< July 30
August 1 >

July 31

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 31, 2015.

About hair

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) 20:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFAQ. Steel1943 (talk) 21:45, 31 July 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.

Thuthube

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) 20:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have found, this seems like the Vietnamese word for "uncle". Well, uncles aren't exclusively a Vietnamese concept. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 31 July 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.

Quotes about women

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) 20:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No subject by this name is described in the redirect's target article. Note: this redirect was the result of converting a list-like page into a redirect in 2003. Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 31 July 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.

Male issue

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 Son. bd2412 T 21:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This redirect is not mentioned in its rather article, and the redirect just seems too ambiguous to be useful. Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd be worried about that since the synonymous connection is not mentioned in the article, and I was not able to confirm the validity of that statement based on results I found on search engines, and I looked for a while. (I've never heard of this term before: in fact, when I see this term, I think of an issue of a magazine.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see where you're coming from. As a synonym, I don't think it needs to be explicitly mentioned there. I imagine a reader, probably not great with English, coming across the term "male issue" and not knowing what it means—this would mostly work there. Are there magazines that publish an annual "male issue" or something? --BDD (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, but I would assume that there is a notable magazine subject that does, similar to how the "Swimsuit Issue" redirect exists. Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think nobility is implied with this sort of phrasing, but not required. --BDD (talk) 19:11, 31 July 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.

Tatko

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) 20:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word "father" is not exclusive to Bulgarian. Steel1943 (talk) 17:06, 31 July 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.

African-American grandmother

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) 20:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This specific subject is explained nowhere in the target article. In fact, the word "African" is nowhere in the target article. Also, African-American grandmother was formerly an article, but it looks like it was redirected due to containing mainly WP:OR. Steel1943 (talk) 17:00, 31 July 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.

🏁

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. --BDD (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(U+1F3C1 🏁 CHEQUERED FLAG) Retarget to Checkered flag (disambiguation)Racing flags#The chequered flag. Current target is over-specific. Si Trew (talk) 16:20, 31 July 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.

Pumpy

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) 20:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in target article, and I am unable to see a connection with the redirect's term with any encyclopedic subject. Steel1943 (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reader would have to type the "o" incorrectly, then completely forget the "e". This is too unlikely. Steel1943 (talk) 18:14, 31 July 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.

Peter Sabbath

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) 20:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no connection here. Magioladitis (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't certain how reliable Gonick's work was and the article on Justinian is quite tightly written, so I decided to add the redirect as a compromise. What ever happens to the redirect, I would like it if some way could be found to keep the information.--Auric talk 21:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I'm sure you're aware, the only way to be sure to keep the information is to find an appropriate way to mention the redirect in an article. If as I said, the redirect could be mentioned using the source on its talk page in the article on The Cartoon History of the Universe, then in addition to keeping the information, this redirect could be retargeted to that article. Or, if this redirect is deleted, then at least the sourced information would be in the article about Gonick's work. – Paine  06:54, 7 August 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.

Bill Niederst

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) 20:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How are these two names connected? Magioladitis (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I still don't see any connection at Wikipedia, which I think was the implication in the question by the nominator: searching for "Bill" in the target article yields nothing. @John Broughton:, despite what you say, this name is not mentioned at Liam Lynch (musician) as far as I can tell. Nobody suggested the information was false, the implication was (I think) that it is a WP:SURPRISE to put in this name and end up at an article which doesn't mention it.
After all, there are probably many Bill Niedersts (and Billy Niedersts and William Niedersts) in the world, many of whom are not WP:N: so from the point of view of Wikipedia navigation, this is not useful as it stands. This is an encyclopaedia not a directory such as, e.g. zoominfo.com. Since there is no encyclopaedic content on this person, it's reasonable to suggest deletion.
I agree it would have made sense to talk to you first as the creator of the redirect, but since you get the notification of listing anyway, it's no big deal. Si Trew (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: - The first three words in the Liam Lynch article are "William Patrick Niederst". To state the obvious, "Bill" is a variant of "William". There are no notable people named "Bill Niederst" other than the one we're talking about, so I'm not sure how WP:SURPRISE is relevant here.
If someone wants to create a redirect at William Niederst or William Patrick Niederst, have at it. It's been 8 or so years since I created the redirect, and I'm guessing that Mr. Lynch was known among his friends as "Bill" rather than "William". But that's just a guess; I've never met him or spoken to him. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, that's just an unsourced guess. MOS:BOLDTITLE says "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence", so Liam Lynch should appear before his real name. As for William vs Bill, it is not necessarily obvious to a WP:WORLDWIDE audience for whom English may not be a first language: at least, "Bill" should appear in the name, c.f. Buffalo Bill or Bill Bryson. Si Trew (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the last time I edited the article, in 2007, the name, at the time, was "Bill Niederst", not William, and the name was, as you point out it should be, not the initial words in the article. So someone else changed that part of the article since I last edited it, and you're welcome to fix that.
As for the core issue, I think that it is sufficiently documented that Liam Lynch's original last name was Niederst. (Here's an archived page from Jennifer Niederst's website, in case there are still doubts.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've no doubt his name is William or Bill Niederst. It's just ithe article doesn't clearly (reliably) say so. We can fix that, as you say. Si Trew (talk) 19:35, 2 August 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.

Information On Giant Pandas

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) 20:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unnecessary JZCL 10:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fun fact: I almost nominated this back on May 19th, but ended up finding a better "I" entry and forgot about it until now. -- Tavix (talk) 18:45, 31 July 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.

Heavy metal ramification

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) 20:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2. Same idea as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 31#Heavy metal genealogic tree but I think this is different enough that it should get a separate discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 07:54, 31 July 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.

Heaevy metael uemlaeuet

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, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an implausible misspelling. The German-to-English rule of respelling "ü" as "ue" doesn't apply to a heavy metal umlaut because it isn't actually German. -- Tavix (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have Mëtäl ümläüt, nor Heävy metäl ümläüt (for which the first one would be the transliteration), but we do have Heavy metal ümlaut, Röckdöts, Röckdöt and Röck döts for the others respectively: these also all go to Metal umlaut.
((R from title with diacritics)) is inappropriate in these cases since they are not the exact same title as required (or at least recommended) when using those templates.
This is getting a bit out of hand, I think: @Tavix:, did you want to add any I mention to the nom? Si Trew (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: I think it'd be best to start a new nomination because the rationale would be different. You're more than welcome to make the nomination if you'd like. I'd like to focus this one specifically on the false "ü" to "ue" respelling. -- Tavix (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll wait until we settle this one. Si Trew (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain further? I'm not understanding what you're saying. -- Tavix (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying they're intentionally spelled with improper spelling to emphasize the heavy metal umlaut, by using the conventional umlaut replacement scheme with a following-e -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But, as I pointed out above, we don't have metal ümlaut, so it does not follow that we should have heavy metal ümlaut let alone the transliteration heavy metal uemlaut. (I don't need to copy-paste them, I can type them: on a US keyboard with a US International keyboard layout.) Heaevy metael uemlaeuet is even more odd because putting the umlauts back would give Heävy metäl ümläüt, which is red. Si Trew (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That those redirects do not exist does not follow that these redirects that do exist automatically shouldn't exist. We're just missing some redirects in that case, that can be created. Redirects don't spring up automatically as a consequence of an article being created, someone needs to go around and create them as well. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My main bind is that the laut placing on these is arbitrary. You mention a "conventional umlaut replacement scheme" but I don't see any convention being followed here. Si Trew (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The convention is replacing an umlaut-bearing vowel with the stripped-vowel followed by an "e". The placement of the "e"s (or the umlaut-bearing form) is the intentional mispelling. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that this was added by a bot, I don't think it was "intentional." -- Tavix (talk) 15:07, 4 August 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.

Heavy m

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, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a super vague redirect. For starters, my search results show "Heavy M" as being some kind of mapping technology. On Wikipedia, it could refer to anything at heavy metal, heavy mineral, heavy machine-gun, etc. No matter where you put it, there'll be a WP:SURPRISE, so it should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 06:59, 31 July 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.

Heavy metal genealogic tree

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 Metal: A Headbanger's Journey#"Definitive metal family tree". --BDD (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2. This is confusing because the article gives no indication of what a "heavy metal genealogic tree" would be. -- Tavix (talk) 06:46, 31 July 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.

Next Australian constitutional referendum

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) 20:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It isn't a good idea to have a redirect of the format "next (event)" as it will require maintenance, or in this case, remain outdated. -- Tavix (talk) 06:35, 31 July 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.

Turkishmenistan

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 12#Turkishmenistan

My Malaysia

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 Wong Kew-Lit. --BDD (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No plausible target and this particular term certainly does not refer to the current target. - TheChampionMan1234 03:02, 31 July 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.

I-net

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 procedural close. Converted to a disambiguation page. Being a bit bold myself and closing early! (non-admin closure) —Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly retarget to iiNet, as I couldn't think of any other possibility, there are several other non-notable topics by that name. - TheChampionMan1234 02:59, 31 July 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.

Internet Options

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) 16:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGUIDE - TheChampionMan1234 02:56, 31 July 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.

How mobilephones work?

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) 16:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTFAQ. - TheChampionMan1234 02:46, 31 July 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.

Summary of trojan 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. Jenks24 (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that this is misleading. In a sense, any article is or contains a summary of the topic. So a reader specifically searching for this term may be looking for something more specific, along the lines of the excellent Introduction to evolution.

There are other redirects like this, but I'm not going to review them all right now. Summary of 6teen episodes seems fine since the target contains summaries of episodes, but many others, I suspect, have the same problem as the Trojan War one. BDD (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:29, 31 July 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.

Rekt

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) 14:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't internet slang; it's a meme for the word "wrecked". Steel1943 (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 31 July 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.

Namgyong

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 the first three to Names of Seoul, keep the last one. --BDD (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's linked (not piped) from Seoul#Etymology, but oddly not from Names of Seoul. Suppose then that it should be retargeted to Seoul as an alternate name, although that makes it a circular redirect. Doesn't seem to be in use anywhere else, but certainly a WP:SURPRISE clicking on a historic name for Seoul and ending up at Nanjing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch; I agree it should be either retargeted to Seoul or deleted. Sideways713 (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 31 July 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.

Chonjin

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, delete, and keep, respectively. --BDD (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 31 July 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.

Sanghae

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 Dongmyeong of Goguryeo. --BDD (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 31 July 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.

Beiching

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, delete, delete, and delete, respectively. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 31 July 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.

Tongkyong

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 Gyeongju. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 31 July 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.

Is God real?

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 10#Is God real?

Jumpy

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 procedural close. WP:IAR close here. I created the redirect, but have since converted to a disambiguation page, which seems to go in line with the nominator's rationale anyways. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May not be a reasonable redirect, as the page's name is an adjective that can reasonably be construed to have other meanings, and is not specific to the redirect target. MopSeeker FoxThree! 00:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I mean seriously, can this discussion be closed? (WP:IAR?) This redirect was nominated a mere minute or two after I created it. I didn't even have time to realize that I made a mistake. Steel1943 (talk) 00:56, 31 July 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