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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• TYPES OF ADVERTISING → Advertising  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I understand that most redirects like this are WP:CHEAP, but is this all-caps version of a title which isn't even a title match for the target article really necessary? (For the record, its lowercase variant, Types of advertising, already exists.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MB298 (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per criterion R3. Jdcomix (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:45, 26 September 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) 19:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Super Mario Storyline → Super Mario  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems that I missed this one back in May of this year. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 13#Storyline of the Mario series; my rationale remains unchanged. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There isn't an article that covers the storyline, or warrants a capital S to Storyline. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Mario (franchise)#Plot and themes. As it exists at the moment, the "plot and themes" subsection needs a lot of work, but redirecting readers there may encourage editors to expand and add material. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:48, 26 September 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) 19:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I deleted List of African states by the date they succumbed to European imperialism corollary to this discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• List of African territories and states by the date they succumbed to European imperialism → List of African territories and states by date of colonization  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is not WP:NPOV (and the edit history of the move that created this redirect almost 10 years ago states this as well.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems an unlikely search term Atlantic306 (talk).
• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is awkward wording to say the least, and I agree that this just isn't helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and tag as ((R from non-neutral name)). Redirects don't have to have neutral titles, and there is nothing wrong with redirects having lengthy titles. Pppery 12:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the wording is neutral or non-neutral isn't the issue. It's that this is worded in a clumsy way that is unlikely for people to actually type in. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an implausible search term. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:46, 26 September 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) 19:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative advertising → Advertising  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The term of the redirect does not seem defined in the target article, so the connection could be seen as misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too vague. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As it stands, this isn't right. I also believe that the concept of socially transgressive advertising appealing to the counter-culture is a notable enough topic on its own, so that makes this a case of WP:REDLINK as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:54, 24 September 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) 19:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Manufactured demand → Advertising  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Associating the redirect to Advertising seems misleading and probably erroneous. This term of this redirect seems more associated with other subjects such as the September 11th, 2001 gas price hikes in the United States or any activity that could inaccurately raise a company's stock value. Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like it was kept in case there would be a potential article, but given that Advertising does not even discuss this topic, it is better it be redilnked so people can create the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This term is usually linked with either direct financial fraud or indirect dishonest commercial behavior (I'm reminded of the Manufacturing Consent book, which is famous enough that I know of it without having read it). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to Demand (which includes a section about demand management) or delete per AngusWOOF. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:51, 26 September 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) 19:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Billboard (television) → Advertising  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect seems confusing and possibly misleading. It seems that all billboards are advertising, but billboards are more known to be big large signs usually posted on roadways. For this reason, I also don't think there is a good retargeting option for this redirect either. Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is not a television brand. There are Digital billboards, Video walls, and Large-screen television technology. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:53, 25 September 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) 19:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• List of advertising clichés → Advertising  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of Advertising Cliches → Advertising  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of advertising cliches → Advertising  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Advertising cliches → Advertising  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Such a list or subject seems to be absent from the target article; if fact, the word "cliche" or "cliché" seems to be completely absent from the target article. (Note: All of these redirects formerly targeted List of advertising clichés [with the exception of the formerly-mentioned redirect] when it was a article.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no list at target article Atlantic306 (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A can of original research as with List of film and television clichés. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:32, 23 September 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) 19:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters/Family tree of House Targaryen → Family tree of House Targaryen  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect was created when its target article was moved to its current title in 2014. The target article was created in 2013, meaning that the target is not old enough to be eligible for ((R with old history)). With this being said, the redirect is a possibly-misleading, malformed WP:SUBPAGE-style redirect that is not a subpage since it's in the article namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no such style. Perhaps it was from a userfied page? It's no longer useful in the regular Wikipedia space. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:22, 27 September 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• List of AWS devices → List of AWS-1 devices  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The use of the acronym "AWS" in regards to devices is ambiguous per the multiple possible subjects at AWS which could have devices made by or for them, including Apple Workgroup Server. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 22 September 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 dabify. --BDD (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• AWS-1 → Marine Air Control Squadron 1  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, making the connection unclear. Alternate searches seems to connect the redirect to the subject in Advanced Wireless Services, but the term's not mentioned there either. Steel1943 (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The acronym is listed in the History section of the article. Squadron was first designated as Air Warning Squadron 1 (AWS-1).Looper5920 (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, this term may need to be disambiguated then. (I noticed that the "AWS-1" term was added back into its current target.) After performing a bit more research, "AWS-1" seems to also be the name for a range of radio frequencies designated for use for Advanced Wireless Services; see LTE frequency bands. Steel1943 (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per the above, noting the existence of List of AWS-1 devices. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:44, 2 October 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) 13:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• List of AVA → List of American Viticultural Areas  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect is ambiguous, considering the multiple subjects listed at AVA using the acronym which this redirect could refer. Steel1943 (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retrget to AVA, which is a list of things that are called "AVA." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I would prefer delete over retargeting to AVA, since search results seem more useful in my opinion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tavix. — Gorthian (talk) 17:23, 2 October 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 no consensus. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What if It All Means Something (song) → What If It All Means Something  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Relatively little information about the song itself is discussed in the target, and I can't find information other than the lyrics relating to the song itself rather than the album. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Unnecessary disambiguation as there are no other articles with this title. Also not clear if "if" should be in caps or not. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @AngusWOOF: I came across this about a week ago and was unsure if it was appropriate or not. Now thanks to your comment on the Trump redirects, I now know how not every track in an album needs a redirect. I came across it when I added an entry to Turn (not delete) the Page and Miss April to the article on the album, now I'm beginning to wonder if even that is appropriate. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I have never seen the "If" uncapitalized in this context until I spotted this redirect. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's a released single, then of course it can stay. If it's a notable song on a track, like it gets covered in reviews or receives airplay on major stations, then don't mind it as much. Titles that are common to multiple artists can go on the disambiguation page; not sure if those need a redirect but if they are notable, then maybe retain those too. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The album article claims that the title track is one of its released singles, but there's no source to back it up. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Typical ((R from song)); this is how we treat NN songs. If anything, being notable would make for a stronger deletion case because you could say REDLINK. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per BDD. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:18, 27 September 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) 17:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Voiding → Urination  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This seems to be too specific a target for it. Came across it on the DAB page void where someone has helpfully also linked it to excretion but it has other meanings, such as the act of declaring a result void. Suggest retargeting to void. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to void as news articles use it like cancelling. like voiding a contract or permit. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voiding is also a term used on electronics manufacturing. [1] [2] [3] all of which can support directing to void which has definitions under the "In science and engineering" section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to void. Voiding has lots of meanings. Margalob (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to void. per AngusWOOF and Margalob--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Voiding" does not belong on the dab page void at all. There are ten articles that link to it (all medical), and there is heavy use (for a redirect). If it must be retargeted to the dab page, first fix the article links, then add urination to the dab. — Gorthian (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, there is another more "common" meaning, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Don't fall into the dictionary definition trap. Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (Voiding (law)) (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics, e.g. Voiding a contract, Voiding a transaction, Voiding a permit), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) than linguistic concerns. We do have a couple of articles that cover this other meaning: Void (law) and Voidable (e.g. voidable marriage). The term voiding isn't used in the former, and appears twice in the latter: (1) in the hatnote linking to urination, I suppose in case someone is searching for a bladder which is "voidable" or full, and (2) in a simple definition of voiding the contract. Duh. I note that the equivalent term in the UK and Australia, avoiding, is a red link. I challenge you to show me more of those "other meanings" that we'll surely find at Void (disambiguation). "Voiding" space to create a cosmic void? "Voiding" a composite material to create a higher void content? "Voiding" a container to create a vacuum? Anything else I'm missing? Lacking evidence of any other topic besides the dictionary definition for legally voiding something, which we can hatnote to, urination is the primary topic because it is virtually the only encyclopedic topic for the term. I know everyone calls this tinkling, peeing, weeing, whizzing or pissing, and few, including me up until a few minutes ago, know what micturition is (definition, it's another word for voiding), but that's not a valid reason to piss on the encyclopedia by retargeting this to a disambiguation which is almost useless for this purpose. Related topics: Voiding cystourethrogram · Scheduled voiding · Post-void dribbling · Learned voiding dysfunction – wbm1058 (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the string "voiding" occurs just once on the lengthy void disambiguation page: buried in the Other uses section. "Void" is a noun; it's a thing. "Voiding" is a verb; it's an action. There is a difference. wbm1058 (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Disambiguation § Combining terms on disambiguation pages talks of combining terms which differ by capitalization, punctuation, diacritic marks, singular, plural and possessive forms, compound words, and variant spellings and forms of names. It does not suggest combining nouns and verbs. wbm1058 (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Correcting myself. Per wikt:voiding, voiding can be either a verb or a noun, and actually, the primary usage, as a synonym of urination, it as a noun (as is urination). wbm1058 (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @AngusWOOF: Congratulations, you are the first to answer my challenge. I see that Indium Corporation's website has extensive coverage of voiding in electronics assembly – which could mean electronic packaging or voiding in die attachment (integrated circuit packaging), voiding in solder paste, BGA voiding, BTC voiding, QFN voiding and mixed alloy voiding. So where is Wikipedia's coverage of these topics? The void disambiguation leaves much to be desired in this regard. Electronic packaging § Potting talks about "filling all voids", "void-free potting" and "collapsing voids", but doesn't use the term "voiding". Does "voiding" mean creating voids or removing them? Are we talking about vacuums here? The vacuum article is not helpful in answering this question, as the term "voiding" is not used in that article. Anyhow these uses might call for the creation of Voiding (disambiguation), if we could actually find topics to link to from that. The table at Injection moulding § Moulding defects has a moulding defect called [[Cavitation|Voids]]. Cavitation is the formation of vapour cavities in a liquid – i.e. small liquid-free zones ("bubbles" or "voids"). "Empty space" within part (or an "air pocket", which is not a vacuum). But neither injection moulding nor cavitation nor void (composites) uses the term "voiding". – wbm1058 (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picture the circuit wire like a bike lane and there's a huge pothole in the middle of it or some pile of leaves. That's your void. It can also be used in those electronic connectors and wires where they clear out room around a connector so it doesn't touch the sides. Either way, it's related to making voids. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're thinking of signal traces on printed circuit boards. Perhaps that is a valid application of the term "voiding", but the term isn't used in the printed circuit board article. It does mention "leaving voids"... "in the materials". So "voiding" could mean either:

* Filling in undesired "potholes" in traces, or

* Creating voids between traces to avoid shorting traces together? wbm1058 (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion of electronics is interesting, but it still misses the point that after searching 15 pages deep in "voiding", my results are dominated by the medical usage, with some pages on voiding documents, test scores, warranties, patents, receipts and checks, etc. thrown in. You need to specifically search for "voiding electronics" to easily find webpages on that topic, such as Voiding Control for QFN Assembly, and our QFN article doesn't mention "void", much less "voiding". Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic. This electronics usage of the term simply isn't covered by Wikipedia. wbm1058 (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to void. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wbm1058 and hatnote to void. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Urination seems by far the most common use of void as a verb. I think the dabnote at the target page is effective to get readers to the right page if they were looking for the legal term or some other use of void as a verb. WJBscribe (talk) 16:00, 3 October 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 blood type. There's not much of a consensus, but it's probably the only way this can be closed given the discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Red cell antigens → Glycosphingolipid  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm admittedly no expert in biology, but something doesn't seem right here with this redirect pointing towards its current target. In a nutshell, the term "red cell antigen" is mentioned nowhere in the target article, and via search engines, I am failing to establish a connection between the two terms. In addition, the article Human red cell antigens exists (possible retargeting option.) (Anyone who feels up to participating in this discussion has my permission to ping whatever WikiProjects or possible experts regarding this.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Human red cell antigensBlood type which seems to be the most relevant article this should point to. The majority of times these antigens are talked about it is in relation to us humans and our blood type, and I think this will be what most readers are actually trying to look for.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsure - I think there is more to this than blood type, unless you are including Rh. I am not medically trained but have previously tried to understand red blood cell antibody, since it applies to family members. The redirect, I agree, isn't helpful, and the Red cell antigen article might be closer, except it really just confused me more. So here is my understanding of red blood cell antibody, in case it helps anyone. It can be cause by a blood transfusion but in these days it more usually arises from a pregnancy when the mother is Rh-negative, the father is Rh-positive and the baby inherits an Rh-positive rhesus factor. Essentially the woman develops a sensitivity to the Rh+ factor, essentially an allergy, and the baby can also be affected in ways I did not research because they did not apply. I am told that this is not an issue unless the woman has another Rh-positive baby in another pregnancy, or perhaps needs a blood transfusion in surgery, in which case more careful matching than usual is required. Did I see that in any of those articles, no. I realize this is anecdotal evidence and not RS but this is what doctors have told me and I think it is at least somewhat accurate, and may shed a *little* light on the subject. hth - I think you need a hematology expert, or possibly an obstetrician will have some knowledge This might help esp p481ff Elinruby (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have informed Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology of this discussion with a notification on its talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator comment: I suppose if participation is lacking in this discussion, the "no consensus" option may be to move Human red cell antigens over the nominated redirect. (I don't necessarily support this option, but with the current setup and since it seems that the current target may be erroneous per previous comments in this discussion and since it seems that there are no other pages or redirects that don't target one of the aforementioned pages in this discussion that include the phrase "red cell antigen", this seems like the option since Human red cell antigens may be an overly-WP:PRECISE title.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget Blood type. The blood type article explains that blood types are distinguished by antigens on red blood cells and this is useful to ensure safe transfusion. I think this target provides the information that the prospective reader is looking for. Deryck C. 15:12, 5 October 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) 14:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• アップル → Apple Inc.  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not particularly Japanese. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The Japanese Interwiki is jp:アップル (企業). The first part of that, before the parens, matches this, as katakana for Apple. The second part in the parens is han for ("company, enterprise") roughly - gtrans detects it as chinese since I just did a double check for it, that would be normal for a very short run of kan. The stalling point is that foreign words are usually written in the katakana, as アップル is, but native words are written in hiragana and han, as 企業 is. (Han is quite easy, you can see that is a house and that is where people are coming into the house, to make a team, an enterprise, a company. That probably sounds like Ronnie Barker explaining hieroglyphics but once you get the hang of it the script is quite easy, but hard to translate literally). No doubt it is Japanese and the targets tie up. I would say Weak keep because although definitely WP:RFOREIGN I can see this being a likely search term for English readers if they scrape it off their Apple devices, not entirely sure. It is kinda certainly the right target but absolutely WP:NOTENGLISH. Si Trew (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The subject of Apple Japan is perhaps a notable enough thing for its own page (particularly given its business struggles getting reliable source coverage), but that article doesn't exist. Until we have one, then the redirect we're talking about here is a clear-cut case of WP:RFOREIGN. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:57, 24 September 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) 14:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Baton Rouge mayoral election, 2016 → Baton Rouge, Louisiana  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

a very narrow topic (politics x year) within a city referring to the general article about that city seems inappropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I know others disgagree but my general opinion is that of the nominator, taking a specific title to a more-general one is shouting our wares that we have more in the suitcase than we actually have. We should be brave and admit we don't have anything about this specifically; were we brave and ((tlx|R to section]] at Baton Rouge, Louisiana#Mayor-President our readers would find out quicker that we know nothing about it.

It's not the job of RfD to add content but to work out whether redirects to the content we have make sense. This one don't. I checked in case I could scrape from the French article at fr:Baton Rouge, but that is more brief than the English one, so no good there. I haven't checked Spanish yet but Louisiana ain't much Spanish-speaking so I doubt there will be much there. The general form for these are place type of election date, but I am not sure what policy that actually is, it just seems to be how they are usually done. Si Trew (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Implausible search term not likely to be a Wikipedia article anytime soon. The redirect served mainly to prop up a now-deleted category, Category:Baton Rouge mayoral elections. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:30, 26 September 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.