< January 31
February 2 >

February 1

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 1, 2018.

Coroner of Monmouth County, New Jersey

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. The consensus is delete regardless, but worth pointing out that there is some backstory here ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Not a notable topic 2. There is no discussion of the topic at the redirect target. Rusf10 (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is there in article, does not have to be notable for a redirect. --RAN (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was NOT there, you just added it now. And the two sentences you added give undue weight to a non-notable topic.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, your argument makes no sense. Please cite a Wikipedia policy page. If a person's name was mentioned, we would redirect that name to the article, "undue weight" does not apply to redirects. Undue is about having too much information in an article, and your argument for deletion is that there is too little. If you want to create an anti-undue policy, create it and I will support it. --RAN (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2018 (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.

BestVPN

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 by Cyp (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) --NYKevin 17:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find a suitable redirect target for BestVPN. It isn't mentioned at its current target, Virtual private network. As of this writing, the BestVPN website is cited in four articles, but it is not defined or treated as a subtopic anywhere in the encyclopedia. Redirecting from BestVPN to Virtual private network is a bit like redirecting from CNET to Software. At present, no articles link to BestVPN. —Ringbang (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2018 (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.

? (XXXTentacion Album)

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 Speedy closed because the AfD was opened an hour earlier. NAC. NYKevin 07:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redirect exists for no reason, album's existence is debatable. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2018 (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.

Cyrus Bervick Durand

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. I, like the !voters below, remain unconvinced such (soft) redirects are useful to readers. That plus related discussions plus WP:REDLINK equals delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete soft redirects to Wikidata pursuant to the outcome of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 24#W. Homer Axford for the first such page I nominated for deletion. Largoplazo (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no indication among the delete !votes in that discussion that that particular circumstance figured into the rationale of any of the !voters. Nobody even mentioned it. Largoplazo (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment also has things backwards. The deletion discussion concluded that soft redirects to Wikidata are inappropriate. That being the case, the RFC is moot, because there is no value to a template whose purpose is to create soft redirects to Wikidata that the deletion discussion already found not to be appropriate. Largoplazo (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That will be determined at the outcome of an open RFC. If you delete the demonstration project used in an open RFC you are tainting the outcome. Is that why you are doing it? --RAN (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not at all. I'm doing it because I didn't see any merit to having soft redirects to arbitrary Wikidata records. And I'm kind of bewildered by the idea that before one submits a page for discussion, one is obliged first see whether someone has an RFC out for which that page is a demonstration. By the way, it isn't an RFC, it's a simple template discussion— at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 January 27#Template:Soft Wikidata redirect, for anyone who's interested. With five delete !votes when I found it, and no keep !votes other than yours after nearly two weeks. I hardly think this discussion is going to skew that one—which will likely be finished before this one is anyway, so any deletions carried out as a result of this discussion aren't going to have any effect on that discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are gaming the system when you delete an option in an open RFC. --RAN (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I already pointed out to you (a) that it isn't an RFC; (b) that any deletion under this discussion is going to happen after the template discussion is already over; and (c) that you have yet to have anybody !vote Keep in either the template discussion or the redirect deletion discussion before this discussion got underway. So now, when you persist in calling it an RFC, and then repeat the same debunked objection, you are being either oblivious or dishonest. It's just not credible that, after two weeks of attracting only Delete !votes, a cascade of Keep !votes is on the verge of rolling in at the Template discussion and that, if they don't, it will be the fault of this discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He's talking about this RFC [1], but that RFC is not dependent on the result here. Also, question for @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ):, why isn't creating all these redirects during the deletion discussion of the template gaming the system? It seems like it is to me.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, so that's the RFC. I must have typoed when searching for "wikidata" in my browser at WP:RFCA. RAN would have helped avoid confusion if he'd linked to it. But it doesn't matter anyway because that RFC is about links inside articles. This discussion is about redirects. Largoplazo (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2018 (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.

Carrot geyser

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is not mentioned at the target. In addition, third-party search engines are not providing any results for anything other than recipes using carrots. Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2018 (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.

Chrifsmas

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is not mentioned at the target. In addition, third-party search engines are not providing any results for anything other than Christmas as a misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2018 (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.

Pirates and global warming

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are misleading in their titles. The redirects target a section of Flying Spaghetti Monster in regards to global warming concepts as it relates to the perception of pirates in Pastafarian, which is not in line with the traditional definition of a pirate, making these redirects targeting where they do quite confusing. Steel1943 (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the title of the first redirect, Pirates and global warming looks to have WP:XY issues due to its formatting. Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2018 (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.

Feesum

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. Probably should point to some investing calculator thing.. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The abbreviation for the target is "FSM", but I always m not able to find any references to the use of "Feesum" in any literature to refer to this subject. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2018 (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.

Mario 1

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 8#Mario 1

User:Metiscus/Johann Gottfried Teske

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 speedy deleted. See the note below. -- Tavix (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page in my user space but moved it to article space later. I would like the redirect out to be deleted because I don't believe there is a need to keep it. Metiscus (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2018 (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.

Defense platform

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. Between Strategic defence, Weapons platform, and the various other uses, doesn't seem there's a good primary target (rimshot). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really vague term, that's all that needs to be said. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In case anyone wants to discuss CoffeeWithMarket's comment. (no love for the platforms at La Défense Station?!)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2018 (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.

UNSC Marine Corps Troops

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could potentially be confused with United Nations Security Council troops without the added Halo disambiguation. Should just be deleted to avoid confusion. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2018 (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.

Species of Halo

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit history of this redirect says it "makes no sense" to refer to the target page, therefore it shouldn't actually exist. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2018 (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.

Magnetic Acceleration Cannon

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 Redirect to List of electromagnetic projectile devices in fiction#Halo, delete MACCannon. Those interested should participate in the AfD ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading when it could refer to the real life railgun but the name is not accurate enough to make it a redirect. The other ones are just not mentioned in the article at all.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anchor for Halo created. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:31, 2 February 2018 (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.

Blarg

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 8#Blarg

Lindsay Shepherd

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. While RfD is not the place to decide on the proper content in an article, it can (and often does) provide another angle for proper discussion. Right now, and for nearly a week, the name has not appeared in the article. There are two discussions on the target's talk page about this, but most of the feelings appear weakly-held. As the name is not there now and has not been for a while, I am deleting this. If the name reappears with consensus to remain, I will restore this. As a reminder, redirects are not articles, and WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E, and even WP:NPOV can be relaxed for useful redirects. You are all encouraged to engage with the target's talk page. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted; the subject is only notable for one incident so WP:BLP demands that we not include her name in the article and without her name this redirect makes no sense (and is itself a BLP problem). ElKevbo (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The policy only discourages mentioning a person's name which "has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed". That is obviously not the case here: in fact, the name is included in the headlines of both supporting citations. Smyth (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – WP:BLP1E suggests it is “usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.” WP:BLPNAME suggests omitting a name that has not been widely disseminated, which is not the case here. No need for us to be unnecessarily cryptic.--Trystan (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smyth's rationale. 85.94.100.119 (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments of Smyth and Trystan. Her name obviously belongs in the section discussing the incident: it has been widely reported in reliable sources, and she has spoken extensively about the incident from her own point of view. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and remove the controversy section from the university article. With everything else on the uni page, the controversy is given too much undue weight (Also keep in mind, WP:NOT#NEWS. We shouldn't be covering the controversy since it didn't seem to go anywhere, and thus the redirect is unnecessary. --Masem (t) 14:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can see a case for deleting the whole section: what I can't see is a case for keeping the section without the name. If the section is deleted then obviously the redirect goes with it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that yes, if the section is deemed appropriate, the name seems reasonable to both mention and keeping the redirect. But considering NOT#NEWS and the caution of BLP, I strongly recommend that the section can be stripped out of the article without any loss of encyclopedic content, making the discussion moot. --Masem (t) 19:38, 3 February 2018 (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.

Ero Manga Sensei - My Little Sister and the Locked Room

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 8#Ero Manga Sensei - My Little Sister and the Locked Room

Nooo

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 9#Nooo

Hong Kong Internation 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 delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible misspelling, internation is not a word. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:23, 1 February 2018 (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.
More