Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 11

February 11

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 11, 2017.

My Bootis

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My Bootis → Mu Boötis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

My Bootis, more correctly MY Boötis, is a variable star and a different star from μ (Greek mu) Boötis. They are not synonyms and neither My (my?) or MY should be treated as typos of the Bayer designation mu. MY Boötis does not currently have an article and is not likely to get one, so this should be deleted. Lithopsian (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there a list that features MY Boötis? I ask because if there is, then MY Boötis should redirect there and My Bootis is a perfectly plausible search term for "MY Boötis" and should target the same place. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • MY Boötis isn't in any Wikipedia list that I can find. The obvious one would be List of stars in Boötes, but it isn't there. MY Boo is a pretty obscure faint eclipsing variable that was discovered in a deep survey in 2008. The only other published mention of it I can find is faint variable star catalog. So it isn't notable by any stretch of the imagination and I can't imagine it ever getting its own article. Lithopsian (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: inappropriate redirect for a non-notable star. Praemonitus (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

O Bootis

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 O Bootis; delete the rest. -- Tavix (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • O Booetis → Omicron Boötis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • L Booetis → lambda Boötis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • L Booetis → lambda Boötis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

More latin letters being used as abbreviations for Greek Bayer designations. Latin letters used for str designations have their own meaning distinct from similar-looking Greek letters and tyhe two should not be treated as synonyms. Delete all of these. Lithopsian (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Inappropriate redirect for a non-existent Bayer designation. Praemonitus (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the O Boo redirects, delete the L Boo ones. It is common to substitute Latin O and o for Greek Ο and ο as they're virtually indistinguishable. That means it's only a change in capitalisation/diacritic and thus a plausible search term. On the other hand, the uppercase version of λ is Λ, nothing like an L, so it should be deleted. There are no stars in Bootis with those upper-case Latin designations, so there's no need to disambiguate or retarget in either case. Modest Genius talk 14:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except the first one, for the others involve an incorrect transliteration by Eubot applying the Germanic umlaut to a non-Germanic language. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on "O Bootis" (is this useful?). Strong delete all "Booetis" as blatantly wrong - see my comment below. Deryck C. 12:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except the first. OCR conversions could easily come up with Latin "O", so it is probably useful. Spelling mistakes that no one makes are not needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Man on Carrion Road (2014 film)

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. 00:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Man on Carrion Road (2014 film) → Gonzalo López-Gallego  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There's no 2014 film with this name. -- Tavix (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Citizen Hughes: The Power, the Money, and the Madness

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. Without prejudice to creating a redirect from the full title should it be mentioned in the article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citizen Hughes: The Power, the Money, and the Madness → Howard Hughes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I can find no mention of this at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Michael Drosnin wrote a book titled Citizen Hughes: The Power, the Money and the Madness of the Man portrayed in the Movie The Aviator. However, given that this is only a partial title match and given that the Drosnin article does not mention the book, I think it's best we delete this. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it a notable work? Can we add this as a Further reading or a list of works on the author? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • AngusWOOF, I have no objection to adding the book to the Drosnin article, but my primary concern is that this redirect only consists of a portion of the title. The page views show only a handful of hits over the last 90 days, so I don't think anyone has been using this as some form of shortcut. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

P Booetis

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. Deryck C. 00:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • P Booetis → Pi Boötis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • P Bootis → Pi Boötis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

P is not a suitable abbreviation for π (greek letter pi) in this context. Greek letter Bayer designations are different from latin letters which were introduced later for different stars. P is not an abbreviation for pi. In this case P Boötis does not exist so there is no suitable target. I suggest deletion. Lithopsian (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Inappropriate redirect for a non-existent Bayer designation. Praemonitus (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Same as my reasoning for L Boo above - the uppercase version of π is Π, not P. Modest Genius talk 14:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

U Booetis

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. 00:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • U Booetis → Upsilon Boötis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

U (Latin letter) is not an appropriate abbreviation for upsilon (Greek letter) in this context. A Greek letter is a Bayer designation for a star. A latin letter (R or later) is a variable star designation. U Boötis is a variable star that does not yet have a Wikipedia article, and is not likely to get one since it is not considered sufficiently notable. υ (upsilon) Boötis is a completely different and unrelated star. Lithopsian (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Inappropriate redirect for a non-existent Bayer designation. Praemonitus (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Same as my reasoning for L Boo above. The uppercase version of υ is Υ, not U. I agree that the correct target would be the variable star, but as that doesn't have an article deletion is the correct solution. Modest Genius talk 14:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

N1 Booetis

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • N1 Booetis → Nu1 Boötis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect should be deleted. N1 is not an abbreviation for Nu1. In the context of Bayer designations for stars, latin letters refer to completely different stars, so this redirect is confusing and misleading. Given that there is no actual N1 Boötis, there is no more appropriate target. Lithopsian (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an incorrect transliteration created by Eubot. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Inappropriate redirect for a non-existent Bayer designation. Praemonitus (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Same reasoning as for O Bootis above. This is a simple change in capitalisation/diacritics, and thus a plausible search term. The uppercase version of ν is Ν, indistinguishable from Latin N. There is no star with the Bayer designation N Bootis, so there's no potential for confusion. Modest Genius talk 14:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bayer designations are lower-case Greek letters, despite what Wikipedia often shows for redirects. Lithopsian (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but a) Wikipedia automatically makes the first letter of every redirect a capital (unless {{lowercase}} is used), b) it's very plausible for readers to search using the capitalised version, and c) Latin substitutions of visually identical Greek letters are also entirely plausible. Modest Genius talk 15:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The ö in Boötis is derived from Greek ω. It is a diaeresis, not an umlaut. Expanding it as oe is plain wrong. Deryck C. 00:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete we don't need a spelling mistake redirect for "Booetis" that no one would make. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

N1 Bootis

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 21#N1 Bootis

Marovac (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 speedy deleted. These redirects are routinely deleted via G6 and I see no reason why this one is any different. -- Tavix (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marovac (disambiguation) → Marovac  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Target is no longer a DAB page. When it was, it had two redlinked entries - one is now the target article, the other had no possible content that I could find in English or Balkan Wikis. Narky Blert (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a disambiguation redirect with no suitable dab page to target. — Gorthian (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Had enough of experts

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 to delete, but it will be retargeted to Michael Gove#Views on the EU as the alternative to deletion as no one is satisfied with the status quo. -- Tavix (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had enough of experts → Brexit  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While "had enough of experts" is a phrase associated with Brexit, it does not appear in the article or indeed anywhere else on Wikipedia. The only occurrences of the word "expert" are in a single paragraph in the middle of the "Economic effects" section and these do not deal with people's reaction to experts or anything related to that. I can imagine there is relevant content about this somewhere on Wikipedia, but if there is I haven't found it. If such content doesn't exist then I think this redirect should be deleted as it wont help anyone searching this. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • It appears at Michael Gove#Views on the EU, where it may be significant enough to justify an {{R from quotation}}. Anti-intellectualism comes to mind too, though it's probably not an especially likely search term for the general idea. --BDD (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a thing, enough for a redirect anyhow https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore?q=Had%20enough%20of%20experts Deku-shrub (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know it's a thing, that's not in doubt. However, for the redirect to be useful there needs to be relevant content about it somewhere on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Michael Gove#Views on the EU as the quote is attributed to him. [1] [2] [3] and hasn't been the catchphrase of the entire Brexit event. Not sure if "had enough of" will be a snowclone. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Honestly, I think this is a WP:XY deal; other politicians, in the current jingoistic wave worldwide, have expressed like sentiments, and I question whether this phrase has been so widely associated with Gove to make it a more plausible search term than (say) Gove himself. Ravenswing 22:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't quite feel strongly enough to vote, but the argument wouldn't be that the quote was somehow a synonym for Gove, i.e., that a reader would think "I want to find out about Michael Gove. I'll type in 'Had enough of experts'..." The argument would be that they're aware of the quote and want more context, maybe even without knowing the identity of the speaker, i.e., "Who was it again that said 'had enough of experts' in the Brexit debate?" --BDD (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But this phrase was popularized by Gove. If you time restrict a Google search of "had enough of experts" to before his comment [4], there are only 6 pages of Google results, with most of them being incorrectly dated pages that mention Gove's utterance. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD and AngusWOOF. The target section links to relevant pages on the referendum. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a notable phrase, just something that was said in passing, which received a few mentions in the news, but nothing more. WP:NOTNEWS.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1.4k GNews hits for this phrase + Gove and 73k Ghits for the same search. More if you don't include Gove. This is a phrase that has gotten extensive coverage, especially during the Brexit referendum, and the section at Gove's page describes the origin of the phrase. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. I'm not sure that this is going to be the best target long term, but it is the best target now and anything else would be WP:CRYSTAL. Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In worldwide terms, country after country has experienced all kinds of political turmoil over the past decade or so, and this is a way broader phenomenon then only what's happening in the U.K. France is poised so that it might just elect Le Pen, the U.S. put in Trump, and so on. The rhetorical lines of "I've had enough of experts", "I've had enough of the establishment", "I've had enough of bankers", et al are said in a bunch of different places by a bunch of different figures. If we had an article called something like 2010s anti-establishment political movements, then I guess we could go to there, but we don't. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never got to the point of feeling strongly enough to vote, but I fear I'd be seen as involved. My inclination would be to close it as no consensus but to retarget, given no one advocated keeping. Just thought I'd throw that out there. --BDD (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Simec

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 22#Simec

Bathmophobia

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. Since there isn't consensus to keep, and since the phrase isn't mentioned, I'm deleting the redirect, without prejudice towards recreation as a soft redirect or pointing it somewhere where information on the term sticks. At that point, of course, it could show up here again. --BDD (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bathmophobia → List_of_phobias#B  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete This was deleted outright (discussion) as a faux-clinical phobia, but was resurrected as part of a BLP story on Donald Trump, which has been deleted several times now as a questionable allegation. The story is gone and this redirect should be gone too. See the original discussion before stating that this needs to appear in the list. Mangoe (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The term is quite notable; see – The Guardian or BBC, for example. It is known by various names and so should lead readers somewhere appropriate such as List of phobias or acrophobia. Andrew D. (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the recent AfD says it all. On the surface it seems there's sources, but per the inclusion criteria at the list article, they fails RS, and more importantly MEDRS, so is not notable and shouldn't redirect there Delete and delete wikt:bathmophobia (although per that, it's strange that we have the wiktionary entry, so if we keep that, shouldn't we redirect to the list or soft redirect to wikt?). User:Andrew Davidson Seemingly RS [5] [6] but they aren't MEDRS, and would argue they aren't RS. Widefox; talk 23:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lack of MEDRS means that this phobia can't have an entry at List of phobias with the list's current inclusion criteria. The fact that the word is nevertheless used suggests that it is likely to be searched for by readers, so redirecting them to wiktionary would make the most sense at present. – Uanfala (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Death of Diana

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 21#Death of Diana

Congrefs

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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congrefs → Congress  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Improbable misspelling of Congress. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and tag as a misspelling. The long s used in documents like the United States Bill of Rights appears as an f to modern eyes. - Eureka Lott 15:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eureka Lott. Thryduulf (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It should also be tagged as an avoided double redirect of Congreſs. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Eureka Lott. Peter Rehse: I made this redirect over a decade ago. Is there a particular reason you're seeking to delete it now? Redirects are typically pretty cheap and harmless. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to long s, for readers are probably seeking information on why it is spelt like that and they will be helped by retargeting there as there is no information on the spelling at the current target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that very unlikely. If someone were looking for information on the long s they'd search for ſ - for technical reasons that leads them to S (exactly the same as "s" does) and can follow the link in the hatnote. ſs and ſſ should probably get an entry on the SS (disambiguation) page, but I'm not sure how to word it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Keep per Eureka Lott Or Retarget per the Champion. Both of those ideas are acceptable outcomes as far as I can see, and an Admin will just have to make a close judgement call between the two of them. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to long s, with a hatnote there to either congress or United States Congress. I think most people, when seeing the oddball spelling in the historical documents, know what is being referred to and just want to learn the reason behind the spelling. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Congreſs of the United States per the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_8#Hor.C5.BFe, it is unlikely that a reader would intentionally type the character, and even if they do, the search engine can handle the requests, whereas it is likely someone will substitute a long s with an "f" when they see it in an image and would not be seeking information on congress in general. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as implausible misspellings. I find it hard to believe someone reading an old document would mis-identify a long s as 'f'. Anyone reading such a document will very likely know the old typographical convention, or if they are encountering it for the first time will quickly work it out on reading a few more words. Or, if such misspellings based on “ſ” are allowed, should we have them for every word in the English language that contains “s” in case someone encounters it in an old document?--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 07:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Soviet

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 19#The Soviet

George Bush III

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • George Bush III → George P. Bush  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete WP:RDELETE 2 confusion. No indication this is a common name for the subject, a quick search for the name comes up with results mostly about a suspect in a shooting. [7], so this will only mislead readers. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The use of the "III" is incorrect anyways since the target's father is Jeb Bush. Steel1943 (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also because "Sr." and "Jr." followed by numerals are only used for fathers and sons having the same middle name. Anyway, it should be deleted. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No Sr. and Jr.'s to confuse this either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pre-Islamic

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. There's a clear consensus that the redirect does not suit this target, but no consensus has emerged for any of the proposals to do something else with this title. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pre-Islamic → Islam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Article does not say anything about Pre Islam Flow 234 (Nina) talk 10:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term means little in itself, could be a disambig page at most, referring to parts of the world before they became Muslims, maybe. FunkMonk (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Partial title matches aren't disambiguated. See WP:PTM. -- Tavix (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tavix, that's a fair point. Nevertheless, I think this is one of those cases where you have a somewhat ambiguous term that appears fairly frequently in the real world (see, e.g., this book and this book); I don't think we should make a WP:CONCEPTDAB for this term, but I do think that it would be most helpful to readers to create a DAB with the dozen (or so) articles about "pre-Islamic" topics. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Notecardforfree. This will most effectively ensure that readers are taken to the content those linking the term intended and help anyone who searched directly for this get to the article they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pre-Islamic calendar as primary topic, but a dab page may be just as helpful if the calendar only applies to Saudi Arabia, and the wiktionary box can be placed on the dab page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This can refer to thousands of different things depending on context, and it's infeasible to attempt to list them all on a single dab/list page. It's also best if this is a redlink so editors linking the term will know they need to find a more specific referent. As for the likely targets that have been proposed above, these should come up fairly prominently in the search results. I don't see the point of linking to wiktionary as the definition there doesn't and couldn't possibly give anything more than what a user with enough grasp of English to read wikipedia wouldn't already have figured out by themselves. – Uanfala (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The term has been used often by reliable sources, yes, but it's just too vague a concept. Deletion seems like the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, seems like a very useful search term, there are many societies that define their history in terms of the introduction of Islam.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pre-Islamic Arabia, which to me seems like the most overarching topic for "pre-Islam", or delete. Yes, technically we could talk about anything that was around before the 7th-century from a "pre-Islamic" perspective, but I think Pre-Islamic Arabia is the best single choice, based on its presence in the hatnote at History of Islam#Islamic origins. Too PTM for me to want to disambiguate, though. --BDD (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

USPE, 2008

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 USPE12, no consensus to keep or delete the rest. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid acronym. I have created USPE as a redirect to European Police Achievement Badge. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. I could not find sources that use "USPE" as an acronym for "United States Presidential Election." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is the acronym invalid? United States Presidential Election. This is a navigation tool to avoid having to type in the full title. How does it interfere with the redirect to the European Police Achievement Badge? --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
William S. Saturn, per WP:RFD#DELETE, we generally do not keep redirects if the title involves a novel or obscure name. I could not find the acronym "USPE" in reliable sources (with the one exception of this study). If you can show me reliable sources that use this acronym, then I will change my vote. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look at #5 on reasons not to delete a redirect. I find the redirect useful as do others. USPE, 2016 is often used (especially from September 2016 to December 2016). USPE, 2012 is used somewhat less but still in use. The USPE acronym is easily deduced from United States Presidential Election --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. They are easily deduced from the target, apparently not ambiguous so they are at minimum harmless, and at least one person has explicitly stated they find them useful. Thryduulf (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:R#K5 and attestation via NCFF's link. -- Tavix (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete USPE12. I didn't notice earlier that one is ambiguous. -- Tavix (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete USPE12, neutral on rest I don't see any news articles in front of the Google searches for news articles and books that use this acronym, and with a comma in between either. So this will be based purely on convenience for the Wikipedia user. USPE12 is not useful though, could refer to 1912, and not a notable hashtag AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC) updated 18:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first 3, which are unambiguous as to what election they refer to. Delete the last one per AngusWOOF because of uncertainty. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, why was this relisted? It's clearly WP:R#K5.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as novel or obscure synonyms, with ambiguity in at least one case. --BDD (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Handbagging

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. --BDD (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Handbagging → wiktionary:Special:Search/handbagging  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't see the value of a soft redirect to Wiktionary for this word. Largoplazo (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Handbag, which covers the verb. -- Tavix (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, actually, the verb was added to the See Also section there by the same user who created this redirect. It seems no more apt there than it does as a redirected article, as it's only a colloquialism, a metaphor, incidentally related to the Handbag article, so I've removed it. Largoplazo (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Handbag per Tavix --Lenticel (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not retarget as there's nothing relevant at Handbag. A soft redirect to wiktionary could be warranted (per the criteria at {{wi}}) if it turns out that the search term is used by readers – but the redirect was recently created so we'll have to keep it for some time until we get representative pageview statistics. – Uanfala (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Wiktionary entry gives a specialised meaning of "handbagging" that Handbag doesn't provide. Deryck C. 17:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if page views show that it's used. Unfortunately the page views tool can't find the API at the moment so I don't know. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Del (letter)

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) 20:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del (letter) → Del  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Del" is not a letter at all, so this redirect is misleading. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 16:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. It’s left over from a very recent move, but a mistaken one – as above this is not a letter – and has no article links. See also User talk:RedPanda25#Del for some background on the move. Whether or not this is a primary topic so at the correct location is another matter, but it definitely is not a letter.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak retarget to ∂, the partial derivative symbol known as "del" (among other names). It's not, I think, implausible for someone to not know whether something is a symbol or a letter in such uses. Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget per Thryduulf. I think it's entirely plausible that readers who are unfamiliar with mathematics may think that a symbol used as an operator may be called a "letter." However, because the article for ∂ explicitly refers to it as "del," I think that's the best target. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retargeting to ∂ probably makes the most sense, but it seems to me that there's also a slight chance this might be confused with either the delete character (abbreviated as del) or with the letter dalet (dāl in Arabic). – Uanfala (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ∂ete. There's too many things this can incorrectly be, but nothing this can correctly be. The best thing to do in this situation is to delete it. -- Tavix (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note There is an ongoing requested move affecting Del (the current target of this redirect). See Talk:Del#Requested move 29 January 2017. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Tavix that this can refer to many things but none of them correctly. Deryck C. 11:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it really relevant that nothing is technically quite correctly referred to as this. If there were just one thing we would not hesitate to retarget it there as a {{R from incorrect name}}. Personally I still think ∂ is the most likely target, but I'm certainly not opposed to disambiguation. I don't think our readers are going to served best by deletion here as incorrect uses will not be included in articles and thus not appear in search results - for a human "that's not quite correct but I know what you mean" is easy, for a computer it's exceedingly difficult. 12:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If anything, "Del (operator)" would make more sense. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presuming you mean as a redirect to ∂, then that would make sense for people who know this is not a letter which is not everybody. Thryduulf (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Obama Foundation

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. Deryck C. 00:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDLINK the foundation is not exclusive to the presidential center. Note that there are at least two organizations, which are seemingly unrelated, that share a name [8][9]. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The target article is clearly related to the Obama Foundation and someone searching it will receive plenty of information about the Obama Foundation. -- Tavix (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until it has its own article a lot of content on this subject can be found there.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Foundation itself and the Center are both so closely tied that additional information about the latter is going to be most likely added to this article as time goes on. I don't see a problem with the redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_11&oldid=1088107651"