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. Ruslik_Zero 17:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Right and Kill Everything → Drake (entertainer) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete redirect: Per WP:Redirect, "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful", "The redirect makes no sense". Dan56 (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• According to this entertainer's facebook page, the stage name "DRAKE" is an acronym for exactly this phrase. A google search for marketing materials (t-shirts, etc) matched to this entertainer confirms the link. While I consider this an incivil and nonsensical marketing gimmick, I consider most modern music nonsense. The redirect, however, is plausible in context. Keep. Rossami (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably Criticism of American foreign policy would make a better target. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it's originally from the lyrics of his song "Miss Me". But isn't this too trivial to be a redirect to Drake? Or too obscure to make it likely for anyone to actually search it? Dan56 (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep putting phrase into google brings up Drank as top hit. Marginal usage, but redirects are cheep and no strong reason to delete.--Salix (talk): 11:36, 26 February 2012 (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.

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 South Texas plains and dabify, multiple posible targets--Salix (talk): 11:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• South Texas Plains → Tamaulipan mezquital (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Retarget to South Texas. South Texas Plains is a recognized geographical area of the state of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept page defining South Texas Plains to specific counties in Texas. The target on this redirect is an area that includes a large part of Mexico.Maile66 (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my comment to Retarget to South Texas, which is the Wikipedia article that refers to the area the Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept designated as South Texas Plains.Maile66 (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not familiar with US geographic locations but would it also be possible for the term to either be retargeted to South Plains or South Plains, Texas or possibly a disambiguation to both?--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South Plains is a region in north Texas, but south of the Texas Panhandle. South Plains, Texas is an unincorporated community in north Texas. Complicated, isn't it? Maile66 (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Complicated indeed :/ BTW Im okay with the South Texas retarget as well--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabify. (Or actually retarget to South Texas plains and dabify that.) I think Tamaulipan mezquital, South Texas, South Plains and South Plains, Texas are all reasonable possible intended targets. – hysteria18 (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to South Texas. Do not disambiguate. I have used this redirect during article writing and its current redirect to Tamaulipan mezquital has never fit quite right with me. From what research I have done, this is referring to primary a wildlife region which makes up most of South Texas, it does not refer to parts of Mexico, or Northern Texas, which makes South Plains and South Plains, Texas implausible targets. Although this discussion makes it appear like there could be a high chance of confusion between a number of places, a google search quickly reveals that the region in South Texas is what is meant by this title. For this reason, I don't think a disambiguation page is necessary, although a hatnote could be added at South Texas to link to South Plains and South Plains, Texas. France3470 (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading your informed response gave me another idea, because of the confusion about how Texas areas are named. Retarget South Texas Plains to South Texas, because those are already created and need to tie up. However, because of all the confusion, it might not be a bad idea to create a dab page specifically named South Texas (disambiguation) and include all possible targets. I would leave Tamaulipan mezquital out altogether. In today's touchy political climate, including the Tamaulipan article swings both directions: "There go those Texans, claiming more of Mexico" or "We didn't cede part of Texas back to Mexico yet". Maile66 (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Been thinking about this one, the creation of South Texas (disambiguation) is probably quite marginal, it would only include two items (primary topic not included) which are actually rather unlikely to be referred to as simply "South Texas". I think a hatnote at South Texas to cover the other items would be clearest. France3470 (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2012 (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.