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) 20:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Tetris: From Russia With Love → Tetris  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Tetris – From Russia With Love → Tetris  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Tetris - From Russia With Love → Tetris  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This subject is only mentioned in the target article in the "Further reading" section. Apparently, the subject of these redirects (as shown by the edit history of Tetris: From Russia With Love) was a film or documentary about the subject of the redirect's target. However, as it stands, it is not mentioned in the target article. So, I'm wondering if these should be deleted ... or maybe Tetris: From Russia With Love needs to be restored and point all of the other redirects in this nomination there, and then maybe nominate for WP:AFD? Not sure right now. Steel1943 (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can a section be written up under the Film section about the film documentaries? Then it can be taken from the further reading section. That GQ [1] and Eurogamer [2] are citing it as an inspiration for Box Brown's book Tetris: The Games People Play should count for something. It's also a documentary by BBC. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Comment the first redirect is the result of a 2007 AfD that was closed as merge. It was a low participation discussion and nearly a decade ago so WP:CCC may apply. Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 5 January 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.

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 deprecate. I've replaced the redirect with the error message Patar knight suggested. Please feel free to WP:BOLDLY tweak it if necessary. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Requestforcomment → Template:Rfc  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unusable, since, as pointed out by Redrose64 on Template talk:Rfc top, Legobot ignores transclusions [of ((rfc))] via redirects that don't begin "rfc", such as ((Requestforcomment)). Pppery 22:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and fix the bot. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I have asked Legoktm (talk · contribs) before, concerning this and related matters, with no effect. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Then get another bot to do the job instead. We don't fix the encyclopaedia to make it easy for our tools to work, we fix our tools or create new ones. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteDeprecate for now and recreate if/when the bot is fixed. – Uanfala (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreeing with Patar jnight that deprecation is better than deleting. – Uanfala (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Deprecate until the bot is fixed. It's more useful to have a warning at the template telling them to use the correct template with a short explanation than to have a redlink. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Depreaction is fine with me, too. Pppery 21:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Question: Can someone create a draft of what "deprecate" would mean in regards to this nominated redirect? (I've created a few "deprecate" template pages lately, but those are usually to disambiguate an ambiguous template page name, and this doesn't seem to be the case with this redirect.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A tag like Please use Template:rfc instead of this template so a bot can automatically summon participants to this discussion. should work. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:07, 23 January 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.

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 duplicate nomination. This is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 13#Outdoor Retreat. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Outdoor Retreat → The Sims 4: Outdoor Retreat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete: I had previously requested the creation of similarly-named redirects for other expansion packs for The Sims 4 for consistency, but the requests were declined by "st170e" due to their vagueness. This particular redirect is also very vague, is not wikilinked on any articles on Wikipedia, and is unlikely to be linked to on external sites. Due to these reasons I recommend deletion. 114.75.78.136 (talk) 06:48, 14 January 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.

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 Consensus decision-making#Examples. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Musyawarah → Consensus decision-making  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Fails WP:RFOREIGN. Note that this used to be an article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• revert and send to AfD. From reading the last version of the article it seems like it was intending to be about something more specific than the target article, but didn't have enough material to make it. Nevertheless I do not think we should be deleting this as a redirect as it was an article for a long while before it was unilaterally redirected. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• revert without necessarily bothering with sending to AfD – there appear to be quite a few sources out there, so I don't see notability as an issue. – Uanfala (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert, send to AfD per Thryduulf. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Consensus decision-making#Examples. The existing article was a single unsourced sentence. Unless some cache of sources is uncovered, this is best covered in its parent topic, from which it can split out summary style. I don't think the AfD is needed. I added a sentence on the method to the aforementioned section in a paragraph on non-Western consensus methods. In the spirit of musyawarah, I think this should be an amicable compromise. @Tavix, Thryduulf, Uanfala, and Rubbish computer czar 07:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm honestly not sure at the moment whether I think that is prominent enough, so I'm going to stay neutral for the moment in case I don't get back to this before the discussion is closed. Thryduulf (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That works for me! -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Now that the Czar has expanded the target, the redirect can safely be retargeted to that article's specific section until the moment when someone decides to write a proper article at Musyawarah. – Uanfala (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to Consensus decision-making#Examples per Czar. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 11:34, 17 January 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.

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. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Popstep → Dubstep#Post-dubstep  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. This appears to re-directo a genre, but there is no explanation of why it re-directs there, and no mention of this genre "popstep" or mentioned. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are a few mentions of this term on Wikipedia, but only as labelling various songs as being in the genre, so nowhere to target it to. I'm also not seeing any reliable sources discussing the genre (the best source for finding out what it is seems to be Urban Dictionary, which is about as unreliable a source as there is) and many other unrelated uses of the word. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as is not at target. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An obscure neologism that is not described at the target. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is a variant called Pop step which could be redirected to Pop Step Jump! by Melocure or the character Pop☆Step in My Hero Academia. None of these are big enough for an article and are about the same lack of notability as the original redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:30, 21 January 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.

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. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Jesus in a female guise → Mignon desires her fatherland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As stated in an edit summary when a previous move was reverted, reliable sources do not appear to support this as a valid alternative name for the painting described in the target article. The redirect title is unlikely as a primary topic anyway, since there are other works of art that are genuinely intended to depict female forms of Jesus.

I am aware that a CSD was previously declined and RFD was suggested instead, so doing that now. SoledadKabocha (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - thanks for the nomination. I tried to speedy it db-redirtypo, but this was (correctly) declined by an admin as it's a page-move redir. Article was created under the incorrect name by a well-meaning editor who originally tried to create a long personal essay about the painting and the editor's theories about its true meaning, including an original poem about the painting by the article creator. The continued re-addition of WP:OR following the rename has subsided, but per nomination there's no evidence that "Jesus in a female guise" is a hitherto known name for the painting in any language, and it's vanishingly unlikely that a reader would be searching for that title. Wikishovel (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While we have articles Gender of God and Gender of the Holy Spirit we have nothing similar for Jesus and Female Jesus is also red, so combined with the above I don't think there is anywhere suitable on Wikipedia to target this. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there is no evidence for this being used as an alternative name. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I could not find any use of this term in reliable sources. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:39, 19 January 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.