< January 3
January 5 >

January 4

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 4, 2016.

Legends

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) -- Tavix (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this should redirect to Legend, as it is just a plural of legend. Natg 19 (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC) Pinging @Jack Sebastian: who changed the redirect for his input. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for filing this, Natg, as I had no clue how to proceed. I think that reverting the redirect on the basis of one being a plural of the other is a bit short-sighted. By redirecting Legends to the dab page", the reader is far more likely to find what they were looking for, avoiding at least one more level of redirection (I myself discovered the problem while looking for Legends (TV series)]]). Cutting down the effort and deduction the reader has to exert in order to find what they want seems a no-brainer to me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:19, 5 January 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 lifting of the veil

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. Disambiguation has been proposed but the general consensus is that it's not helpful as none of the candidates for disambiguation had standalone articles. Deryck C. 22:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix - G6 as really confusing Legacypac (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Follow-up comment: for the same of developing consensus, I'm fine with creating a DAB page that includes the various suggestions listed here. As other editors have pointed out, there are many potential targets for this term. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It might be helpful if someone could draft a dab for consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I took another look at it, and I really don't think we have enough terms to disambiguate. The only ones I could see would be between Parting of the Veil and Piercing the corporate veil and I feel like hatnotes would do the trick. The use of 'of' (ie: "lifting of the veil") would be best for the witchcraft article, and the omission of the 'of' (ie: "lifting the veil") would be best for the corporate article. That being said, I agree with NCFF that if we're going to retarget somewhere, that Parting of the Veil would be the best place to do so. -- Tavix (talk) 16:23, 11 January 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.

A sowing of seeds

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 sowing of seeds to sowing, delete a sowing of seeds. JohnCD (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible and very vague. Legacypac (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment: I'm fine with redirecting sowing of seeds to sowing as a plausible synonym. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:54, 4 January 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.

ACFRB

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 all. JohnCD (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same as others - no basis for these in articles or sources. Neelix coined terms. the third one is an abbreviation of an abbreviation 12:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:53, 4 January 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.

Wackyparsing

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 11#Wackyparsing

Template:Louisiana Center for Women in Government amd Business Hall of Fame

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 delete, G7 and R3. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typo on my part no relevant incoming links — Maile (talk) 15:03, 4 January 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.

Template talk:Louisiana Center for Women in Government amd Business Hall of Fame

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 delete, G8, talk page of above. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typo on my part, has no relevant links — Maile (talk) 15:02, 4 January 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.

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

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 both. JohnCD (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating these because I want to hear from the community about whether these are truly useful redirects. These have existed since August 2005 and July 2006 (respectively), but there are no incoming links to either of these redirects, and I question whether anyone would actually take the time to type out the full number. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 11:42, 4 January 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.

TTTFFF

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. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This term is not used at the target, and I could not find any reliable sources that use "TTTFFF" to refer to terrorism financing. It's possible that TTTFFF is the abbreviated name of an organization involved in combating terrorism financing, but a google search did not yield any results. Therefore, I think deletion is appropriate. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 11:26, 4 January 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.

UUUUU

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 —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the premise underlying this redirect is that Western Washington University is occasionally referred to as "WWU," and if you add two "Double U's" with the final "U," you get five U's. However, I could not find any reliable sources that refer to WWU as "UUUUU," and deletion is therefore appropriate. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: That would be related to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubbish computer (talk • contribs)
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.

, Lower Order Batsman(cricket)

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. JohnCD (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In July 2015, an article was created at this title, but it was transformed into a redirect nine days later. Although this redirect averages approximately one hit per day, I think it is an exceedingly unlikely that an editor would enter this search term, and deletion is therefore appropriate. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 10:46, 4 January 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.
More