This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 10, 2016.
- 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 Bickyburger and refine to Hamburger#Other, retarget the others to Jef, respectively. Looks like we're unanimous here, so I'll move things along. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These hamburger varieties aren't mentioned at the target article or included at List of hamburgers. The bickyburger is apparently Belgian; the Japanese ones are mentioned at Jef, a Japanese restaurant, but retargeting there would be like redirecting Chicken sandwich to Chick-fil-A. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I may have spoken too soon. The history of the Japanese burgers shows stubs that describe them as Jef products. If they're exclusive to or primarily identified with Jef, retargeting there could make sense after all. Jef says the burgers are made with "homemade Okinawan specialties", which initially led me to believe that these are just Okinawan variants. I'll ping WikiProject Japan. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect latter three to Jef; keep redirect for Bickyburger. The Bickyburger could probably have a section of its own under Hamburger#Variations based on these sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]. I've added some details on the burger with some sources to get things started. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget latter three to Jef - I have reviewed the ja.wp entry and agree that it's a better target.
No opinion on the first one at the moment, will switch to keep if I JethroBT makes the proposed change. Deryck C. 22:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Refine Bickyburger to Hamburger#Other countries per I JethroBT's recent edit. Deryck C. 21:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This all sounds good to me. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 18 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.
- 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. Consider yourselves notified, and comment at the RM if desired. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect is implicitly being discussed in Talk:RI_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_9_January_2016 PamD 12:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Close Just leave a message at Talk:RI and/or Talk:Rhode Island telling people not to comment there but instead at the existing RM discussion. Opening an RFD in parallel to the RM will have precisely the effect that you want to avoid: it causes the discussion to be split and in the worst case you end up with two discussion with different consensuses. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 13:17, 10 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.
Israeli involvement in the Guatemalan Civil War
[edit]
- 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✈ 12:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletion of the redirect, as it was created for the sole purpose of exaggerating Israeli role in the Guatemalan Civil War with no proper sourcing. Some users even tagged the redirect as "Wars involving Israel", though not even US is tagged as involved (even though it was really active in Guatemala, unlike Israel or Taiwan or Argentina), raising the issue of DUE:WEIGHT. There are no results for searching "Israeli involvement" in "Guatemalan Civil War" on Google Books, while there are plenty results for "US involvement"; we also don't have "involvement" results for neither Argentina nor Taiwan. Israel is one of the top 10 global manufacturers and suppliers of weapons, but it doesn't mean that if Israeli weapons are used - it is automatically "involved" in the war, especially is the sales are made by private firms rather than by the government. Same applies for Russia, which is not involved in all wars using AK47s and for US, which is not automatically involved in all wars using M16s, etc. GreyShark (dibra) 06:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the redirect with all its categories. Please Greyshark, could you leave the redirect in its actual state until the end of the discussion ? No need to manipulate here: just read [5] and the overwhelming role of Israel in the Guatemalan Civil War becomes crystal-clear. Stefanomione (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep This sounds like a content dispute. As long as there's an "Israeli involvement" section at the target article, this redirect is obviously useful. If there's consensus for your position, the article should be rewritten accordingly, at which time it might be appropriate to delete the redirect. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per BDD, but without prejudice to a renomination iff consensus is that there the section regarding Israeli support/involvement at the target article is removed or significantly reduced. Thryduulf (talk) 03:06, 12 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.