Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 18

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

April 18

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 18, 2016.

Portal:Nautical/April/10/Selected article

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. With
(non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Violation of

Stefan2 (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @BDD: The redirect encodes the portal creator's choice of the "selected article" for 10 April; it will be used again on 10 April 2017. There are 365 or so similar redirects, one for each day of the year. Portal:Nautical is not the only portal that uses this scheme; Portal:Organized Labour does it this way too, and there may be others. Newer portals don't do it this way; instead of trying to displaying an entire article, they display 10-line introductions with a "Read more" link. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I think those portals would be well advised to transition to the newer system, since obviously this one is raising flags for some editors, but I won't press the issue. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 18 April 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.

Citation needed

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an appropriate

flyer 07:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:36, 18 April 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.

Current Year

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 all. JohnCD (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 31#This year. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but once a redirect is listed here at RfD it is not technically a redirect but some other kind of page (and as far as most tools know, it is an article). I didn't say it made any sense to prod it, but it can be via Twinkle etc... I must admit I did only have in my mind redirects that were listed at RfD or otherwise no longer functioning redirects, and didn't say that. Si Trew (talk) 12:13, 26 April 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.

Let's Marry

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) 20:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SURPRISE. Could easily refer to other things. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as
WP:PTM would suggest for (sensible) translations of titles. RU:WP has a DAB at but I can't see how it's related. I guess the target should be interwiki linked to the TV programme at but since it's currently a one-sentence article {{under construction
}} with no information on the programme that's by no means certain.
Please note' this was recently created (two days ago) by a new editor; the target is their only contribution.
WP:Please don't bite the newbies. Si Trew (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment the newbie has requested assistance, at my talk page, for building the target location's article -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i am person who created this new entry. Please don't delete. In Russian there are two ways of saying this title, lets marry or lets get married, depending on the translation. Both are correct. thank you! Moscowamerican (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate as there appears to be at least two television programs known as Lets Marry as well as multiple easily confused media over at the page Let's Get Married. Personally, when I first looked at this entry, I thought of the song by The Proclaimers. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab per Coffee. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:12, 25 April 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.

Temple of Christ

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 all. The present target is misleading and no convincing alternative has been presented. Just Chilling (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct tells me this should be retargeted to a Christianity related topic, not to a college at Oxford. Also nominated:

talk) 03:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I've added the correct section link to the RfD notes for the bottom three. Someone should probably notify the creator, though, User:Neelix. Si Trew (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are not really required to notify Neelix. I usually do it once per batch. Legacypac (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, true, but it would have saved me a little effort to find out they were Neelix redirects had the nominator said so, and if they had their history pages linked (and the "what links here", and stats would be a bonus). Si Trew (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as Neelix nonsense. I added links for ya SimonTrew. Legacypac (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lots of churches with the Temple of Christ name, [1], not necessarily affiliated with each other, so this would not suit
    WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Oxford one didn't even come up. If the Latin name is the primary name then retarget that one. This is like redirecting Sacred Heart Cathedral to the Paris building. The lower-case situations are even more general. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
sacre coeur and sacre-coeur do indeed redirect to Sacré-Cœur, Paris, as does Sacre Coeur. (Not Sacre cœeur, , Sacre-Coeur or Sacre-Cœur though. It might not be a bad ide to mention the Paris cathedral the DAB at Sacred Heart Cathedral (it currently isn't), although it is, indirectly, at Sacred Heart Church. Si Trew (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I agree with Steel1943's opposition. My second choice would be deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Retarget per Tavix. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete I just don't think we really have sufficient coverage of any topics that would actually be referred to by this name. --BDD (talk) 20:28, 25 April 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.

"Tan Sri" redirects

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 all. JohnCD (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Alexander Iskandar (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Merged several similar discussions together. Steel1943 (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep all
    WP:CHEAP viable search terms, and these are not article titles, they are redirects. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • NOTE not all of these are redirects (some are articles), not all of these have RFD tags. Some of these contain edit histories (and should be investigated for merges and cut and past moves) -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have to be consistent in this redirect issue. We cannot simply let users create article with wrong spelling, inserting unnecessary honorific title as the page title, create redundant multiple redirect. Mahathir Mohamad has many redirect with variant page title. Tun Mahathir, Tun Dr Mahathir, Tun Mahathir Mohamad, omg.. is it recommended, relevant, significant in Wikipedia? The interested reader would simply type "Mahathir" in the search engine and they will get to Mahathir Mohamad article. Why do we have to make multiple redirect with no links (WhatLinksHere)? In short, we should be consistent to enforce Wikipedia naming convention policy. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects exist not because pages link to them, but because people spell it that way. If you can't find the article because the redirect was deleted, it is not helping people. If people don't know these are honorifics and only saw the name as presented with honorifics in documents they are reading, then we are not helping people by hiding the articles by deleting the redirects from honorific forms. This is being consistent with the purpose for redirects. Redirects are not articles. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Normally I might go with a weak keep on this, relying on "redirects are cheap." In this instance, I see a complete lack of utility to these redirects. I would be the same as redirects to "Mr." or "Mrs." So delete all for total lack of utility. Safiel (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. If not redirect, then Delete. Let's just standardize all of them just like it's done outside of Malaysia. I'm sure most of the pages with honorific appended were created by people new to Wikipedia. We can have the honorifics mentioned in the content page itself, but not in the title. The current honorific-laden pages are messy __earth (Talk) 04:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{U|Earth, they have already been redirected, just as they should be, because we do standardize these according to the MOS. The question here is rather whether should should keep the redirects from the original incorrect titles.
      • Redirects with history of pages that were merged cannot simply be deleted per
        WP:CWW other actions must occur -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Keep the redirects. They do no harm whatsoever, and we normally do keep a redirect from the original title even if the original title clear disregarded the MOS. In fact, redirects like these are I think a very good solution in such cases. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/cheap. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These would be violations of the naming conventions if they were article titles, but they're not article titles. The names with the title added are valid search terms, and therefore good redirects. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. As noted in the discussions above, redirects are held to a different standard than article titles. No valid reason has been given to delete these redirects. Rossami (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Redirects are cheap. Readers of the English language Wikipedia are unlikely to recognize these as titles when seeing them in an outside source and then attempting to look them up in Wikipedia.HarryHenryGebel (talk) 08:58, 25 April 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.

"Datuk" redirects

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 all. JohnCD (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Alexander Iskandar (talk) 16:06, 18 April 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.

"Datuk Seri" redirects

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 all. JohnCD (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Alexander Iskandar (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Merged several similar discussions together. Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep all
    WP:CHEAP viable search terms, and these are not article titles, they are redirects. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep all —as per 70.51.45.100 above. I created one of them after coming across a reference to "Datuk Seri Najib Razak" somewhere; as I did not know his name from his title, I searched in Wikipedia (a search which should go right to his article). —Morning star (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have to be consistent in this redirect issue. We cannot simply let users create article with wrong spelling, inserting unnecessary honorific title as the page title, create redundant multiple redirect. Mahathir Mohamad has many redirect with variant page title. Tun Mahathir, Tun Dr Mahathir, Tun Mahathir Mohamad, omg.. is it recommended, relevant, significant in Wikipedia? The interested reader would simply type "Mahathir" in the search engine and they will get to Mahathir Mohamad article. Why do we have to make multiple redirect with no links (WhatLinksHere)? In short, we should be consistent to enforce Wikipedia naming convention policy. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Normally I might go with a weak keep on this, relying on "redirects are cheap." In this instance, I see a complete lack of utility to these redirects. I would be the same as redirects to "Mr." or "Mrs." So delete all for total lack of utility. Safiel (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. If not redirect, then Delete. Let's just standardize all of them just like it's done outside of Malaysia. I'm sure most of the pages with honorific appended were created by people new to Wikipedia. We can have the honorifics mentioned in the content page itself, but not in the title. The current honorific-laden pages are messy __earth (Talk) 04:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirects. They do no harm whatsoever, and we normally do keep a redirect from the original title even if the original title clear disregarded the MOS. In fact, redirects like these are I think a very good solution in such cases. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I actually searched for "Datuk Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim" (or some such), a name I saw in a newspaper, not knowing what it means. So it is both cheap and useful. --Muhandes (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all There seems to be some confusion about the difference between a redirect and an article title. Or will the redirects
    Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., etc. all be next up? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep all for same reasons as in the discussion above. Rossami (talk) 05:37, 23 April 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.

Dato and datin

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 all. JohnCD (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) Alexander Iskandar (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note Many identical discussions combined.
    talk) 13:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak keep all
    WP:CHEAP viable search terms, and these are not article titles, they are redirects. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Redirects are cheap, but I've had a hard time verifying this title, specifically at Vijay Eswaran, which has a history of weak sources and promotional edits. Ideally, these should all be reliably verified in the articles before having redirects, but that seems like a lot of work for little benefit. Grayfell (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have to be consistent in this redirect issue. We cannot simply let users create article with wrong spelling, inserting unnecessary honorific title as the page title, create redundant multiple redirect. Mahathir Mohamad has many redirect with variant page title. Tun Mahathir, Tun Dr Mahathir, Tun Mahathir Mohamad, omg.. is it recommended, relevant, significant in Wikipedia? The interested reader would simply type "Mahathir" in the search engine and they will get to Mahathir Mohamad article. Why do we have to make multiple redirect with no links (WhatLinksHere)? In short, we should be consistent to enforce Wikipedia naming convention policy. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Normally I might go with a weak keep on this, relying on "redirects are cheap." In this instance, I see a complete lack of utility to these redirects. I would be the same as redirects to "Mr." or "Mrs." So delete all for total lack of utility. Safiel (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. If not redirect, then Delete. Let's just standardize all of them just like it's done outside of Malaysia. I'm sure most of the pages with honorific appended were created by people new to Wikipedia. We can have the honorifics mentioned in the content page itself, but not in the title. The current honorific-laden pages are messy __earth (Talk) 04:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all the redirects. They do no harm whatsoever, and we normally do keep a redirect from the original title even if the original title clear disregarded the MOS. In fact, redirects like these are I think a very good solution in such cases. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I actually searched for "Datuk Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim" (or some such), a name I saw in a newspaper, not knowing what it means. So it is both cheap and useful. --Muhandes (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is what redirects are for. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep all There seems to be some confusion about the difference between a redirect and an article title. Or will the redirects
    Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., etc. all be next up? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep all for same reasons as in the discussion above. Rossami (talk) 05:37, 23 April 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.

Mellstock

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 Thomas Hardy's Wessex. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mellstock is a fictional town used in a couple of books. Stinsford is the real inspiration. Such a redirect doesn't make sense. It's like redirecting

talk) 13:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Retarget to Thomas Hardy's Wessex, which puts it all in context. Could point to sections "Thomas Hardy's Wessex names" or "Table of Wessex place-names, their actual places, and their appearance in Hardy's novels"; maybe we could anchor it to Mellstock's entry in the latter. Right now, only Casterbridge and Cresscombe redirect here, but IMO, they're good precedent. (The former is not a Neelix redirect.) -- BDD (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:13, 25 April 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.

Template:Bistrița-Năsăud-geo-stub

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) -- Tavix (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misnamed stub tag redirect (it's not a type of {{Năsăud-geo-stub}}), now orphaned עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:31, 18 April 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.

Karatepe-Arslantaş National Park

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
obvious consensus despite keep votes nominally favoring just plain Karatepe. Please let me know if I've misunderstood (ping ping ping). --BDD (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect has been in place since 2007, but is a not-very-plausible typo of Karatepe-Aslantaş National Park (the extra "r" in Aslantaş). ansh666 11:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The title "Karatepe-Arslantaş" is definitely wrong if you check with a Google search. Not understandable why we must keep a mistyped title even it's so old. CeeGee 12:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it's an alternative (German?) spelling rather than a typo. The German Wikipedia has a page de:Karatepe-Arslantaş so it will probably help smooth interwiki links. A quick Google search for "Karatepe-Arslantaş" turns up number of reliable English-language sources using that spelling too, e.g. this book review in AJA (in the body of the text, but not the title). Joe Roe (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even if its not a very common typo or flubbed alternative spelling based on translations, I feel inclined to keep this if we it is indeed something that happens out there 'in the wild' and the redirect isn't doing any harm, which it isn't. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not harmful and it may be helpful, especially if as Joe Roe says, this is an alternate transliteration. More, as old as it is, there may be links in history or externally (things that won't show in "what links here". No reason to make the problem of
    linkrot worse if there is no potential for confusion. Rossami (talk) 05:41, 23 April 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.

I am from Windows

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term, if anything retarget to technical support scam. Could refer to actual Microsoft representatives etc. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I created the redirect in 2012 because it is the most likely search term that readers will use to find information on the subject, especially when they don't know what subject they are actually looking for. The redirect is based on what Indian scammers say when you answer the phone. "Hello I am calling from Windows to tell you you have a virus on your computer". I got six more of these calls last week, so it is still ongoing. The point is that a reader will not understand what the phone calls are about, but will search for that introductory sentence and that will lead them to Virus hoax, which is the answer to the question, "what is this about?" changing the redirect to point to Technical support scam, would be fine as well. Due to the wording used by the scammers this is an appropriate redirect for this article or to Technical support scam. - Ahunt (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vague. No mention at the potential targets. As Ahunt points out, it could equally point to at least two targets. Lastly, it could actually refer to Microsoft representatives to a certain extent per nom.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Godsy. -- Tavix (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unhelpful vagueness. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:40, 22 April 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.

Grizzles

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete G6 by User:The_ed17 Lenticel (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be an

WP:NOTDIC. (Neelix) -- Tavix (talk) 05:49, 18 April 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.

Monarch flycatchers, flycatchers, fantails, drongos and the Magpie-lark

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be an implausible list to search for, especially since everything in the plural except for 'the Magpie-lark.' -- Tavix (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, expanding the drongo family to include monarch flycatchers et al. doesn't seem to be widely accepted. The IOC recognizes separate families. Also, the redirect is poorly formed (capital "Magpie-lark", and singular) and would need to be reformatted if a broader circumscription of Dicruridae is accepted. Plantdrew (talk) 15:28, 18 April 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.
This should have been redirected to
Dicruridae is itself a (currently) redirect to Drongo
which is probably how this came about. All the best

Stuhl

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete G6 by User:The_ed17 Lenticel (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to fail

WP:RFOREIGN because stools have no affinity for the German language. (Neelix) -- Tavix (talk) 04:59, 18 April 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.

Passado

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 25#Passado

FB crit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hopelessly vague. FB is a disambiguation, and when I see "crit," I normally think of criteria. -- Tavix (talk) 00:18, 18 April 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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_18&oldid=1138580797"