Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 5

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

August 5

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 5, 2014.

No Pants Day

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 wrong forum. This has been sorted out elsewhere. JohnCD (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restore article and edit history The edit history has been moved to a dictionary definition article without any references.  It is inappropriate that the material in this article be associated with the "nudity" category. Unscintillating (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wrong forum (and oppose) - What is being recommended by the nominator? Are you suggesting that No Pants Day be split off from the Pantlessness article? Are you suggesting that the Pantlessness article be moved back to No Pants Day? Either way, this isn't the right forum. I would also oppose both of those courses of action. Furthermore, the current article is far from sourceless; there are twenty-three references cited in the article at present. Neelix (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is "Redirects for discussion".  This is a problem with a redirect that needs admin tools.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your problem is not with redirect, but rather with an article edited away. Although you still don't specify, what exactly do you want to happen, it is definitely not going to happen here. If you want to delete revisions of
      WP:AN. If you want to move back the article and return it to previous state, you should gather consensus on article's talk page. If you want something else, you should at least state your wish in plain language with sufficient detail. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
      ]
This is a redirect, this is redirects for discussion, and the request requires admin tools.  My request in opening this RfD is stated in bold.  This does not delete Pantlessness, and this does not involve revision deletions.  I've explained that the Pantlessness article should be left with the zero sources that it has, suitable for taking to AfD.  I don't see that your various claims for why this belongs at another forum are backed with policy, guidelines, or case history of similar cases.  This is not within the scope of WP:Editing policy, so discussions on the talk page do not apply.  Split is related, but this is not a normal split, and you've provided no evidence that this discussion should be moved to WP:AN.  We've already discussed moving the article back, and in reverting your close you've agreed that you understand that this is not a WP:RM.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't ask for action on this redirect. You ask for action on
WP:CSD#G6, which can't be discussed now (due to lack of proper discussion of the changes you want to perform to article's edit history) and will need no discussion if your suggestion will be supported by consensus. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 02:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Do you agree that we are discussing a redirect?  Unscintillating (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are discussing article, that could be previously found in the same location where now resides the redirect. We are not discussing redirect, and we are not having a constructive discussion because you opened this discussion in wrong forum. We are just wasting our time and storage space of Wikimedia Foundation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By your own words, at the location there "now resides the redirect".  Unscintillating (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And so what? This redirect is not the subject of your request. You request manipultion with edit history of a Pantlessness, and whatever happens here, it will have no effect on that article. No Pants Day does not contain edit history to restore, so you request can't be fullfilled in discussion of this redirect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want a history split, this isn't the way to go about it — request a history split specifically. I can help with that if you want, or you can lay it out for another admin; whichever you prefer, you need to be really specific so that we don't end up with any revisions in the wrong place. Just say "Edits from 2 May 2005 until X need to be at No Pants Day, and edits from Y until the most recent need to be at Pantlessness" if it's that simple, or if it's more complicated, you may need to give even an edit-by-edit account of things. Regardless of whom you want to perform the split, dump your list on the talk page, and then drop me a note or tag the article with {{db-g6|History split; see explanation at the talk page}} for another admin to find. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2014 (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.

TheChurchOfJesusChristofLatterdaySaints

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. JohnCD (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted. This is a completely implausible typos or misnomers that is unused by any page. --- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @DGG: thanks for that explanation. I certainly now see why it would not appear as an argument at AfD. I'm still not convinced about why it should appear as one at RfD. To take an extreme example, if someone created a redirect They Are An Odd Bunch Of People and redirected to a valid article about some religious group, political party or whatever then the target would be retained but would we really worry about breaking incoming links to the redirect? I guess that common sense has to play a part, not merely policy? - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a delete as negative POV. A closer example would be a redirect from random letters. That would be a delete as useless. Runon names are used all the time on the web, so this is not useless. Yes, it is a matter of common sense to distinguish, which is why we need these discussions, to see if what one person thinks common sense is shared by others. DGG ( talk ) 09:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. This becomes more clear. I now also understand the earlier reference to this being a camel case issue. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What links are you talking about? Stats show bot-level activity even including the unprecedented hit count increase during this RfD. And again: this was never an article or visible page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DGG has persuaded me, primarily because of the camel case point. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not hurting anything, and nothing that's so extremely old (it was created just three months after the wikipedia was set up!) should be deleted unless it's quite actively causing problems. Remember that in the earliest days of the wikipedia, all page titles were in CamelCase because that was the only way to make a link, and people sometimes didn't know what 2+ letters needed to be capitalised (I remember seeing some old archived discussion about AUstralia v. AustraliA v. other options) because there was no standard. I don't know, but it's very possible that in the earliest days it wasn't possible to include punctuation. With that in mind, it's very likely that links to this redirect exist in old revisions of articles, and deleting this redirect would break those links with no benefit to anyone. Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2014 (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.

Economic slavery

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 Wage slavery. JohnCD (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current target does not contain this phrase nor discuss anything related to this concept. Not sure what should be done with this. Maybe retarget to wage slavery (which comes up pretty high in Google results for economic slavery). Wouldn't object to deletion either. quant18 (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2014 (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.

Dhanada Kanta Mishra

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. I believe the essence of the AfD outcome was
WP:POLOUTCOMES, which is an essay, but does commonly describe how such articles are treated. --BDD (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Fails

WP:NPOL, as per the previous AfD. While that AfD resulted in a redirect based on the claim that non-notable election candidates should redirect to the constituency that they contested, I've no idea where that policy comes from. If they're not notable, why bother? Sitush (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Who cares about off-site linking? I certainly don't and loads of articles that are much older get deleted. The article was created as part of a massive spam-my campaign at the end of March, when the
WP:AN. Most of the duds got deleted but this one seems to have slipped through the net. - Sitush (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Please, see
WP:R#HARMFUL. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Please see
WP:IAR and stop being so officious about things. Use your common sense and consider WP:FLOODGATES if you allow this thing to remain (yes, I know it is a redlink). - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Common sense is failing to find a good reason to delete this redirect. Why would ignoring rules make Wikipedia better here? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you should know, we don't keep articles about non-notable people. A failed election candidate with no other claim to notability is indeed non-notable. The problem here is that a prior AfD, while agreeing that he was non-notable, resulted in a redirect even though there was no consensus for either that or for deletion. I've no idea why Joe Decker (talk · contribs) came to the conclusion that they did because it does not seem to be based on policy-compliant arguments unless they were thinking that it was a "plausible redirect", in which case no-one actually advanced that argument.
Now we have a situation where a spammed, recently-created article about a non-notable person remains on the project despite umpteen similar ones created around the same time having been deleted. And we have a situation where there is allegedly no mechanism for policy-compliant deletion of the redirect. This then causes a precedent whereby in future all election candidates are entitled to a page of their own even and if they are non-notable then that page would ultimately be redirected to the constituency that they contested. That is thousands and thousands of additional BLP pages that we would have to monitor aside from this one (and, I guarantee you, in the case of India they will mostly not be monitored and BLP issues are rife). We could ignore all the rules about what can and cannot be deletion under the RfD process in order to bring this situation into line with what normally happens (deletion); alternatively, we could restore the article to its pre-redirect state (also IAR) and run it through AfD again. Some of the RfD rules are spurious in any case; for example, Dmitrij says that the article has been around for a while (it hasn't really) and that off-wiki links would be an issue if it is deleted (it wouldn't - we regularly delete articles without concerning ourselves about off-wiki links and a redirect is no different from an article in that sense).
Now, give me some reasons why we should retain the redirect, other than the off-wiki links issue that is in fact a red herring. - Sitush (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment: Notability is not temporary. While the subject was contesting elections some trivial references about him were seen in news and stuff. Those still remain on internet. After failure in elections, the subject hasn't reached the
    WP:NPOL bar required by us. But he still remains a possible searchable item. I would agree on deletion of the redirect if someday someone convinced us all of how in bulk redirects are actually costly. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Eh? Sure, notability isn't temporary but he hasn't attained that standard, even by your own recognition. If he ever does (eg: he is elected in some future contest) then we recreate. Forget the rubbish about cheap redirects: on that basis, and the often-mentioned more general one that storage is cheap anyway, we wouldn't need a notability policy: we'd just retain anything that could be reliably sourced even to a passing mention. It is as if everyone has suddenly been affected by a full moon or something. I mean, I know you're sensible, Dharmadhyaksha, but that's why I'm flabbergasted by the arguments that you and others are putting up. You, in particular, are aware of the problems connected to Indian BLPs and of the sheer scale of Indian elections. Not to mention how in, say, Punjab, the commonality of names is pretty extreme and thus if we allow this precedent we're really heading towards a massive disambiguation problem. - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the NPOL is basically discussing criteria for an article's existence. (No way am I suggesting that different lenient criterion be written for redirects of all N-essays.) But we can't neglect the fact that the term is searchable (or more practically, was while he was contesting). I can foresee the problem that would arise if all nominees of all numerous elections of past and present started having redirects; that also include independent candidates who will only be mentioned in some official notices, etc. But I suppose we have to handle that problem if and when it comes. I would side on deletion with you if the redirects were directly created based on this as precedent.....
(Actually, its getting complicated now. I have previously opposed AfDs that resulted in redirecting Hindi songs to their respective Bollywood films. In those cases, they were random Hindi-words strings. But here the notability of people is slightly more than songs. Nevertheless, confused now and hence striking off keep.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just (neutrally) mentioned this discussion at
the India Project talk page. Is there anywhere else that might be appropriate? - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Singh is an extremely common name in the Punjab. In fact, probably 90% or so of the males in that state use the name, mainly because it is common to all Sikh males. This creates big problems in real life and probably creates problems on Wikipedia because of the extent of disambiguation required (I've not checked but am rather going off my anecdotal experience here). Adding many thousand more Singhs as redirects will serve to amplify the problem for scant gain. And I repeat: the BLP issues surrounding India and Pakistani subjects are immense, and creating thousands of redirects at each election will increase the exposure to BLP problems because someone has got to monitor that lot for usurpation of the redirect. As you'll be aware, Indian topics are poorly maintained anyway without overloading the system like this. Similar problems would exist for other extremely common Indian names, of which Yadav might be an example (the Yadavs are an extremely large community and they are extremely politicised, often controversial as individuals when in working the public sphere, and thus often subject to extremely poor edits).
I suppose some might say that, for example, UK equivalents are Smith, Brown, Jones etc and they would be right, although the number of Smith, Browns and Jones' combined in the UK are likely to be less that the number of Singhs just in Punjab. There would still be a disambig and BLP problems in the UK articles, although it wouldn't be to the same extent.If a person fails GNG then they should not be here: please do not cause us to create almost overnight an even bigger problem than already exists. - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, we'd probably end up with, for example, Yogesh Singh (2014 Lok Sabha general election candidate), Yogesh Singh (2018 Lok Sabha general election candidate), Yogesh Singh (2013 Punjab Legislative Assembly election candidate), Yogesh Singh (2013 Haryana Legislative Assembly election candidate) and so on. There will be such clashes even in one election but multiplying that by 29 state elections held every few years and it is going to be a mess. - Sitush (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to what Sitush says; we have
Indian general election, 2014. We currently have a disclaimer at the top and also a sentence "He is sometimes confused with an MLA of Tilak Nagar". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • (edit conflict) My response has not just been "IAR". I do think that if people saw the big picture then they wouldn't be so hung up on the policy but I have pointed out at the beginning that the real problem here is that this redirect should never have been created in the first place. If needs be, I'll start a site-wide RfC because the lack of common sense being applied here is staggering me. We've got ourselves in a pickle because someone basically assessed consensus in the AfD without correctly weighing the GNG/NPOL situation, which was not denied by those who commented. They accepted what appear to be non-compliant arguments: the article should have been deleted at the outset and instead they created the redirect, which is why we are here now. This is an extremely worrying precedent and I'm not going to let a bit of bureaucracy get in the way of what (I think is) common sense. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That the redirect was created by the admin as part of his close is effectively irrelevant, because deleting the article would not preclude any other editor from creating the redirect after deletion, nor would the subsequently created redirect be deletable on the basis of that AFD (i.e.,
    WP:CSD#G4 would not apply to it). You would still have to come here to RFD, and you'd still get the same answer: that your argument is contrary to existing guidelines (even the one you started out by citing) and contrary to longstanding and site-wide consensus on redirects. That this redirect exists (whether or not created as a consequence of an AFD) is is not a "worrying precedent", but rather "business as usual". postdlf (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • One of the key points is that the article must actually mention the search term. If there are 20,000 names listed in various sourced election articles, then perhaps we should have 20,000 redirects. But we both know that not all of the candidates are listed on WP in these articles (or prove me wrong by showing me), so you're raising a straw man.

    I don't see why you saw it relevant to characterize them as "BLPs (never mind the fact that neither a person nor a redirect is a "biography of a living person"), as the sole question is whether it's verifiable that they were candidates in a particular election. If it's not, then remove them from the election article and do not redirect the name there. If it is verifiable, then there's no problem with BLP compliance to include the name and a redirect. Screaming "BLP!" doesn't give any added weight to your position.

    But regardless, if you create 20,000 redirects just because you think it would illustrate why that approach would be a bad idea and not because you honestly think it would be a good idea, then you would be violating

    WP:POINT. Plus the fact that it's far better for redirects to be created organically by editors who are interested or think it would be useful. If someone creates an article for a nonnotable candidate, that's possibly a measure of reader interest and so may point to some value for the redirect, versus a candidate no one has ever tried to post content about. postdlf (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  • Keep Seems to be a reasonable outcome to redirect non-notable candidates to the constituency articles. I agree with Sitush that it can cause problems if it's a disambiguated name, but in this case it is not. Perhaps a realistic future guideline is that redirects can stand where (a) the candidate has only contested one constituency (some try their luck in several) and the name does not require disambiguation. Number 57 15:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sitush, you've mentioned the difficulties of making NPOV articles in this area-- this very difficulty is one reason why redirects are helpful. It permits us to make lists rather than deal with individual articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This person didn't win even 1% of the votes polled. No articles link to the redirect, and it's going to stay that way for forseeable future, because the person doesn't meet the notability criteria for politicians. The redirect is actually misleading, since DK Mishra is an academic, whose closest claim to being notable is probably being a departmental dean at the
    KIIT University. This redirect just ensures that a nearly irrelevant Wikipedia article appears at the top of search engine pages, when someone searches for "Dhanada Kanta Mishra". It doesn't do any good for the reader, because the article has no information on the person. It doesn't do any good for DK Mishra, because when people search for his name, they don't get to see his academic credentials; instead they see him as someone who lost an election badly. It doesn't do any good for Wikipedia's reputation, because people don't find what they're looking for. utcursch | talk 03:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per Sitush and Utcursch (though I agree this should probably go to an RfC). There are good reasons why Wikipedia does not attempt to be a "list of everything and everyone"; among them (to quote M:Deletionism): "having articles on the many unnoteworthy individuals named John Anderson makes it difficult for readers to find the article about the notable U.S. presidential candidate with that name". That applies just as much to redirects. Also, we need to discourage the use of Wikipedia for self-promotion. Some political systems allow large numbers of candidates most of whom have no chance of election and know it, but are there to make a point or get their name in the papers. Redirects for every failed candidate offer a tempting chance to get your name to pop up in Google listings. JohnCD (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: your last sentence, I think you're presuming the tail will wag the dog. A redirect should not exist to an article that does not even mention the redirect title, and whether an election article mentions a candidate is for editors to decide by applying an appropriate threshold. The OP raises fears of thousands of candidates for individual constituency elections, but does not claim that any articles currently list that many (notwithstanding his POINTy threat to make it so). postdlf (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as argued by postd and DGG.Shyamsunder (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I understand and even agree with some of the nominator's concerns about the utility and value of redirecting an unsuccessful candidate's name to an election article or a candidates list, this isn't the right venue for the discussion — our policies do currently allow it, and no particular reason has been offered as to why this particular candidate would be uniquely ineligible for the same treatment that many others get. If there were a policy discussion around removing all such redirects, I might support that position — but an RFD about one non-notable candidate's redirect isn't the place to establish that sort of consensus. Keep, but consider a different venue if you'd like to pursue having the existing consensus revised or overturned. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2014 (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.

Faculty of Automotive and Construction Machinery Engineering

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) 00:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was an article but has been changed to a redirect: however the title is too generic to be useful. An article of this name has previously been renamed to be more specific & changed to a redirect, without creating a reirect. TheLongTone (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...Redirect has now been changed back to an article, don't know where this leaves this discussion.TheLongTone (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2014 (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.

Noni Ιoannidou

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 procedural closure. This redirect is already nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 29#Noni Ιoannidou. (Non-admin closure) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See

ChampionMan1234 06:41, 5 August 2014 (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.

Hrvåtski

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 I have
talk
) 20:02, 1 September 2014(UTC)

ChampionMan1234 05:39, 5 August 2014 (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.

რუსები

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) 00:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially Georgian.

ChampionMan1234 03:57, 5 August 2014 (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.

Learn Japanese

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 15#Learn Japanese

Idioma japonés

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) 00:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially Spanish.

ChampionMan1234 03:46, 5 August 2014 (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.

Holokus

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 Mother Hubbard dress for which it provides a useful search term. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially Malaysian.

ChampionMan1234 03:43, 5 August 2014 (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.

FJS

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 dabify. --BDD (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current target is somewhat misleading, given that this person doesn't seem to have been notably mentioned by their initials. Also, a search on the English Wikipedia for pages containing "FJS" seems to not provide amicable results to warrant converting FJS into a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_5&oldid=1142587403"