Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 4

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. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 🏴󠁩󠁮󠁫󠁡󠁿 → Kannada flag  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Can’t see how this is useful, it’s simply confusing. All I see is a black flag, which redirects to a flag that is not black. I don’t know if it’s a Unicode thing but I’m on the latest and new version of Mac OS which tends to be up to date with Unicode releases. There are a bunch more of them, which I can see if I copy and paste '🏴󠁩󠁮󠁫󠁡󠁿' into the search box, but not sure how to find all of them. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 18#🏴󠁥󠁳󠁩󠁢󠁿. Gorobay (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On its own not a rationale to keep, but I see that discussion. And all I see there too is a black flag, the same as the editor that reported too. I had a look using an iPad updated to the latest iOS and see the same. So what platform exactly are you using where this looks like the flag of Kannada?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 06:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don’t have a font that supports it either. The point of creating these redirects is so that when they are broadly supported (it has only been a few months, after all) they will already exist. There is no reason to delete them in the meantime, since they are unambiguous. It is only confusing to you because you were patrolling Special:NewPages or something like that; most people who find this redirect will be people that are able to type it and that can see it, and who will therefore not find it confusing.

(A note about discussions: “per link” means “per the rationale expressed at link that supports my position”. So yes, it is a rationale. I could have copied and pasted but I prefer linking.) Gorobay (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So everyone who sees it will see a black flag, and be confused by it, two at least confused enough to raise it at RfD in the last few months. I would say the prior discussion supports my argument. I don’t see any indication when or even if that proposal will make it into a release. Even when it does it might be many months before its broadly supported, as it’s the sort of thing that OS vendors tend to roll into major releases, so this could be badly broken for years. You are right, i would not have come across it normally as it not something anyone will use, not a plausible search term. I saw it in the Category:Pages with script errors which all sorts of redirects are appearing at at the moment. Oddly it was categorised in namespace zero, i.e. as an article, so I had to look at it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Racing flags#Black flag as being the only unambiguous black flag that has its own article. ToThAc (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a black flag. Did you read all the background regarding emoji flags? Gorobay (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, well that's how it displays on Windows 10. ToThAc (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gorobay. Steel1943 (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the support, but this surprisingly is a contentious issue, so the closing admin will ignore it per WP:PERX. Could you explain your reasoning? Gorobay (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Because it is what it is. Keeping redirects only after browsers catch up to emoji coding doesn't make sense if we already know what the emoji is supposed to represent. I mean, if this redirect gets deleted, we might as well nominate all 100 or so emojis that iOS doesn't recognize for the fact alone that Apple chose not to use them. Steel1943 (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until all platforms support it, there is no any reason to have it. Most people see just black flag and it's confusing. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A correction: not most but all people see a black flag, or nothing. This is not part of the Unicode standard, there is no support for it on any platform, it is a proposal which might or might not make it into Unicode, and even if it does it might not be done this way.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is false. It is part of the Unicode standard, specifically, Unicode Technical Standard #51 version 5.0, released in May. There is no chance it will be done another way, because this mechanism is already published and platforms like Twitter are already using it (though not for this obscure flag). Gorobay (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I based that on that document, which itself says it may be done another way: "...the data and recommendations supplied by this document may change in accordance. Thus the recommendations and data will change across versions of this document."--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That just means that new versions of Unicode might add new emoji characters and mechanisms, so the standard is not immutable. (For example, there is a currently a proposal for hair color modifiers; if it is accepted, the next version of UTS #51 will update its recommendations accordingly.) It is unlikely that they will remove or deprecate anything, and exceedingly unlikely that they will add another way to represent subregional flags. Gorobay (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Black flag as it looks like a black flag on my tablet and computer Flow 234 (Nina) talk 15:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: clearly not a major and well-known alternative for Kannada flag since platform developers do not implement it. Delete per WP:R#DELETE§8 – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (For reference, that is “the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name”.) That is sort of true: the flag itself has been around for decades and is apparently quite popular; the novel/obscure part is its Unicode representation. Gorobay (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gorobay and Steel1943 because this is, in fact, a representation for the Kannada flag. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gorobay. It's unambiguous, goes precisely where it's supposed to go, and is plausible as a search item. – Uanfala 18:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gorobay, Uanfala, et al. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 10 October 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 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 Deplorable to Basket of deplorables, Keep Deplorables pointing to the same target. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Deplorable → wikt:deplorable  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Deplorables → Basket of deplorables  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should redirect to Basket of deplorables with a hatnote linking to the "deplorable" wiktionary page (see here). There is no Wikipedia article for any topic called "deplorable"; and readers searching it are most likely desiring the Clinton phrase, particularly as use of the word to refer to Donald Trump supporters has spiked in the last year. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom since that has the term and it is the most popular use of the word. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and deletion allows Search to do its job, where Basket of deplorables is the second entry behind Deplorable Word. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be a dabify then, with those two items? Deplorable word seems like a notable term from Narnia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• DAB with the links mentioned here and a wiktionary box. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second choice is retarget to basket of deplorables as the singular form of the plural, which already targets there. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per User:Shhhnotsoloud. I perfectly agree with his reasoning 100%. Deplorable word is in my opinion dubiously notable and does not merit a DAB page for now. If notability of that article is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, then I support a DAB page._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (1st choice) or delete (2nd choice) oppose creating a DAB or retargeting because that would cause a WP:PTM issue for none of the aforementioned topic are simply called "Deplorable". However it is likely someone would search it just to find the definition of the word. On second thought, the internal search engine also supports searching Wiktionary now, so are Wiktionary redirects really necessary, hence I am okay with deletion here. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. R2 of speedy deletion criteria also covers this. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Readers are far better served by a search in this case, with no obvious target, especially now search includes links to Wiktionary. This existing simply gets in the way of this.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The redirect was not tagged with {{Rfd}} until today after I tagged the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Basket of deplorables per nom. Original target. feminist 22:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that the original target is a partial title match and people are just as likely to search for Deplorable Word and targeting to either is a bad idea as it is unlikely people will only search using a single word within a phrase anyway. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a PTM because the word "deplorable" has often been used in the same context as Basket of deplorables. feminist 03:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to basket of deplorables as it seems to be the primary encyclopedic use of the term. From the article: Many Trump supporters adopted the "Deplorable" moniker for themselves. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Basket of deplorables – When we have both a dicdef and an encyclopedic significance of a term, we should point readers to the encyclopedic article first. As feminist said, "Basket of deplorables" is more than a PTM because, for better or for worse, "Deplorable" has become a synonym with "Trump supporter". Conversely, the "Deplorable Word" from Narnia is a classic PTM, therefore a dab page is not justified. — JFG ^talk 03:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to reveal the most prominent search results: the wiktionary entry and the Basket of deplorables article. Redirecting to the latter would also be acceptable, but I feel deletion serves our readers a little bit better. – Uanfala 11:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I added Deplorables to the nomination. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that one is fine where it's pointing, no? – Uanfala 00:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that they both should point to the same target (if they are not deleted), just to clarify. I have already voiced my opinion - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:54, 17 October 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 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 no agreement of where this could target and some appetite for deletion, so this will be deleted. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Atheistic religion → Atheism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The connection to Atheism is tenuous at best; please see Gbooks search result. At the very least, it's far more complex than the redirect suggests. Hence the proposal to delete it., or perhaps retarget to Religion. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - At best, it could be redirected to a 'religions without a god-figure' article (if it exists)... core Buddhism is one, for example (if one considers it a religion and not a discipline). Then there's the definition of 'religion'... I think this is too problematic to keep. TP ✎ ✓ 21:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, if not delete I think that deleting would be ideal, per User:ThePromenader, but since the google books result does show a few thousand hits, it means that people are using the term with some frequency. People will likely look it up on wikipedia too because it out on google so redirect seems best. I know there is a nontheistic religion page that already covers religions without gods so maybe it could be redirected there? I think that is what "atheistic religions" refer to, but redirect to "religion" seems ok since religion is not necessarily a theistic thing (considering Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc).Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, possibly to New Atheism? I don't remember making this page a redirect eight years ago but the page as it originally stood was ostensibly about trends the author saw in the modern atheist movement (best characterized by New Atheism perhaps?) Best, BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 01:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete is too vague and confusing to bother keeping._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. This got nearly 600 hits last year, so we should have something for the people who are searching for this, but I agree that a redirect to athethism isn't the best thing. A disambiguation page with targets including Atheism, Nontheistic religion, New Atheism and Atheistic fundamentalism would cater for whatever people are looking for I think. Thryduulf (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Nontheistic religion as the closest analogue, and probably what most people who go here are searching for, possibly with a hatnote at the destination page._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is a case where search results do the job better for a very broad and possibly controversial term. Excepting the bannered redirect, searching brings up Religion for Atheists, Atheism, New Atheism, Agnostic atheism, Atheistic existentialism, Irreligion, Atheist feminism, Marxism and religion, and on and on and on, all possibly useful topics for the reader searching for this term. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom's comment -- seeing the discussion above, I'm now definitely in the "Delete" camp. I would oppose a redirect to anything that would suggest it's a form of atheism, such as New Atheism and Atheistic fundamentalism. The term is too confusing and vague to be appropriate for a redirect or a disambig page; search handles this much better. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 28 September 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 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) – Uanfala 12:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Orange Box Engine → Source (game engine)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The Orange Box is a compilation of three games, not a game itself, wherefore it does not have an engine. Lordtobi (✉) 20:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Orange Box is so old at this point that the utility of this redirect is questionable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep. Steel1943 (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Orange Box article notes that all the games included use the Source engine, so it's would be a valid {{R from incorrect name}}, ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sections of the Source article discuss its use on The Orange Box. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since target article discusses the context of the engine within the Orange Box --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:17, 3 October 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 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 Screaming. (non-admin closure) feminist 10:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 😱 → The Scream  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is an emoticon of a fearful face screaming with hands on its cheeks. It is not specifically a depiction of The Scream, and none of the major emoji vendors make it look like the painting, so it should not redirect there. Screaming discusses this emotional reaction but may be too broad in scope. The redirect should either be retargeted there or deleted. Gorobay (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Screaming; doesn't matter how broad an article is—if it matches the description, it's plausible. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's amusing and the emoji bears a distinct resemblance to the painting's figure as rendered by several of the major vendors (c.f. Emojipedia's description: "Displayed on most platforms with a similar appearance to the Munch artwork The Scream"). I see no justification for deletion at all. Zachlipton (talk) 05:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Screaming per nom and Jd22292. Steel1943 (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment are you sure it's not the gesture from Home Alone? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @AngusWOOF: After reading your comment, I had to make sure today wasn't April Fools' Day. Turns out that it's not. Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they're quite similar, although the Munch one his hands cover his ears? I'm neutral about this as it's another one of those ones better explained at Emojipedia than here. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Jd22292. I highly doubt that the inventor of emojis meant to reference The Scream when creating this one. ToThAc (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Screaming per above. The official name of this character is "Face screaming in fear", we don't have a specific article about screaming in fear (nor are we ever likely to) so the general screaming article is best. Thryduulf (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to screaming; this emoji does not primarily function as a shorthand for this piece of artwork, but instead to show fear or horror. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Following up on the comment by RileyBugz, I think the meaning of the emoji is better parsed as "screaming with fear" rather than "screaming with fear". Therefore I'm not convinced it's a good idea to retarget to Screaming (the kinds of screaming it dicusses are screaming with joy, or the screams at birth). Isn't it best to have that pointed to the emotion the emoji is used to express, like Angst, Fear or Horror and terror? – Uanfala 22:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the lede of Screaming lists the common emotions associated with screaming, fear being one of them. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:54, 11 October 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 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) feminist 10:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Last Shot (Gregg Hurwitz novel) → Gregg Hurwitz  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete - misleading redirect (book name redirecting to book author). Mayuresh K 15:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; {{R from work}} covers this. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've added R from book to the tags. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:41, 5 October 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 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) feminist 10:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nowhere Man (Green novel) → John M. Green  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete misleading redirect (book name redirecting to book author) Mayuresh K 13:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: {{R from work}} covers this. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've tagged {{R from book}} on this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 5 October 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 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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• ِAbdel Hamid Sarraj → Abdel Hamid al-Sarraj  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete implausible redirect. 176.17.86.216 (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as plausible. I personally have a hard time remembering if an Arabic name comes with an al- or not. – Uanfala 18:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's an alternate name or a misspelling, but not both. The question is which R cat would you tag the redirect if it's kept? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Uanfala, Jd22292, this is weirder than it looks. The first character is not a straightforward "A", it's an A with some sort of odd diacritic. The page is %D9%90Abdel_Hamid_Sarraj not Abdel_Hamid_Sarraj. Delete as misspelling. Abdel Hamid Sarraj exists and is not the subject of this RfD. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Shhhnotsoloud, the diacritic is the Arabic kasra and it's certainly not used in Roman transliteration. – Uanfala 11:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/question: Would the diacritic be used for any native language spellings/versions of the subject's name? Steel1943 (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the little I know about Arabic, no: the name is Abdel, not Ibdel . But even if it were, we don't keep generic mixed-script redirects. – Uanfala 20:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after noticing the diacritic that Shhhnotsoloud pointed out. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A latin letter with an arabic diacritic is almost always going to be implausible doubly so when that diacritic is not used in the original Arabic. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 10 October 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 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) 21:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• AZEDIA → Monstercat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target; only appeared twice on the label and has not been active since. No other known target. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If the target does not help at all in the understanding of the searched topic, it is therefore not useful. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable band. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:37, 5 October 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 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) 21:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Melano (DJ) → Monstercat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the article; as described here, there isn't much info on a possible return, even though the artist is still making music. No other possible target. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:38, 5 October 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 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) 21:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Matt Vice → Monstercat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the article; only appeared once on the label as part of a collaboration with a signed vocalist at the time. No other possible target. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable musician. Is notability inherited from the Monstercat record label? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:44, 5 October 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 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) 21:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Braken (DJ) → Monstercat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the article; only known on the label for his collaborations with an artist who does not have his own Wikipedia page. No other possible target. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable musician. Is notability inherited from the Monstercat record label? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:45, 5 October 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 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) 21:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Astronaut (DJ) → Monstercat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the article; artist is no longer on the label and no sign of a potential return after one of its members left back in 2016, as described here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable musician. Is notability inherited from the Monstercat record label? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:45, 5 October 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 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) 21:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Insan3lik3 → Monstercat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the article; artist is no longer on the label and no other possible target otherwise. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable musician. Is notability inherited from the Monstercat record label? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:45, 5 October 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 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) 21:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Mitchell Claxton → Monstercat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the article; artist is no longer on the label and no other possible target otherwise. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable musician. Is notability inherited from the Monstercat record label? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:46, 5 October 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.