< April 10
April 12 >

April 11

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 11, 2017.

Dance of the Sugar-Plum Fairy.rmi

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 all. There is a clear consensus to delete the unabbreviated ones. The abbreviated ones are a closer call, but ultimately I find the arguments for deleting them stronger. Thryduulf (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a file, but neither these redirects nor their targets are files. -- Tavix (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... But that doesn't explain why these would be plausible as redirects. As far as I can tell, that dictionary isn't even notable, so it's not like there's anywhere that discusses these files. -- Tavix (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: But canyon.mid and passport.mid are also available as redirects.--Dabao qian (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which is fine because they're discussed on Wikipedia. Redirects exist to help people find information on what they're looking for. Those two redirects you mention do that. The ones I've nominated do not. -- Tavix (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Worldwide distribution

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 Distribution. Other than "don't keep it as is", there really isn't much of a consensus here. However, it seems like a retarget to Distribution would satisfy the most people here, so that's where it's going to go. -- Tavix (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the current target is too narrow for the broad term "worldwide distribution". The page should be retargeted to another page, like either globalization or Global marketing. Alternative, how about disambiguating it? George Ho (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how sources use the term. Google Books and Google News may explain better than I. --George Ho (talk) 04:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

User:Hemanshu/sandbox239

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. The redirect is clearly broken, but so far everyone who has commented has suggested a different solution to that problem. As a matter of maintenance, I am updating the redirect to point to what is clearly intended to be the correct target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a non-existent target, seemingly invalid target. Nothing besides this in the page history. User has not edited since 2015. G8 doesn't apply to pages in the userspace. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It shows up on User:R'n'B/Redirects and User:Godsy/R to special. -- Tavix (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personal user lists like that do not carry much weight in my opinion, and certainly not enough to justify deletion, as anyone may create any list with any (or no) criteria. Certainly for Godsy's list simply excluding userspace will resolve most of the list. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Red plains texas

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 retarget. After more than a month at RfD and two relistings it seems rather unlikley that further opinions are going to be rapidly forthcoming on this one. It's clear that there is a connection between "Red plains" in Texas and Osage Plains, but there is disagreement about whether there is sufficient information at the target to make a redirect useful, and neither side has made a more convincing argument than the other. So that brings us to no consensus, which normally defaults to keep but nobody here support the status quo, so that really wouldn't be ideal. Retargetting is a softer option than deletion, and deletion without consensus to do so should require exceptional circumstances that I don't see here, so I'll go with a retarget to Osage Plains. I would encourage AngusWOOF and anyone else interested to improve the target article though. Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, connection is unclear, along with incorrect capitalization. -- Tavix (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I oppose a retarget to Osage Plains. -- Tavix (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Rough sex

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) 13:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ungentle intercourse isn't synonymous with BDSM. The redirect has some history that is quite old.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you suggest the term redirect to? There is barely any decent scholarly content on the topic...under that specific name. And when quality sources do discuss rough sex (meaning by using the term rough sex), they usually do discuss it in the context of BDSM. It can refer to different types of sexual activity (not just intercourse). The term could redirect to a section in the Human sexual activity article, if reliable sources are gathered for it, but mention of BDSM would still be in that section. I'll post a note about this discussion at Talk:BDSM. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This probably shouldn't be deleted, but I don't know exactly where it should point at the moment. I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality inviting comment, so hopefully that and Flyer22's note will bring some ideas. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The term is rather vague. I don't know that such an article could consist of much more than a dictionary definition; unless the term has a notable usage, it isn't different than other adjective preceding "sex", e.g. gentle sex, fast sex, or pleasant sex.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Updating !vote to retarget to human sexual activity. Thanks for the correction, Uanfala. -- Tavix (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also be fine with delete. -- Tavix (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mankri

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 restore article. Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a spelling mistake, and even the correct spelling doesn't seem to be in the target article. SorryToDeleteYou (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Actually I don't know if it should be here or at articles for deletion because it used to be an article but not a very good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorryToDeleteYou (talk • contribs) 21:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ottocento

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 disambiguate the consensus in this discussion seems to be that disambiguation should be primary, but this can obviously be discussed on the talk page in future if anyone wants. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a foreign language dictionary, and there is no strong connection between the 19th century and the Italian language. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I almost closed this, but while closing, I noticed that in the discussion, there seems to be a claim that the reference to the 19th century, even with the disambiguation page, may be the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT target (which would move the disambiguation draft to Ottocento (disambiguation) if that is the case.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Asa Seeley

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 as unopposed. -- Tavix (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted. This seems to have been a routine arrest rather than what was reported in places, there is no mention of the redirect subject on the list, and a Google search yields no reliable sources to that effect. I considered a G10 but given the prior AfD and RfD I didn't think it could be justified. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Apostrophectomy

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 soft redirect to Wikt:apostrophectomy. Deletion issues mentioned were WP:NEO and WP:CNR. NEO points to a section titled "the dictionary definition trap" about article content: surely pointing readers looking for a dictionary definition to Wiktionary solves this problem. CNR is solved by soft-redirection. Several of the delete arguments also suggested that the redirect should be kept if there was information about it in an article, but there is information at Thryduulf's Wiktionary entry which seems to invalidate these arguments. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CNR. Someone searching this concept would be surprised or confused to end up at a MoS page. -- Tavix (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Apostrophe#Non-standard English use. I created this redirect specifically for use in edit summaries which is why it shows no incoming links, and deleting it will break these links. But I certainly agree it's not ideal as is (while noting that WP:CNR redirects to the essay at Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects). Andrewa (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (not redirect). I removed it from the proposed target page. It was added to that page today, sourced to Urban Dictionary. Not a reliable source WP:UGC. A google search turned up 1k hits for the word, limited to forums and other similar usage. It's an insignificant neologism. Alsee (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal... it will break the links mentioned, pointlessly IMO as I really don't see the harm it does... and as I pointed out above, nom is based on an essay, not any official guideline or policy. I found it useful in building the encyclopedia, otherwise I would not have created it. But if it makes you happy, delete it. No big deal. Andrewa (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the nom's essay is based on a guideline, WP:R#D6. My apologies for not being clear earlier. -- Tavix (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that strictly speaking that claim is false, but let us not play with words. That new link to a guideline is certainly relevant, thank you for it.
WP:R#06 reads Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (my emphasis)
This redirect is a redirect to the MOS, and is not just potentially useful, it is in use as explained above, and it has existed for two years... perhaps not really longstanding.
I repeat, no big deal. If deleted it will just make my existing edit summaries useless (and I can't change them now), and future edit summaries a few characters longer, but I can easily set up a shortcut in the project namespace, where in hindsight it really belongs. Andrewa (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The exception refers to shortcut redirects with the "MOS:" prefix. Because there is not a MOS namespace, those shortcuts are technically CNRs. -- Tavix (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion seems to still be ongoing, so relisting in the hopes that consensus becomes clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while redirects are inexpensive, some are just plain cheap. The latter are not cost effective, even at the low price; especially when they are hardly used anyway.[5]--John Cline (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hanneke Canters

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 deleted by RickinBaltimore. --BDD (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: I have no idea why RickinBaltimore deleted the redirect under R3 as it was not recently created and created as the result of a page move. That being said, I've carried out a suggestion put forward in this discussion to history split Hanneke Canters from Grace Jantzen. This is without predjudice against WP:AFD if someone still wants to pursue deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete redirect with no direct connection to target article and is confusing. Was once an article ([6]) targeted for AFD. Somehow became a meaningless redirect. Quis separabit? 20:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: How can you recreate an article about Canters under the name Grace Jantzen?? Quis separabit? 00:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean to restore the article about Canters under this title. Thryduulf (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I don't understand, I'm afraid. Right now Canters is a direct redirect to Jantzen. This can't stand. Quis separabit? 13:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal would mean that Hanneke Canters is an article about Hanneke Canters. Grace Jantzen would remain unchanged. It is possible for an admin to split the versions about Canters from those about Jantzen (see WP:HISTSPLIT). Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::: OK. Quis separabit? 15:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf -- what's going on with creating the Hanneke Canters article? If you can't get it done now then withdraw your objection to deleting the Canters redirect. You can always create an article with that name when you get around to it but you can't leave the redirect as it is because it implies that Canters and Jantzen are the same person or somehow intimately connected. Quis separabit? 20:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE: @Thryduulf's Restore article per reasons above. Delete the redirect and just close this thing out. It's not a complicated issue. Quis separabit? 21:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"I am not proposing the redirect be left as is, I agree that the status quo is not suitable." -- CORRECT.
SO? Delete this pestilent redirect and create an article at your leisure. What is the big deal? Quis separabit? 12:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Viruskiller

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) 00:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Term is not spelt this way. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

National Airport

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. There's overwhelming consensus that the DC airport is the primary topic. I advise that if a disambiguation/set index is to be pursued, be sure that other airports are actually known as "National Airport" and aren't partial title matches. -- Tavix (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this suitable as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT? There are many airports named National Airport. Should this be converted into a disambiguation page? feminist 07:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Blade weapon

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 Edged and bladed weapons. Thanks for putting together an article, Cinderella157! -- Tavix (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These should point to the same place. Is there a more appropriate target that describes bladed weapons in general? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Blade#Uses.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some modern weapons are bladed, such as a bayonets or ballistic knives. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still need a consensus on where to redirect these.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Blade(d) weapons are swords, knives and bayonets but not all swords, knives and bayonets are bladed.
Not all blades are weapons. Not all blades are swords, knives and bayonets.
Not all edged weapons are blades. Edged weapons are a larger set that includes axes, poleaxes and other edged weapons.
Sythes etc are tools that are bladed and/or edged, that have been used as improvised as weapons.
Not all bladed or edged weapons are premodern. Bayonets knives and machetes persist in the modern era as do other edged weapons (some improvised) particularly but not limited to trench warfare.
A redirect to premodern weapons is not specific since many are not bladed or edged. It may be better to link to specific headings within the list.
I suggest a short article Edged and bladed weapons with redirects from "Edged weapons" and "Blade(d) weapons". The article would essentially be a disambiguation page, although, I suggest it might be more appropriate for it to be written as a prose article (with multiple links) along the lines of the ideas I have identified, rather than as the more usual format for a disambiguation page.
For consideration Cinderella157 (talk) 08:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See [[7]]
Suggested page - though largely unformatted. Needs links added. I don't think this needs a lot of (or any) referencing per WP:Blue and the fact that it is essentially intended as a redirect.
Hope this is a help and a start. Rome wasn't built in a day and not by one person. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I copyedited it slightly and added some wikilinks. It would need some sourcing; if titled "Edged and bladed weapons", it would at least need a source defining edge[d] and blade[d] weapons. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have sources but they may exist in existing articles. Will have a look. But it is a good foundation? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See [8] re sources.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: since discussion is still ongoing, I'm hoping another relist will be fruitful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Unghie

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) 19:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's not anything special about Romanian or Italian nails that would justify this foreign-language redirect. (At least, not that I'm aware of.) I'd've speedied it A10 if I'd seen it at creation, but it's been hanging around for almost a year now. —Cryptic 11:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Calvin Koolaid

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. Oh, yeah! -- Tavix (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid alternate name, bizarrely it is tagged with ((R from misspelling)). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Corey Bringas

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. It seems to be unanimous. Do let me know if it isn't and I'll relist. -- Tavix (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No apparent connection to target. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nguyễn Thị Sen (Badminton player)

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) 00:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No more affinity for capitalization than any other disambiguation (WP:COSTLY). Nguyễn Thị Sen (badminton player) and Nguyễn Thị Sen (badminton) exist. Created in late January of this year. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think pages Nguyễn Thị Sen (Badminton player) and Nguyễn Thị Sen (badminton player) should be removed because there is no redirect to that page. That page created by Huy Trịnh. He/she tried to create another Nguyễn Thị Sen (wife of Emperor Đinh Bộ Lĩnh) but he can't actualize that page because that title already exist.Stvbastian (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Slaphead

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 1#Slaphead

Eyuep Can

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) 00:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot) This redirects to a surname page. Neither of them listed have this name. Not Germanic but Turkish. Si Trew (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Smazeny Syr

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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) Very slight doubt this would be taken as "Senior" which it is not. But probably OK. Si Trew (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gwenfo

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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky one and probably keep, but this is the English' Wikpedia. The R goes to the village which goes to the little primary school, so that is a bit WP:N. All my external searches are to the primary school. It is absolutely definetly the Welsh transiteration of this name, but we haven't much RS on it. Si Trew (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back formation from Gwenfô. With the diacritic at the back and the W for G in Englsih I am not sure. To be clar, the article lists the vilage, but all external searches I get are for the school. 00:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
More