Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 29

October 29

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 29, 2015.

Threatening the government

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 "threatening the government"; do not delete threatening government officials and recommend globalizing the existing article or creation of new article. Deryck C. 21:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perennial problem. We have an article describing Foo in the United States, but not Foo generally. You either need to go with the general title and tag it with {{globalize}} or delete the general title under WP:REDLINK. I recommend the latter here; the article is already very well fleshed out and could quickly become too large with such an expansion in scope. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Retarget to Threat as the closest plausible article. The target article can then be expanded to include info on threatening gov't officials. --Lenticel (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Lenticel. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first as vague; Keep the second as the best we can do so far. Threatening the executive is not the same as threatening the legislature, of which government officials are not part. So "Threatening the government" (presumably meaning the legislature) is not the same as threatening officials (the executive) and so is WP:RFD#D2 confusing. But threatening government officials can stay where it is for now (although admittedly not WP:WORLDWIDE). Si Trew (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Just in case, I checked and we do not have threatening the legislature, threatening the executive or threatening the judiciary (nor any of those "of the United States"). We do not have threatening government officials of the US or Threatening the government of the US nor threatening government officials of the U.S. nor Threatening the government of the U.S. Si Trew (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete WP:REDLINK/WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS This is not the U.S. Wikipedia, this is a general case term redirecting to a US only topic. Also threats to government officials is not the same as threats to the government. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More generally could it be the Gunpowder Plot or the Abdication of Edward VIII or a by election or a hundred and one other things?
Si Trew (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I may be misreading the signatures here, but it looks like Si Trew has already !voted before the relist. Si Trew, could you strike one of your !votes to make it clear which option you support? --NYKevin 00:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NYKevin: I thought that a !vote after a relist automatically was taken to supersede one before it... I've asked about this before. (Perhaps we should add a short note one way or another to the relist banner, e.g. "seemingly contradictory remarks below supersede those above.") Si Trew (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Si Trew: For very large discussions (i.e. the discussions most likely to have one or more relists) there are typically a lot of people participating. I think the closing admin might appreciate it if you explicitly strike duplicate votes, since it makes their job quite a bit easier. I suppose it's not an issue in this case, but it's still nice to be explicit about these things, to avoid confusion. --NYKevin 17:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty I have with that, is that it's kinda falsifying the past. What I do usually is mark as <sub>Struck by ~~~~</sub> if it's in the same "block", but I think that's a bit far when it spans a "relist", and nonobvious to other editors (including the closer, admin or not) unless one checks the date in the sig closely. Si Trew (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's always helpful to me, as a closer, to have superseded votes struck. If it's just a duplicate vote, maybe just strike "Delete" or whatever; don't feel the need to strike text you still stand by. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first one and either keep the second, retarget/hatnote it if someone can find or write another Threatening government officials of Elsewhereistan article, or DABify if we find more than one such article. --NYKevin 00:11, 4 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.

Chicago convention (disambiguation)

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) 18:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chicago convention (disambiguation) → Chicago convention  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target page (Chicago convention) had been a disambiguation page but I have redirected it to the primary topic (Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation), making this redirect a double redirect. If it were also redirected to Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, this redirect would not make any sense. Since nothing links to it and the only page history is its creation by a bot, this should be deleted as an unplausible search term (criteria 5). AHeneen (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above Chicago Convention and Tourism Bureau is a partial title match and except for the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation and Chicon, the others are only related as being convention events held in Chicago and are too broad a subject for a DAB (fails WP:DABCONCEPT, see also MOS:DABNOENTRY) and that subject is more appropriate as a category. The Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation is the name of both an important international agreement that is frequently referred to as the "Chicago Convention" as well as the meeting of delegates in Chicago that drafted the agreement, so it's clearly the primary topic. I now think that the hatnote should be to Chicon (Worldcon) and ignore the political conventions, which should be a category and not a disambiguation. I've changed the hatnote. Since the topic is not appropriate as a DAB, Chicago convention (disambiguation) should be deleted. AHeneen (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even under that, with a category link, there are still enough entries for a disambiguation page. And they should link to the category, since those political conventions are called "Chicago Convention" in the press, so not PTM, same as the air travel convention, though not how we have systematically named our articles. Conversion of the redirect "(disambiguation)" to being a dabpage is simple, and presents a smaller hatnote to the aviation article. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:08, 7 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.

TEN

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Ten (disambiguation). --BDD (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • TEN → 10 (number)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I would like to suggest that TEN (all caps), which presently redirects to 10 (number), be changed to point to Toxic epidermal necrolysis instead, as this would seem to be much more useful for encyclopedic purposes. If deemed appropriate, the latter article could have a hatnote added reading, "TEN redirects here. For the numeral, see 10 (number)." (I considered doing this myself in the spirit of WP:BOLD, but decided it would be better in this case to ask first.)— Jaydiem (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - sounds good to me, and reflects what we commonly do with all-caps redirects which are a valid initialism. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC) struck, see below[reply]
  • Point to disambig. It's not good to have search terms point to different articles based only on capitalization. It would be reasonable to point TEN to ten (disambiguation), and list toxic epidermal necrolysis there. (I haven't checked whether ten (disambiguation) exists; guess I'll find out when I save. If it doesn't, it can be created.) --Trovatore (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point to disambig. See above. – Kaihsu (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 10 (disambiguation) Ten (disambiguation) per above. The other all-caps numeral redirects we have that could represent an acronym are ONE, TWO, FOUR, SIX and TEN. There is no consistency between them:
    • ONE, TWO are redirects to numeral disambiguation pages;
    • FOUR is a redirect to an article about a television station;
    • SIX is a redirect to a general disambiguation page listing only the acronyms (separate from six which redirects to 6 (number));
    • TEN is a redirect to the numeral article.
Toxic epidermal necrolysis is not the only subject we have which can be shortened to TEN, so redirecting there is not appropriate. I think that the SIX treatment is most appropriate (create a separate dab for just the acronyms; TENS (disambiguation) would be a start) but retargeting to the dab page is good also. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the existing TENS (disambiguation) page really needs to be reworked. There is no reason for it to include entries that are not routinely all-capped; those entries should either be placed at a new Tens (disambiguation) page or rolled into the existing Ten (disambiguation). Moreover, I see that TENS presently redirects to Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, where there is no hatnote of any kind to refer readers to any dab page. An appropriate hatnote needs to be added there. — Jaydiem (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In general it's not a good idea to have different targets for search terms that differ only in capitalization. A mild, and fairly standard, exception to this principle is that all-caps terms may point to disambiguation pages. But usually these are not special pages for the all-caps form; they're inclusive pages for however you might capitalize the phrase. I don't see any good cause to vary from this standard practice in this particular case. --Trovatore (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought I addressed this already, but I see I edited out my own comment. Actually it is quite common to have differing targets for all-caps redirects when they could refer to an acronym, or to several acronyms. For example: APPLE vs. Apple, LISP vs. Lisp, NET vs. Net, SIX vs. Six, DIET vs. Diet, FOUR vs. Four, and so on. We also commonly have differing targets for redirects which differ only in capitalization, when a proper name for a thing is different from a general topic for a thing; they come up here all the time but I can't think of one at the moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bad thing to do and we shouldn't do it. Readers are likely not to make the distinction when searching. --Trovatore (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to acronyms that are at least three letters long, I disagree with it being "a bad thing to do and we shouldn't do it". As Ivanvector stated above, there is consensus for some cases of this. Any discussion to change this across the site would best be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Article titles, the talk page of where WP:DIFFCAPS leads. Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some of them at least are pretty clear, I think. I fixed the APPLE case — that one was completely ridiculous. There's no way that's the "primary topic" for the word "apple" in all-caps. --Trovatore (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your changes. APPLE has been an article about the space experiment or a redirect to it for over ten years. There is no need to "fix" this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a totally ludicrous target. I won't say how long it's been there is of no importance, but in the case of a totally clear error like this, I don't think it's controlling. --Trovatore (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I would recommend starting a WP:RFD discussion for APPLE. Continuing to discuss it here deters a bit from the focus of this discussion, which is about TEN. Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose as proposed. Suggest pointing to 10 (disambiguation) or keeping at 10 (number) as a capslock error -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to disambiguation page, obviously wrong to assume capslock error when it's a valid name for several topics (Toxic epidermal necrolysis is probably the most notable, followed by Network Ten). A separate disambiguation page would be possible but as only the capitalisation is different and there is some overlap (such as Network Ten) it may be better to keep this on one page; "TEN" and "Ten" are more similar to each other than to "10". Peter James (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: just in case anyone else didn't realize, 10 (disambiguation) is already a redirect to ten (disambiguation). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:44, 4 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.

Wave 4

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 9#Wave 4

Wave 3

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Third wave. (non-admin closure) sst✈discuss 09:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to WAVE (TV). In the past, I fixed several inbound links that were meant for "WAVE (TV)". In addition, the existing target is clearly not the primary meaning, because we have more equally eligible targets:

  • Transformers: Prime (toy line) § Wave 3
  • Transformers: Generations § Wave 3
  • Ben 10 (toy line) § Wave 3
  • Harry Potter action figures § Wave 3
  • Transformers Classics § Wave 3
  • See more...

Also, the view statistics are pretty poor. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per nom -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per nom --Lenticel (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello. Nom here. I didn't say "disambiguate". I said "retarget". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguation could also occur at the existing dab Third wave. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my reasoning at #Wave 4, immediately above. Si Trew (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. to the DAB at Third wave (to which Third Wave redirects). Without prejudice, I've added the section link into the nomination, and for now rcatte'd as {{R to section}}. Si Trew (talk) 11:19, 1 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.

Hyde event

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 21:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyde event → Psychology  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This psychological concept isn't discussed at the target article, or elsewhere on Wikipedia. The lack of Google Scholar instances of the phrase makes me think this is just WP:MADEUP; the IP creator of the stub never made any other edits. --BDD (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm also fine with Ivanvector's suggestion although I think retargetting should be a lower priority than outright deletion in this case. --Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm also fine with deletion on this one. I don't think it's all that likely as a search term and it didn't get much in the way of hits before it was nominated. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Leaning delete here, though this is probably an allusion to someone going berserk (i.e. in reference to Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde), I'm weary because of the chance that it isn't (e.g. it's a real term that references the last name of the psychologist that coined/discovered it).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably worth noting that, as a stub, this didn't describe anything that sounds like Jekyll & Hyde to me. --BDD (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did some searching with some of the terms in various combinations from what the page formerly stated as a stub: no success in finding anything, reliable or not, similar to that.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:03, 30 October 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.

Template:Arda Rivers

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) 18:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected this template to Template:Middle-earth this year when I probably should have nommed for TFD. No-one reversed the redirect. When I TFDd it recently at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 12#Template:Arda Rivers I got told to bring it to RFD (over my objection per WP:BURO)... so here I am. Izno (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nom's rationale from TfD: This is a template I long-ago redirected to {{Middle-earth}} that can be deleted; its single non-anchor link was added to T:Middle-earth. Izno (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC) added by Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless - I'm not sure if we need to save the history for attribution since the content was merged into {{Middle-earth}}, but excepting that, this is safe to delete. No extant transclusions. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:10, 29 October 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.

Criticism of psychology

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 9#Criticism of psychology

Draft:Ronnie Pickering (2)

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. Basically we're saying "this redirect is useless", "but that alone isn't a rationale for deletion". I think Wikipedia generally has a high threshold for deleting things from non-article space in general so I'm closing this as no consensus - default to keep. Deryck C. 21:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft:Ronnie Pickering (2) → Draft:Ronnie Pickering  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redir not needed after page move Draft:Ronnie Pickering (2) to Draft:Ronnie Pickering (after Draft:Ronnie Pickering was deleted for being an attack page). Can't find PRODs for Drafts and don't believe it comes under any speedy deletion criteria. --  Kethrus |talk to me  09:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Doesn't quite seem to fit WP:CSD#G6 though. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Possibly speedy per WP:R3 or WP:G8, but I think WP:G6 should cover it anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The draft was created at the title of the redirect, so thus, its creator or others might only know to locate the draft by searching for the title of the redirect. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the phrase I rather don't like seeing myself: No rationale has yet been presented for deletion. In fact, I would say that deletion would only be helpful or necessary after the draft has been published into the article namespace. Until then, leave the status quo. Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I misread. I thought the target had already been deleted, but it was deleted and then this page moved over it. Keep, then, although I think this draft has little chance of making it to main space as it's a textbook BLP1E. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense/unlikely search term for a topic unlikely to ever see the light of mainspace. Pure clutter. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 7 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.

Meaning system

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Meaning, though essentially no consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is a bit confusing. The term is mentioned in the section, but it's not defined in the section, nor is there really an attempt made to define it. Also, per my research, I cannot find a definition for this term. I cannot find any proof of an exclusive connection (or a connection at all, for that matter) between the terms "meaning system" and any subject or subtopic in this article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "System of meaning" seems to be a more common phrase, though it's hard to pin down exactly what it refers to. Something related to semiotics or semantics, maybe? --BDD (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pointlessly unclear. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 04:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there appears to be no suitable target. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly DAB it then. Epistemology, Philosophy and Belief system → Belief also spring to mind (perhaps also Religion, though I can imagine that being more controversial). Pererhaps I'll create a Draft:Meaning system for your consideration. For the formal sciences, Universe of Discourse → Domain of discourse might be added there, too.
But it does seem rather vague and perhaps should just redirect to philosophy as the most general topic covering it (in which case, is it worth having at all?) Perhaps it's just an overuse of the word "system" and should just go to meaning, a DAB. Si Trew (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the DAB page at Meaning, following the examples stripping "system" at Belief system → Belief, Electrical system → Electricity, Road system→ Road. Of course there are also plenty of examples which do not follow this pattern (Transport system → Transport network not Transport), Political system is an article) but doing so seems reasonable in this instance: the DAB lists, directly or indirectly, most of the suggestions given above. Si Trew (talk) 04:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Meaning. I'm looking at the redirect as if it was "Meaning (system)". Perhaps it pertains to one of the systems or studies of meaning in the potential dab page --Lenticel (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Meaning. The term turns up in Google scholar in psychology (shared meaning system, organization of meaning systems in the brain, personal meaning system, therapist's meaning system) and anthropology (cultural meaning system). Google books adds use in religion and spirituality. Once these things are written about in the respective Wikipedia articles it can become a disambiguation page that gets everything to the right place. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:49, 31 October 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.

Kappa Iota

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. The discussion below showed that this name could refer to multiple fraternities which bear the same name, none of which is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. There isn't really an appropriate target for this title so it should be deleted. Deryck C. 21:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kappa Iota → Fraternity  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not notable or mentioned at the target article. --BDD (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. When it was created as an article, the redirect referred to that sorority. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
StarryGrandma, does this work for you too? --BDD (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually no local Greek chapter would be independently notable. Other organizations may have chapters named Kappa Alpha or Sigma Chi, for example. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 9 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.

Template:WikiProject:G-Unit Records/Project

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) 17:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:WikiProject:G-Unit Records/Project → Template:WikiProject G-Unit Records  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There are a limited number of pseudo-namespaces, but "WikiProject:" isn't one of them; any uses of these redirects should be fixed to point to the target. Actually, the first two have zero incoming links, so I would suggest that they should be deleted.  — Scott • talk 11:09, 29 October 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.

Prank Caller

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Retarget to Prank call. Pretty clear retarget (non-admin closure). --  Kethrus |talk to me  11:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be a redirect to Prank call, redirect doesn't fit, even though there is an episode called "Prank Callers" on Regular_Show_(season_1)#Episodes. --  Kethrus |talk to me  02:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Prank Callers and then Retarget this name per nom. A hatnote can be emplaced at both articles. The episode title is not this redirect -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to prank call as a more likely target. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to prank call per above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 14:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to prank call per above. I don't think hatnoting to the episode is particularly worthwhile. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to prank call per above. --Lenticel (talk) 00:17, 30 October 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.

Nintendo Go

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) 17:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nintendo Go → Wii  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think this is another rumored name for the Wii, but wasn't able to verify that as my search results were dominated by GoNintendo. Whatever the case is, it's not mentioned in the article. -- Tavix (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this name appears to have come from a single Engadget article from 2006 [[1]] and someone crated an article based around this rumor in March of that year before being redirected to the current article a little more than 20 minutes latter. I doubt that anyone would use this a search term now.--69.157.253.134 (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per abovementioned findings --Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 30 October 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.

Wi Vision

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) 17:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wi Vision → Wii  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. I originally thought this was a typo for something called "Wii Vision," but I was wrong. It's actually a cheap knockoff version of the Wii. This isn't notable and there isn't anything about it in the Wii article (and rightfully so). -- Tavix (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it is not mentioned at the target article nor will it likely ever be.--69.157.253.134 (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Wii article is not what people are looking for. sst✈discuss 09:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2. A (mostly) completely different, completely non-notable thing from the Wii. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague knock-off synonym --Lenticel (talk) 00:17, 30 October 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_October_29&oldid=1219401955"