< December 28
December 30 >

December 29

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 29, 2015.

Bob Verini

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'll quote the last sentence of the nutshell of WP:N: "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." If there was such a thing as a "strong keep" verdict, this would be one. --BDD (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Game show contestant does not meet WP:N. Target of redirect was removed from List of Jeopardy! contestants. AldezD (talk) 21:17, 29 December 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.

2015 flood

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 List of floods#2010s. --BDD (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are many 2015 floods significant enough to justify their own Wikipedia articles, and pointing at just one of them is clearly giving undue weight. If this isn't deleted altogether, it should point to a dab page.  ‑ Iridescent 21:11, 29 December 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.

Pimmally square

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 6#Pimmally square

Romans 1:27

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 7#Romans 1:27

Uncle Worm

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 unopposed. Deryck C. 09:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was formerly an unreferenced article on a Snake-like game. It's not mentioned at the target article and likely never will be. BDD (talk) 16:16, 29 December 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.

Fiveyear plans

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) 21:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking two words together is not a good redirect Legacypac (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the creation of just tens of thousands of stupid redirects INCLUDING theselead to Neelix getting a ban on redirect creation and loss of Adminship. He also should have been blocked, but escaped that via Super Mario Effect. Also Redirects are supposed to be helpful and aid in navigation - they are not supposed to be 'wrong'. Legacypac (talk) 18:08, 4 January 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.

קישקעריש

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. --BDD (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claim to be the Yiddish name of a Hungarian town, so not a likely search term on English Wikipedia Legacypac (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep town was a shtetl. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:27, 30 December 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.

Scintimammagraphics

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 speedily deleted by Boing! said Zebedee. --BDD (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good redirect when Google says "No results found for Scintimammagraphical" and then Neelix added a suffix. Ditto with the 3rd one. Legacypac (talk) 11:42, 29 December 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.

777 Tour

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. --BDD (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY. "777 Tour" can equally refer to Boeing 777#Development. sst✈ 09:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not in the article, and even if it was, Rihanna's tour would be the primary use per my searches. Remember that WP:XY is for situations where it could equally refer to multiple things and where disambiguation would be inappropriate. -- Tavix (talk) 17:55, 30 December 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.

Quadruple glazer

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. Deryck C. 09:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
List of redirects to Insulated glazing (166)
Discussion[edit]

There seems to be another lengthy sub-set of redirects to insulated glazing. I know we've already been through this at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 10#Sextupleglazed glasses, so I'll defer my rationale to that discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching some of them - they don't exist in the real world no they qualify as nonsense invented by Neelix. Legacypac (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been through this twice already. Quintuple glazing is certainly a thing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:23, 30 December 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.

Inappropriate

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) 16:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is technically a relist. SimonTrew "added" these redirects to the Appropriateness discussion last month with the comment: "We also have some problems with Propriety, Improper, Impropriety, Inappropriate, Improperly, all of which redirect to Morality. (Inappropriateness. Properly, Properness, Improperness are red; they were deleted on 13 November by Sphilbrick as WP:R3: I doubt, actually, that they were recently created.) I see little point in listing them separately, as I think their retargeting will be a natural result of whatever consensus we get with the others." However as it was buried in the middle of a long comment, no one else seemed to notice these redirects. The appropriateness discussion resulted in a delete, but since these particular redirects got no discussion, I'd like for that to happen now. -- Tavix (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: Thanks for relisting. Happy New Year. Si Trew (talk) 03:32, 1 January 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.

Compassion of God

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 7#Compassion of God

BDBC

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 6#BDBC

Airfrance.ae

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. Rough consensus is that the precedents apply in this case - regional edition domain names of a company should not redirect to a company page unless those editions are specifically discussed. Deryck C. 22:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
List of redirects to Air France (110)
Discussion[edit]

These are misleading because they are not the official website of Air France, but country specific pages of that website. The official website of Air France is "airfrance.com," which is the website that appears in the article. These aren't mentioned at the article, disappointing someone wanting specific information on Air France's operations in Japan, for example. These are extremely implausible search terms. Since the URL already says "airfrance", a searcher would already know that it's Air France, so a general article on the airline wouldn't be helpful for them. It would make sense if we had Air France in Japan, for example, but that's not the case here. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:RFD#D8 also applies, as well as several previous discussions. You can find them at: 1, 2, 3, and 4. -- Tavix (talk) 02:48, 29 December 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.

Bluebabies

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) sst✈ 15:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix compound word, no relation to reddaipers. Legacypac (talk) 01:34, 29 December 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.

Redstripe

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) sst✈ 15:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Made up compound words by Neelix Legacypac (talk) 01:30, 29 December 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.

Redorange

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 refine per Notecardforfree as unopposed. Deryck C. 22:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Made up compound words by Neelix Legacypac (talk) 01:30, 29 December 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.

Red-letter edition

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 redletters to red letter, keep others. Deryck C. 22:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix made up compound words Legacypac (talk) 01:25, 29 December 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.

Red-diaper babies

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 Red-diaper babies; no consensus on red-diaper, closing as keep with WP:NPASR; delete others. Deryck C. 22:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creating fake compound words is not a good idea, especially for a pretty obscure term like this. Neelix creations Legacypac (talk) 01:21, 29 December 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.

Shaggingness

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) 21:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another Neelix word not found in RS that I can see. Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 29 December 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.

Pro-Axis

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) 21:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These two maybe need a new target, but not necessarily a full delete. by Neelix too Legacypac (talk) 00:35, 29 December 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.

Supporters of Nazism during World War II

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. Deryck C. 22:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration can only occur in occupied countries by people who are part of the occupied population. Support is a much broader area, covering Germans, Japanese, Italians etc who support their government, governments that support the Axis Powers in various ways etc. Misleading redirects by Neelix. Legacypac (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over Category:Collaborators with Nazi Germany by nationality, we can probably define it as individuals who supported Nazi Germany from countries who weren't allied with Nazi Germany. That gets a bit murky when you talk about states who had different allegiances during the course of the war, such as Romania, but there's noticeably no category for Japan or Italy. (Category:Jewish Nazi collaborators is a bit of an exception, but it's completely reasonable to conceive of Nazi Germany as an enemy to all Jews regardless of nationality.) --BDD (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It raises interesting questions: support for the Axis was widespread (if not deep), for example the Indian National Army. Maybe an overview article is needed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Axis Powers may do a good enough job explaining "Axis supporters". The Indian National Army is mentioned there, as well as disputed cases like Denmark. It's not covering all Axis supporters though. I can definitely imagine an article along these lines, though it would be easy to duplicate content from elsewhere. I think this would be much harder to do for Nazism, though, and all of these that have "during World War II" seem largely redundant. --BDD (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nazi Germany for supporters of? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
None of these are really likely to be used as search terms though, and none get meaningful traffic. Not seeing a reason to keep redirects that mislead searches when anyone interested in WWII and Axis or Nazis will get better results just using a search engine. Legacypac (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's really more of a former country article. I think that would readers with a lot of work to do to try to sift and find information on "supporters of Nazism" outside of Germany. There's Nazism, which might be a more comfortable place for it, but that's mostly again about internal Nazi Germany, with a ((main)) out to Neo-Nazism. --BDD (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order to make a distinction, the more specific term Collaborationism is often used for this phenomenon of collaboration with an occupying army. However, there is no water-tight distinction; "Collaboration" and "Collaborator", as well as "Collaborationism" and "Collaborationist", are often used in this pejorative sense—and even more so, the equivalent terms in French and other languages spoken in countries which experienced direct Nazi occupation." which, well unsourced, accurately reflects my understanding. Legacypac (talk) 04:59, 31 December 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.
More