< October 13
October 15 >

October 14

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 14, 2015.

Template:Slash

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 21#Template:Slash

Hugh Adam

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. Thanks to Si for starting an article. --BDD (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Adam was apparently a director of Rangers who died in 2013, but he's not mentioned at their article. At a glance, he's probably notable, so delete per WP:REDLINK (cf. this article, which refers to him as Hugh Adams a few times). --BDD (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IHmm I have a feeling I am turning this into a betting article, which we are sadly very weak on, so it is an article and so on but I better not suggest he was just a bookie (which he was). Si Trew (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I will try to add more sources cos it is single source as it stands. The thing is, my experience is once one does the scaffolding other editors – often new editors, say Rangers fans who have never edited WP before – will bung in once the scaffolding is there. So if you have a prob with the scaffolding please bung in but I bet you all Lombard-street to a China orange this will get filled out with content now the scaffolding is in place. I will try to do better rather than just the single source from The Scotsman but the way to get started is to get started. WP:NOTPERFECT, WP:NOTFINISHED. Had a fag break and try to add some more references and fill in. Si Trew (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Got one more reference, I think notable. Si Trew (talk) 10:47, 15 October 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.

World team

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. Really nice work on that. --BDD (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term "World Team" does not appear on the page this redirect points to. LukeSurl t c 15:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey, 70.51, two of us in one day making articles out of R's. I'll go with 70.51's stub under the R, although I don't know how to !vote for that... Convert to list article or set index as 70.51 already has'. Si Trew (talk) 14:27, 15 October 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.

Neo-Mugwumps

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. Deryck C. 10:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a novel or very obscure synonym for "Republican in Name Only". In fact, as defined by one of the only decent sources I could find on the term, it means something completely different. BDD (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apparently created this redirect in 2006, and I have no idea why. The Moose is loose! 19:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify? The source says Neo-Mugwumps are "those who are always trying to 'reform' politics to make it cleaner and more professional." What exactly would that correspond to? --BDD (talk) 13:49, 15 October 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.

New Muslim

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. Deryck C. 10:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain how common a search term this would be, or what a reader would be searching for if using it. Way back in 2004, it was a "substub" describing converts to Islam. Presumably children born into an Islamic household are also "new Muslims", though. I could also see this referring to Islamic revival. Simply redirecting to Islam does not seem helpful. --BDD (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:18, 14 October 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.

List of official names of the states of the USA

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. Things looked to be leaning towards deletion on the last one. It might make sense to discuss it separately, though probably best to wait a while first. --BDD (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the current target doesn't give the "official" names of the states, just their common names. -- Tavix (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does - see footnotes D through H. Neutralitytalk 02:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It just lists the official name for a few states, and does it in a sneaky manner. It could cause confusion for those wanting a list of every state's official name. I'm also not too sure how plausible it would be to look this up in the first place, but I'll leave it at that. -- Tavix (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The ones in the footnotes are the Commonwealth of ___ etc. Everything else is simply State of ____. Neutralitytalk 02:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the article doesn't go into detail about that, so it's confusing. It also doesn't take into account "official" names in other languages, such as Hawaii's official name in Hawaiian, New Mexico's official name in Spanish, or Louisiana's official name in French. -- Tavix (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those official names might be (perhaps should be) added to the target page at some point, though. (Back in '08, before List of official names of the U.S. states was a redirect, that page included the official names, including the Hawaiian/Spanish/French ones). Neutralitytalk 22:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reasonable idea. -- Tavix (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harmless, reasonably plausible search term (in terms of Google, etc). This page also has a significant page history. Neutralitytalk 02:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:11, 14 October 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.

Goux, Fernand

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 Fernand Goux. We don't need a full RFD to figure this one out. I will, however, add ((R from sort name)). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a relevant redirect. Not mentioned at List of last surviving World War I veterans by country. Based on this comment there was some use (possibly the name of someone who was alive at some point) but I can't figure it out based on that time period. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 14 October 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.

American Sign Language language

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 per WP:SNOW.(non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete, redundant. -- Tavix (talk) 04:38, 14 October 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.

Edmeades, Douglas C.

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) 15:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded redirect with no reason for creation. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 03:23, 14 October 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.

Riverside, Mississippi

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 Riverside#United States. --BDD (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This place, "Riverside", in Washington County, Mississippi, does not exist. It's not in GNIS, and a Google search brings back nothing. It's not listed in Dunbar Rowland's "Mississippi: Comprising Sketches of Counties, Towns, Events, Institutions, and Persons, Arranged in Cyclopedic Form", the source on all old Mississippi settlements. Deleting it will save another editor from wasting time trying to find it. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I would support that, except the stats show there's something using this, so we should point it somewhere. On that note I'll go with BDD and say retarget to Riverside#United States, and that section can list your new pages when they're live. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:43, 17 October 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.

Revolution Wii

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) 15:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. sstflyer alt 01:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True the system was code named Revolution and changed to Wik but Nintendo never use Revolution Wii as the codename.--64.229.166.187 (talk) 01:58, 17 October 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.

RevolutionWii

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) 15:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. sstflyer alt 01:17, 14 October 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.

Wii Revolution

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) 15:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. sstflyer alt 01:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsy: just checking, my !vote on this one was delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Thanks, got mixed up because of Revolution Wii, as I wrote them at the same time. I've updated my !vote accordingly. Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Revolution was but Wii Revolution was not.--64.229.166.187 (talk) 02:01, 17 October 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.

WiiRevolution

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) 15:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. sstflyer alt 01:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus on another day that the Wii redirects should be separated. Which is frustrating but probably ultimately for the best. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:18, 14 October 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.

Proposed merger of Anheuser-Busch and InBev

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, and I don't think a relisting would be very helpful. Certainly the redirect is outdated, but it's still proving useful. While the "proposed" could confuse a reader using this term, it's also fairly clear from the target page's content—let alone its name—what happened. --BDD (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an outdated redirect. This isn't a proposed merger, it actually happened. -- Tavix (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it was proposed at one time, and the merger is discussed at the target, although not in any great detail. Why break links for no reason? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I already gave my reasons and I stand behind them because I feel that's a strong enough case why this should be deleted. Like I said, the links can be fixed if it's a big enough deal. -- Tavix (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I respect that. The type of link I referred to is one from outside the encyclopedia, which we can't fix. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've always wondered about external links being broken when deleting redirects. It's something I see mentioned often enough on here, but I've never seen any evidence of it. It's something you could apply to any redirect with some age to it and if you apply it everywhere, we wouldn't be able to delete anything past a certain age (and I'm not sure anyone is advocating that). I guess I just feel like it's kind of out of our scope to make sure all external sites are up to date because if those sites aren't managed properly, there'll be link rot anyway. I guess I'm in the minority on this issue, but I remain unconvinced. I appreciate the respect though. -- Tavix (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope Tavix, I've never believed in the "external link rot" theory either ... at least since the moment I found Hujk and nominated it for RFD. This redirect currently appropriately targets a sports team's article, but for some unknown reason, it previously targeted Nintendo. In fact, if one goes to some third-party dictionary sites even today and look up the term "Hujk", the site will tell the reader that it means "Nintendo". In my opinion, Wikipedia cannot be the foundation for third-party sites' "correctness", especially those sites who seem to do nothing but mirror whatever Wikipedia has at some specific time, but then never update themselves. And in your nominated redirect's case ... this is ridiculous. Steel1943 (talk) 03:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with both of you on this, but we must balance against the principle of doing the least harm. We can tell if a redirect is getting hits externally by the stats tool. If an old R from page move is not getting hits then we delete it, but this one has activity. I agree that the incoming link is ridiculous but we can't control it, and it's doing fairly little harm. I think in this case that deleting it is more harmful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:25, 15 October 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