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, default to keep. Deryck C. 17:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• American Samoa (U.S. state) → American Samoa  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• U.S. Virgin Islands (U.S. state) → United States Virgin Islands  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Here are a couple redirects that are misleading. American Samoa is not a U.S. State. Having the redirect might cause someone to think that it is a state, so let's not spread that misinformation. The new tool shows 4 hits in the last 90 days. Also nominating one other redirect for the same reasons. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to vote delete simply based on the fear that these will spread misinformation, though I am also sympathetic to the possibility that a reader who is unfamiliar with the nuances of U.S. political subdivisions may think that these are "states" and then search for these articles based on that false assumption. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic too, but I think it's implausible that someone would search in that fashion, so it's not something to worry about. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to 51st state where the statehood possibilities for these territories are detailed. (and especially the USVI could be incorporated into PRUSVI if Puerto Rico becomes a state) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to 51st state per above. MB298 (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Tavix, there's also Guam (U.S. state), Northern Mariana Islands (U.S. state), and Puerto Rico (U.S. state). Thoughts on those? I could see the argument that the incorrect/unnecessary disambiguation is especially unlikely for these two since their names already have America/U.S. --BDD (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was my line of thought, along with because they were created by the same person at the same time. If these were to be deleted, my plan was to go through the rest of them and go from there. District of Columbia (U.S. state) redirects to District of Columbia statehood movement, for example, which seems different enough (to me) to nominate it separately. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as misleading and unlikely search phrases (0.3 daily views and 0.01 daily views on average, respectively). I recognize that the statehood possibilities for these territories are covered in the article 51st state, but anyone typing these page titles will easily find the actual article American Samoa and the redirect U.S. Virgin Islands, respectively, before the nominated pages. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and tag with ((R from incorrect disambiguation)). Many of our non-American readers—and probably a fair number of American ones—won't be aware of the distinction between US states and territories. Per the comments above, I understand how these seem less likely than for Guam, Puerto Rico, or the NMIs, but I still think the most likely desired topic if someone uses these search terms is the territories themselves. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  You're probably right about the lack of awareness of the distinction between a US state and territory, but that is irrelevant in the case of a redirect from a disambiguated title to an undisambiguated one... anyone typing American Samoa (U.S. state) will see the actual article American Samoa long before they finish typing the full name of this redirect. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that's not the only way readers find articles. They may follow external links or type URLs directly, for example. Personally, I do direct URLs sometimes, but more often use a Chrome browser plugin to query the search engine. It doesn't give suggestions for autofill. I appreciate the improvements to the MediaWiki search, but we shouldn't assume it's the only way readers will navigate the encyclopedia. --BDD (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People can search in multiple ways, but I think the more relevant question would be if people are actually searching using these terms. It'd be one thing if this was a common occurrence, then I'd agree with you, BDD. However, it boggles my mind why someone would want to keep around blatant error to possibly help someone once every 90 or so days. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per BDD. Steel1943 (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, per Black Falcon (though anything else does not hurt either) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabla (talk • contribs) 21:11, 26 March 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 Retarget to Trump (surname). [Additional comments.] –Davey2010^Talk 12:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr. Trump → Donald Trump  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Same issue as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 2#Ms. Rodham. Eric Trump, Fred Trump, Frederick Trump..... Bad title for disambiguation. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump on The Apprentice was frequently referred to as Mr. Trump, and this is a valid search term. Generally it refers to Donald Trump and not to any of his male relatives. MB298 (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Trump (surname) where various misters Trump are listed -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Trump (surname), per the IP comment above. A practical and sensible move.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Retarget to Trump (surname) per above. The Mr. is a bit off for me --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 2#Ms. Rodham. I'd support a keep over retarget because I feel that Donald Trump is the primary topic of those with the name. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an ambiguous redirect. I could understand retargeting to Trump (surname) if the redirect was heavily used; however, it is not, and I see no value in having Mr. X, Ms. X, Mrs. X, Dr. X, etc., redirects to each X (surname) article. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CHEAP and it does refer to people of this surname, for which the surname article will list the notable people by this name -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 07:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's true, and if there was any indication that it was being even moderately used, I would agree that the redirect should be kept. However, it is not used, and someone searching for "Mr. Trump" will just as easily arrive at the disambiguation page, with no need for "Mr. Trump" or any variations thereof ("Mr X", "Mister X", "Sir X", "Hon. X", "Dr. X", "Prof. X", etc.). WP:CHEAP is basically a long-winded way of saying "meh" and, therefore, carries no weight in my opinion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per MB298, retarget to Trump (surname) as second choice. --BDD (talk) 17:02, 19 March 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Criteria and indicators → Sustainable forest management  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Criteria and indicators could refer to anything. Redirecting to Sustainable forest management seems to violate the principle of WP:SURPRISE. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this absolutely could refer to anything. It seems to be a reference to Criteria & Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoudLizard (talk • contribs)

Comment @LoudLizard: I'd agree with you except this redirect was created in 2006! I can't believe it has lasted so long! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @WikiDan61: I did see that it's very old. I don't understand why it has remained in this state either. LoudLizard (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Criteria & Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management. It's a reasonable shortening of a long title, and as far as I know, there's no other article for which this would be a reasonable search target. Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Nyttend: Since Criteria & Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management should be moved to Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management (a move request that I have to put in process), then having criteria and indicators as a search target is pointless, since typing that phrase in the search box would automatically bring up the longer title per the auto-complete process. And we still have the problem that the phrase "criteria and indicators" could refer to literally any criteria and indicators, and should not automatically redirect to such a specific target. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As stated above, it's just far too vague of a concept to relate to such a specific topic. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. This is an ambiguous and unlikely search phrase (0.2 daily views on average), and also unhelpful per WikiDan61's reasoning. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Criteria & Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management. Yes, it appears to be a vague or common concept, but according to my search, this specific phrase overwhelmingly refers to Sustainable Forest Management, of which the phrase appears to be a common shorthand. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete WP:ASTONISH this is not solely or primarily or majorly a forest management topic. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:42, 17 March 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 keep. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Zhang Yu'an (television personality) → Zhang Yu'an  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As redundant. Only one person called Zhang Yu'an (张玉安) has him article on this Wikipedia. Dabao qian (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right, there's only one, but he is a television personality, so put ((R from unnecessary disambiguation)) and keep it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unhelpful/unnecessary redirect. Redirects created as a result of page moves do not need to be nominated for deletion. However, now that this one has been, there is no compelling reason to keep it since the move history is preserved in the edit history of the target page (diff). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:CHEAP and the redirect is correct -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:42, 16 March 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 Speedily deleted. (non-admin closure) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Dickebusch Old Military Cemetery 1848255324.jpg → File:Dickebusch Old Military Commonwealth War Graves Commission Cemetery entrance stone.jpg  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This file redirect is currently shadowing an almost identical file (commons:File:Dickebusch Old Military Cemetery 1848255324.jpg) which has higher resolution than the current redirect target. Recommend that the redirect be deleted so that the Commons file displays instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I tagged the redirect with ((Db-redircom)). Seems to apply. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 13 March 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 keep. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Maintenance chemotherapy → Chemotherapy  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, since they are no synonyms, and the article on chemotherapy has an internal link to maintenance chemotherapy, which should not redirect to it. RekishiEJ (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep link but remove link in chemotherapy to "maintencance chemotherapy" (which I have done). Maintencance chemo is simply a type of chemo. It is not anything special and is not significant enough for its own article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Doc James and tag with ((R from subtopic)). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:10, 14 March 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 retarget to History of Wikipedia. Thanks everyone (non-admin closure) sst✈ 16:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Creator of Wikipedia → Jimmy Wales  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:XY. Can refer to either Jimmy Wales or Larry Sanger. sst✈ 03:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to History of Wikipedia which pretty much covers it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to History of Wikipedia per Oiyarbepsy above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to History of Wikipedia the most sensible and rational option here. — Cirt (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to History of Wikipedia per above.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:42, 12 March 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Muslim forces terror in Sarajevo → Bosnian War  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I had nominated the article for CSD. It has no substantial history. An administrator redirected the same to Bosnian war. Chiefly, I view the title of the redirect as going against Wikipedia's WP:NPOV guidelines on article naming. The term Muslim forces deliberately paints a negative shade on overall Muslims, and attempts to reinforce a POV term like terror. To super-emphasise "Muslim forces terror in Sarajevo", while also being grammatically incorrect, would justify the existence of religion based redirects (aka, Christian forces terror in Iraq). Moreover, the actual Bosnian War witnessed "the ethnic cleansing of the Bosniak Muslim and Croat population" (as per the Bosnian War article) rather than vice versa. Requesting deletion of this redirect. Xender Lourdes (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is not acceptable even as a redirect. WP:RNEUTRAL would normally apply, but it explicitly says that the exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, which is precisely the case here. GregorB (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Redirects are not expected to be always NPOV, but this is just plain unhelpful because the terminology isn't used like this. Who in the media refers to alleged Islamic militants as "Muslim forces terror"? That would be like referring to Wikipedia as "Pedia Wiki Internet" or the U.S. Republican Party as "Party American Republican". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:01, 18 March 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Turkishpedia → Turkish Airlines  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no such thing, and all the search results from Google are virtually wikipedia mirrors. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a confusing and unlikely search for Turkish Airlines (0.2 daily views on average, mostly connected with this nomination), and consider recreating (without the current page history) as a redirect to Turkish Wikipedia. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:19, 19 March 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Airlineschina → China Airlines  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term, I think it is more plausible for Air China than anything else, but delete nevertheless, as Airlines china doesn't exist. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to List of airlines of China. sst✈ 04:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If it doesn't exist, neither should a redirect for it.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an ambiguous and unlikely search term (0.2 daily views on average). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:56, 14 March 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 keep. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mac Cory (Another World) → Mac Cory  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. A new page was recently created but, rather than creating it with the Mac Cory re-direct already in existence, a new Mac Cory (Another World) page was created. With no other "Mac Cory" pages, however, there's no need to disambiguate (also making it a highly unlikely search term as the much simpler "Mac Cory" is already the page name). The page name has already been corrected and I have already corrected all the pages linking to the incorrect re-direct.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:CHEAP this is redirect is correct, it is a character from "Another World" -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice if people would actually read before commenting... lolCebr1979 (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did read your nomination. There was nothing there to explain why it should be deleted. The redirect is correct, the target is a character from Another World. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Cebr1979 Normal practice is to keep it and put ((R from unnecessary disambiguation)) on it. There's no reason to delete it that I can see. If there was a huge copyvio or attack page in the page history, I might say to delete it and recreate as a redirect, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Oiyarbepsy is right that there is no compelling need to delete, as it is generally not necessary to update incoming links to a redirect except when those links are from disambiguation pages or templates, or perhaps through the course of normal editing. However, there is also no compelling reason to keep this unhelpful/unnecessary redirect now that it has been nominated and the move history is preserved at the target article (diff). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:54, 14 March 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.