September 20

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 20, 2014.

SpongeBong HempPants

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing links here and "SpongeBob HempPants" is not mentioned in the article. ... discospinster talk 14:18, 20 September 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.

GNU/Linux

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 20:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retarget to GNU/Linux_naming_controversy � (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "What does a person who enters 'GNU/Linux' into Wikipedia is looking for?" I think he either wants to know what is 'GNU/Linux' which he or she has read somewhere or wants to get in-depth information on it.
  2. "How does it impact existing 'GNU/Linux' links in Wikipedia?" There are 343 inbound links in the article space of Wikipedia that need to be changed.
Now, is there a reason persuasive enough to counter these issues?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:44, 26 September 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.

List of endorsements in the British unity referendum, 2014

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; G5. Courcelles 05:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for British unity referendum, 2014:result of reversion of a POV pushing move. BethNaught (talk) 08:33, 20 September 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.

Opinion polling for the British unity referendum, 2014

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; G5. Courcelles 05:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for British unity referendum, 2014: this is a POV pushing move. The referendum has not been called this by anybody. BethNaught (talk) 08:31, 20 September 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.

Musical score

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 are agreed that this is a sensible redirect as things stand and the issues with the DAB can be resolved by bold editorial action outwith this RFD. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an R to a section of a DAB. Separate the DABS out. Si Trew (talk) 07:55, 20 September 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.

British unity referendum, 2014

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. G5; creation of a DavidYork71 sockpuppet. Courcelles 05:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article should obviously be at Scottish independence referendum, 2014. I've never heard it called a British unity referendum here in Britain. Dbfirs 07:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If a referendum results in the unity of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, as this has, what otherwise should it be called?BushBandarSting (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A "British unity referendum" (if there ever were such a thing) would presumably be held throughtout the whole of "Britain", whatever that means at the given point in time, rather than in one constituent nation. You're also missing the point that the referendum was instigated by a pro-independence Scottish Government with the objective of achieving Scottish independence. We don't call the 2011 Alternative Vote referendum the "endorsement of First Past the Post referendum", do we? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The referendum was on Scottish independence only. Who knows whether the result will improve British unity? If the referendum had been about British unity, then I, as a British citizen, should have had a vote. Please stop pushing your point of view. Dbfirs 07:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it was about breaking up the union not establishing one. There was unity in the end but it was the continuation of the existing union since the Scottish leaders failed to get enough support to break the union up. This title is obviously misleading and is the reason that neither of the Quebec sovereignty referendums are called Canadian Unity Referendums.--76.65.42.142 (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects don't have to be WP:RS, but "British unity referendum" does seem to be a neologism." Her Majesty called for "unity" in her written statement, but the two terms have thus been agglomerated by a well-known search engine, it seems. Neither she, nor anyone else that I can make out, called it a "British unity referendum". As an English citizen, I didn't get a vote either. Does seem a bit WP:POV. Si Trew (talk) 08:04, 20 September 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.

Russian-Ukrainian War

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. See the discussion and my closing rationales at the related RfDs linked below. If anyone wants to create a disambiguation page at such a title, it can be discussed on its own merits, and taken to AfD if needed. --BDD (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Google News search comes up with 1 blog and a few translations of foreign news sources for "Russian-Ukrainian War". ZERO English news sources use this term for this conflict. Both sides in the conflict are manufacturing POV-push redirects. Wikipedia should not be used as a POV-battleground.

Delete as nominator. Alsee (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I don't oppose disambiguation. I updated my !vote to reflect this. There was some kind of a DAB at Russo-Ukrainian War, but it is now a redirect. —PC-XT+ 00:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC) —PC-XT+ 00:45, 30 September 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.

???

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 Question mark per WP:ASTONISH. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason this page redirects to Three Investigators#International Publishing of all things and not, say, Question mark? --Richard Yin (talk) 06:17, 20 September 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.

MOHROn

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is this meant to mean? (probably some insult (moron) ) etc. That's my guess. - TheChampionMan1234 04:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheChampionMan1234: It's a misspelling of the name of Mongolia in Cyrillic (Монгол), similar to Poccnr for Россия. I have no idea why it exists, though. Perhaps it was once a link from somewhere. Jarble (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have no objection to this decision. Jarble (talk) 01:36, 21 September 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.

WİKİPEDİA

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to type. - TheChampionMan1234 03:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What it has to do is that there is no RS that anyone uses it in this way in any reliable source. Of course "Wikipedia" is referenced in articles, and it can be because "Wikipedia" is referenced in reliable sources. But not "WİKİPEDİA". Unless you can find any. Si Trew (talk) 21:23, 21 September 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.

亞墨利加

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. Magioladitis (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rare/archaic Chinese name for America, see zh:s:瀛寰志略/北亞墨利加米利堅合眾國 - TheChampionMan1234 03:36, 20 September 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.

吾父甘地

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. Magioladitis (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rarely used alternative Chinese name. - TheChampionMan1234 03:32, 20 September 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.

孟尼王

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. Magioladitis (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid name in any language. - TheChampionMan1234 03:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Full delete, not provisional; WP:RDL seems to think that Chinese script wasn't used for Khmer, so this is no better than a Chinese title for a German or Guaraní topic. Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 29 September 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.

愜酷

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. Magioladitis (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Japanese. - TheChampionMan1234 03:26, 20 September 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.

斯科特 · 凯恩

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. Magioladitis (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No affinity for Chinese. - TheChampionMan1234 03:25, 20 September 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.

盧金河

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 as it is not mentioned in the article (even if it is his Chinese name). Ruslik_Zero 20:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name isn't mentioned at taraget, and not in a relevant language anyway, by the way, if you're wondering, I'm sorting out Category:Redirects from non-English-language terms - TheChampionMan1234 03:16, 20 September 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.

芹菜糖苷

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. Magioladitis (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 4

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.

馬容容

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. Lenticel (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid alternative name in any language, see [4] - TheChampionMan1234 03:12, 20 September 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.

`

姓名

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 East Asian name Lenticel (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This word is also used in Chinese and Japanese to refer to your full name, (as you can see from wikt:姓名 so it's not necessarily Korean - TheChampionMan1234 03:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonTrew and 70.51.46.146: PLEASE CLOSE THE DISCUSSION and retarget this to East Asian name, there doesn't appear to be any problems with that target. I, as the nominator, proposes to withdraw from this discussion. - TheChampionMan1234 10:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheChampionMan1234: I haven't the authority to close it: I am not an admin. But I am not sure this has consensus for your proposed retarget. Si Trew (talk) 12:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to the retarget to East Asian name. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 05:57, 21 September 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.

黃偉強

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the name of a Chinese actor, which clearly isn't related to the target. - TheChampionMan1234 02:52, 20 September 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.