Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 23, 2016.

モンスターペアレント[edit]

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 Monster parents. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per either WP:RFOREIGN or WP:XY. "Helicopter parents" don't have any sort of special affinity for Japanese. There is actually a couple of articles that use "モンスターペアレント": Kansai Telecasting Corporation and Haruka Fukuhara. Delete this and let the search engine do its job. -- Tavix (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as creator. The Japanese type of "Monster parents" is somewhat different from the American type of "Helicopter parent". The Japanese do have a special affinity with "Monster parents". See the Japanese language version of the article. sst✈(conjugate) 03:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that rationale is that the "helicopter parent" article doesn't mention anything at all about the Japanese version of "monster parent." It would be confusing for someone to land on this page, especially someone looking for the (red linked) 2008 television programme. -- Tavix (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really don't see the rationale for this on en.wiki. Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Mrfrobinson (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. North American topic with native English name so no need for this -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative proposal: retarget to Monster parents, which deals with the Japanese topic. sst✈(conjugate) 08:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't really, it deals with monster parents in Hong Kong, mentioning only in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE without sources that the term came from Japan. Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target.Si Trew (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Expansion of Monster parents, especially with reference to the original Japanese term, could help put this to bed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was prepared to close this as retarget, but as long as this remains unmentioned at Monster parents, I'm unwilling to sanction a new {{R without mention}}, for a foreign phrase, at that. If we can't address this now, it's just going to pop up later at RfD. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've edited monster parents to include the Japanese and Chinese forms of the phrase, as well as a bit of history about the phrase. Deryck C. 22:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Hope my comments weren't too harsh, and I'm sorry this wasn't an area where I could do the legwork myself. --BDD (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2016 (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.

Lioyd Banks[edit]

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) 16:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this redirect serves no purpose, and a Google search reveals no connection between "Lioyd Banks" and Fromage 2004 or Fromage in general. /wiae /tlk 18:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Lloyd Banks as a typo-redirect. Rossami (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Rossami --Lenticel (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:R3 or WP:G2. Creator is a WP:VOA; no purpose to this. Typing L-I (with two fingers for touch typists) instead of double-tapping L is not a plausible error. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing; not at target, nor at proposed target, and unlikely typo. Banks appears to have been on a mixtape called Le Grande Fromage (sic; not 'le grand') but this is too far away. It's possible from bad handwriting recognition or OCR scanning, I suppose, but hits were literally at zero before this discussion opened.
Lloyd Banks has enough dubious redirects that I don't think we should create another; I've list them separately at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 20. Si Trew (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. -- Tavix (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2016 (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.

Reader-responses[edit]

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) 16:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These two Neelix partial title matches are too vague. The reader could be looking for many things. Letters to the editor are called reader responses sometimes for example. Better to give the reader search results. Legacypac (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree that this could refer to a number of things (e.g. TalkBack Reader Response System), and I'm not sure that these partial-title matches are appropriate for the target. I am also adding Reader response to this discussion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Do a Google search on "reader response"; 90% of the early results (30+) will be about reader response theory & reader response criticism. - Jmabel | Talk 16:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And these redirects, and mirrors of them are a major cause of them. They are a form of Link bombing to influence search results. Legacypac (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Reader-responses" and "Reader responses" might be dubious redirects, and I don't particularly thing those should be kept, but "reader response" (the one that got me here) is certainly appropriate. It's a common term in academia, and plenty of times people would use it without appending the word "criticism". - Jmabel | Talk 16:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First few Google results include Purdue University, Poetry Foundation, College of New Rochelle, Washington State University, so no, that's not link boming. - Jmabel | Talk 16:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2016 (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.

Rina Kawaei[edit]

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. Procedural close, this is the wrong forum. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, non notable performer and duplication. Karst (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close (and Oppose whatever there is to oppose). I don't get this edit [1] by the nominator. It wasn't even a redirect. And Rina Kawaei is a notable musican per WP:MUSICBIO #1 ("[h]as been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works") and #6 ("is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles"). --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2016 (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.

Footballing style of teamwork[edit]

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. WP:INVOLVED close given the backlog and unanimous consensus after a week and a half of listing. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vague phrase unattested outside of Wikipedia; one incoming link from The Oval. Football inherently involves teamwork. I doubt both that this is a likely search term and that we can guess what someone searching for it would be looking for. --BDD (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. --BDD (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean a sport played by two teams of eleven players on a rectangular field with goalposts at each end? Or perhaps even egg chasing? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I see some great candidates for RfD right there... ansh666 08:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the redirect a sport played by two teams of eleven players on a rectangular field with goalposts at each end was created with an edit summary that said "Really stretching it here." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The other one seems to be widely-used slang, so it's probably okay. ansh666 08:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - implausible search term. Fenix down (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a likely search term. GiantSnowman 09:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All teamwork sports involve teamwork. It's almost like how all juice tastes juicy and all chocolate milk tastes both chocolaty and milky. It goes on. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2016 (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.

Matzo ball eating[edit]

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. WP:INVOLVED close given the backlog and unanimous consensus after a week and a half of listing. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no information about these specific foods at the target article. For the two that don't have "competitive", it's unclear why we'd assume someone searching for these terms is looking for a competition anyway. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. These are too specific. We really don't need redirects for every possible permutation of word arrangement in the English language.- MrX 19:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the non-competitive redirects, at the least, since they don't make sense; regular eating is not competitive, so those are wrong. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, though it's worth mentioning that Eric Booker once ate "21 baseball-sized (half-pound) matzo balls [in] 5 minutes." Simply amazing. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2016 (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.

Professional cookie eating[edit]

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) 16:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted, because there isn't any use of the term professional cookie eater and I don't find any good citations that could be used in the article, just some joke shirts and blogs. MelanieLamont (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, although I laughed. But laughter does not good redirects make. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Who knew I could have made a career of this. Unfortunately, lacks a meaningful target.- MrX 19:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though the article for Al Kaprielian mentions something called the "Derry News Cookie Eating Contest." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Joke redirect --Lenticel (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Competitive eating contests are indeed a thing and they do apply to cookies, see here for a purported chocolate chip cookie record holder, but the redirect is questionable. We don't consider participants in such events to be 'professional eaters', a term that is noticeably red. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2016 (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.

Belbury[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 2#Belbury

Underlips[edit]

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 as a batch, though there's leaning on one side or another for some of these. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect compound words by Neelix. Couriously he did not create Lowerlip or Lowerlips. Also, why is there an article for Upper lip, Lower lip, and Lip? Surely the reader is better served by consolidating upper and lower into Lip. I realize this is not the right page to suggest a merger, but while we are cleaning up the redirects, we can gather input on a merger. Legacypac (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upperlip seems ok as a typo-redirect; delete the others. No opinion on whether three lips are better than one lip. ansh666 06:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • So I guess Underlip is okay too, but plural is probably not needed (unless there are animals with multiple upper/lower lips?). ansh666 06:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Upperlip and Upperlips, which seem okay. No reason to ditch a plausible typo even if it is Neelix Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 13:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep upperlip; delete the rest. What the hell is an underlip anyway?- MrX 19:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The target says what an underlip is in the first sentence. We're quite short on redirects for these starting "labia", to my slight surprise. Si Trew (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep singular forms. Delete plural forms - readers unlikely to pluralise a singular entity. I have proposed merge of upper/lower lip articles on the respective pages per nom... silly to have them all separate. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - Innocuous.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:10, 26 February 2016 (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.

Matrics[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 2#Matrics

La gaya scienza[edit]

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) 16:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. (Neelix) -- Tavix (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per G6 Neelix nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Google thinks this is Hindi, but if you change it to "gaia" then you get Italian "The Gay Science". But this has no affinity for Italian, being an English article about a German philosopher's work with a name derived from Provençal. Plus, as noted, it's misspelled. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not needed. Gets about 5 page view every 90 days.- MrX 19:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ~RFOREIGN, G6 concession, and WP:RFD#D5. Slightly oddly, we have The Happy Science targeting it, but not The Joyous Wisdom, which is in the first sentence. Si Trew (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've boldly retargeted The Happy Science to Happy Science; no internal links and hit about twice a week. Si Trew (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that The Joyous Wisdom was red too, which was weird since Neelix seems to hit just about every plausible combination and then some. Anyway, it's been created. -- Tavix (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2016 (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.

Sweetly[edit]

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 Gigi D'Agostino (album). (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetly is a way of acting, not desserts.Better target? Neelix redirect. Legacypac (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2016 (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.

Pedia[edit]

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) 16:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. I got here by looking for the romanized version of Πεδία, listed at RfD yesterday. There's no evidence that the target, a computer brand, was pluralized thus (rather than an English plural pedions).
-pedia as in "encyclopedia" is etymologically unrelated to this, because that comes from paideia, by way of spelling reforms, but -pedia → History of wikis. Si Trew (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally can't think of anywhere else to retarget this to other than where -pedia goes, for consistency. I'll wait to see if anyone else has opinions or potential targets before deciding. ansh666 04:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The search engine often ignores hyphens or treats them as spaces unless there's an exact title match, so it might go via -pedia if this didn't exists, anyway. I don't know if that's the case when the hyphen is the first character, though, and a search seems reasonable to me, because the history of wikis is not the history of pedia. Si Trew (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to encyclopedia since that is what people use it for. The current target has nothing to do with this title. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any evidence that people use it to mean encyclopaedia (other than Wikipedia)? We don't at the target, and it's not at Wiktionary. Merriam-Webster seems to have it in this sense but advises against its use in careful writing; Oxford just takes it to the definition of pedion (a crystalline structure). In other dictionaries, it seems still to have an initial apostrophe; 'pedia → encyclopedia, so perhaps it's {{R from incorrect punctuation}} (or other punctuation). Depends on how conservative we are with new meanings. Si Trew (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's far too many possible links for "Pedia". Not only is there an absurdly large amount of online websites that this relates to (Metapedia, Wikipedia, AquaPedia, Fringepedia, etc), but also various real people have this as their last name (including a cluster of people part of the Hindu Gujjar clan, mentioned in this article here). Don't forget about PediaSure, the popular product, too. There's also even a geographic area besides Mount Pentelicus titled the "Pedia plain". It goes on. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that sounds like a reason to convert it to a disambiguation page -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the partial matches are removed, there's nothing that's the subject of any content here (mentions in articles that are not closely related, or in references, are not enough). Peter James (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CWM, too many possible targets and none even approaching WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Further, the Pedion is a modern technological creation and would be properly pluralized as "Pedions", not "Pedia". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: what's CWM? Come What May? Canada Won't Mind? WP:CWM is red. Si Trew (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: CWM is coffee with markets, or more accurately User:CoffeeWithMarkets who commented above. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2016 (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.

Department of Archaeology[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from pagemove that seems to be too broad for its target. There don't seem to be other appropriate targets though, except perhaps Archaeology. ansh666 04:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the salting - there doesn't seem to be any on any of the other pages listed, and I don't think it really meets any criteria for protection. ansh666 06:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, not all of them are PTMs. Department of Archaeology (Nepal) and Department of Archaeology (Sri Lanka) use "Department of Archaeology" as their full WP:COMMONNAMEs, there's nothing partial about that. The others are less obvious, but, for example, Department of Archaeology at the University of York could just as easily be "Department of Archaeology (University of York)" since it's commonly referred to by that title. Either way, they're still useful for inclusion in the dab, even if relegated to the "see also." -- Tavix (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Convert to DAB'. Si Trew (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: good dab page. PamD 09:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And redirect from "Department of A/arch(a)eology" and possibly also from "Arch(a)eology D/department". PamD 09:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, have now created a heap of redirects (those listed red links above are all now blue and pointing this way), included "Arch(a)eology Department", added a couple more and sorted the dab page into Govt/Academic, and A-Z by country. PamD 15:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think any such list should be considered a set-index instead of a Dpage -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reading WP:SETINDEX, it doesn't completely apply because these aren't all items of a specific type - there are different types of departments (educational/university schools, government departments, etc.). ansh666 22:36, 25 February 2016 (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.

Beyonce 'Virtuoso Intellect'[edit]

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) 16:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Virtuoso Intellect" was a rumored title of Beyonce's third album. Her third album is actually titled I Am... Sasha Fierce, so that crystal ball was faulty. -- Tavix (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It's not being accessed, and is unlikely to be, so it serves no purpose.- MrX 19:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2016 (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.

Spencer Gore(Artist) 1878-1914[edit]

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) 16:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an implausible search term. You'd have to forget to space, capitalize a common noun, AND decide to throw in dates (substituting a hyphen for an en dash). -- Tavix (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - {{R from page move}}, but it was only at this title for just shy of 7 minutes. External links unlikely. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This should be bypassed. Looks to be created in error. Legacypac (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. I wouldn't be surprised if the creator had used this as a search term to make sure no article already existed, then created it at the title in error. (Surely people don't search with en dashes?) Si Trew (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2016 (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.chped.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_23&oldid=1037903114"