too. This is not the name of an agency in Israel. It's not an accepted alternate name of an agency in Israel. On the other hand, however, it is a name used in a conspiracy theory. Not only an invalid redirect but also WP:PROFRINGE. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That it is used in a conspiracy theory means little, when it isn't a viable search term in the first place. Conspiracy theories would have their own articles, if notable. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that it's not a viable redirect to begin with, but I can also understand the arguments along the lines of "redirects are cheap" or that such a redirect "doesn't hurt" and is a possible search term. My point is that regardless of whether or not I agree (I don't), it is the name used by something else which is specifically something we do not want to keep. Per WP:PROFRINGE is "does hurt". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather if there is a more prominent usage (ie. the conspiracy theory), then it would be considered to be overly ambiguous and confusing, and deleted because of that (ambiguity), and not because of fringe issues. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:RFD#K3 useful search term. It's not a Wikipedia neologism. For example (from a Google Search of "Mossad Israeli Secret Intelligence Service"):
  • Eisenberg, Dennis; Dan, Uri; Landau, Eli (1978). The Mossad: Israel's Secret Intelligence Service: Inside Stories. Paddington. ISBN 978-0448222011.

Although most ghits right now are from unreliable sources associating Mossad with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I realise that the possesive "Israeli" and the possesive "Israel's" are minor variants of the same word, and have a descriptive nature: similarly it would be perfectly acceptable to write either "The British MI6" or "Britain's MI6"; "America's CIA" or "The American CIA".

It find it surprisingly that Secret Intelligence Service (i.e. MI6) does not hatnote to anything outside of MI5 or MI6; there's no Secret Intelligence Service (disambiguation). This gets people to what they would want to find. I also realise the "secret" here is redundant, or debatable, but there's no Israeli Intelligence Service or similar. We also have an article about a book on the Israeli intelligence services, Israel's Secret Wars (1991), so the use of "secret" in the context of Israeli intelligence services is not a Wikipedia neologism. Si Trew (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt - The term comes from a WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory about the supposed US/Israeli origins of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (note the acronym). The original redirect pointed to the ISIS article, and indeed if you google the term "Mossad" is not what comes up. That's because it is not an alternative name for Mossad except insofar as any descriptive phrase is a valid alternative name. What comes up is a bunch of conspiracy theory connections between ISIS and Israel. Keeping the redirect helps the conspiracy theory under a pretense of being an innocuous descriptive redirect. (aka all the reasons I said in the previous RfD). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a fringe conspiracy theory uses the term does not mean that the term is only used in fringe conspiracy theories. That is not a logical conclusion. It should not be deleted because it is used in a conspiracy theory, it should be deleted because it is not a good search term. Deletion based on the conspiracy theory ignores the uses through analogy that are completely unrelated to the conspiracy theory. Simon Trew already showed that it is used in ways unconnected to the conspiracy theory. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your straw man is not a logical conclusion, right. The problem is it's not a proper term for Mossad, but at the same time it is a conspiracy theory term. These are two arguments for deletion. That it has been used in ways other than the conspiracy theory is immaterial if it's not an accepted name for the redirect target and if this term is more closely tied to the conspiracy theory. As the conspiracy theory is not notable and we do not promote fringe theories, that's all the more reason not to have an arbitrary descriptive redirect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an "arbitrary descriptive name"; to call Mossad Israel's secret intelligence service, secret intelligence agency or secret service – essentially all just elegant variation – is done by plenty of RS fringe organisations such as The Guardian:

• Milne, Seumas; MacAskill, Ewen; Swisher, Clayton (23 February 2015). "Leaked cables show Netanyahu's Iran bomb claim contradicted by Mossad". The Guardian. Retrieved 25 November 2015. Gulf between Israeli secret service and PM [...] Binyamin Netanyahu's dramatic declaration [...]was contradicted by his own secret service, according to a top-secret Mossad document. [...]

Al Jazeera:

• Jordan, Will (24 February 2015). "'Arrogant' Israeli spy infuriates S Africa intelligence". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 25 November 2015. Leaked papers expose 'doomed' relationship between South African and Israeli intelligence [...] the two nations' secret services [...] Israel's secret service.

and the RT TV network:

• "'Join the invisible to make the impossible': Israel's Mossad now recruits agents online". rt.com. 30 September 2014. Retrieved 25 November 2015. Mossad recruitment site also implied production of a short video depicting the secretive activities of the agency's members

The fact is that "Mossad" is not an English word, and these are perfectly reasonably ways of translating it, analagous to the names used for the British, American, South African etc. etc. agencies with similar functions. Si Trew (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not even one of these sources uses the phrase we're talking about. All you're doing is showing that some people refer to it as a secret service or an intelligence agency. Nowhere there is it called "Israeli Secret Intelligence Service". Even if you do link to news stories that do use the term, and I'm not questioning they exist, all that proves is that it's occasionally used because it's descriptive. So you're effectively just justifying any combination of [Israel/Israeli/Israel's] + [secret/secretive/clandestine/undercover/top secret/hush-hush/covert/sneaky/stealthy/on the QT] + [security/intelligence/protection/surveillance/defense/safeguard/safety] + [service/organization/agency/bureau/division/group/entity] as a valid redirect. After all, we can probably find a source that describes or refers to Mossad with each combination.

Whether you want to call it arbitrary or elegant variation, it is not by itself a valid basis for a redirect, especially given the circumstances of this term, which has another more prominent WP:FRINGE use. It's descriptive of but not actually another name for the subject, and because it is a name for something else entirely -- something related but utterly inappropriate -- there's no question it should be deleted.

To be clear, I wouldn't be participating if the discussion were about the redirect Israeli secret service → Mossad. I don't know that it's necessary, but beyond being a more basic and more common descriptive phrase, the important thing is it, unlike the present term, does not suffer from the same problem of having a more prominent usage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The last discussion was speedy deleted as WP:G3 by CactusWriter. I'm pinging them here to see if they have any input. -- Tavix ^(talk) 07:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In response to User:Tavix's ping: The previous page was speedily deleted by me per WP:G3 because it was a redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant -- a blatantly inaccurate target without any credible merit. The new redirect is a different case. A redirect of Israeli Secret Intelligence Service to Mossad seems to have some merit at first glance. However, a search for the term finds it is entirely used to promote the same fringe conspiracy theory -- and use of it here fails our WP:PROFRINGE guidelines. Fortunately, the more accurate and common redirect of Israeli secret service already exists and will appear in the search box when a reader types the words "israeli secret." — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Si Trew's arguments. Debresser (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Redirect from logical descriptive name to actual name. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm having trouble understanding this. @Debresser and Oiyarbepsy: When one of many possible "logical descriptive names" is more prominently used as a name for a related conspiracy theory, what justification is there to keep it? The point of creating that redirect is so to help someone looking for it by this name. If someone looking for this name is more likely to be looking for the conspiracy theory (just google it), and it's not actually another name for Mossad.... this shouldn't be controversial. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's safe to say that nearly everyone knows that Israel has a secret service, but many people don't know that's it's called Mossad. That is why the redirect exists. A person encountering a looney conspiracy theory and entering it here will be presented with facts instead of crazyness, and that's a good thing. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While I'm generally on the side that redirects are cheap, unless they do more harm than being useful, this seems to be an example of exactly this: doing more harm than being useful. It's not an established synonym at all, so doesn't serve us much. On the other side it was initially created in bad-faith and even if now innocuously recreated with another target, tends to promote a harmful conspiracy theory. PanchoS (talk) 19:08, 2 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.

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) Steel1943 (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Jeb! → Jeb Bush  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should this redirect to Jeb Bush or to Jeb Bush presidential campaign, 2016? pbp 04:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He's been using "Jeb!" since at least 1994. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Jeb Bush presidential campaign, 2016 per nom. I'm seeing this as a slogan for the campaign, at least in current usage, and the redirect is not old enough for it to have been in use here for older campaigns or the candidate generally. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep! per Tavix, and because it's definitely more plausible than OBAMA!, which has been kept multiple times.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I haven't posited deletion as an option, merely two possible redirect targets. pbp 02:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89: That implication wasn't intended, just wanted to bring up a similar redirect that points to the subject in question, not a campaign (though the circumstances differ). As I've now thought about deletion arguments: WP:XY could be presented as an rationale for deletion, though weak in this instance, as a hatnote could easily remedy that type of concern.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tavix to prevent recentism. sst✈^(discuss) 09:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. Jeb! Will be around long after hos current campaign is consigned to the Hungry For Power Games board in the sky. Legacypac (talk) 00:11, 8 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.

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:G5 by RHaworth; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Baldridge-Dumas Communications → Ark-La-Tex  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• The Radio Group (Shreveport) → Ark-La-Tex  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Subjects are not mentioned in target article, and their only connection to the target article is that the businesses happen to be based in cites that are located in this region. These are two of many pages that were created by a block evading vandal whose edits are focused on the Ark-La-Tex region. Tdl1060 (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete WP:G5. Also per WP:RFD#D2 - no content at target, and WP:NOTYELLOW. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:58, 24 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.