< January 22
January 24 >

January 23

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 23, 2017.

MridangamLessons

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) 20:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHOWTO -- Tavix (talk) 23:13, 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.

Wikipedia:Donation header

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 restored and moved to Wikipedia talk:Fundraising, per suggestion by Tavix. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rather surprising redirect. Note: This redirect is a ((R from history)). Steel1943 (talk) 22:14, 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.

Wikipedia:Does not have an article

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 13#Wikipedia:Does not have an article

Wikipedia:Doctors' mess

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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. -- Tavix (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...Umm, surprise! (2 links on "User:" pages, 2 links on "User talk:" pages, created over 10 years ago.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At WTMED we also get a fair number of theoretical medicine related questions and as a group are happy to answer them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 25 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.

Wikipedia:Distributed Language translation

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) 04:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XNR. Hasn't been edited in over 10 years, but per its edit history, it doesn't look as though the page was created in error. Steel1943 (talk) 21:37, 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.

Wikipedia:Disabling

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 8#Wikipedia:Disabling

Mr. Margaret Thatcher

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) 17:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/2016-12#Redirect request: Mr. Margaret Thatcher / Mr Margaret Thatcher / Mister Margaret Thatcher. --Nevé–selbert 12:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 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.

Wikipedia:Defunct WikiProject Wikipedia

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) 04:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The target WikiProject page is not a defunct WikiProject. Also, these redirects have no incoming links. Steel1943 (talk) 18:03, 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.

Wikipedia:Definition of famous

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 8#Wikipedia:Definition of famous

New Age (Kylie Minogue 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 delete. -- Tavix (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing deletion - random redirect, nonexistant album. TheKaphox T 17:57, 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.

Wikipedia:Deferred revisions/

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) 04:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. This redirect may potentially be misleading since its target page does not have any subpages. Steel1943 (talk) 17:53, 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.

Wikipedia:JUDGE

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 Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges. (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this redirect be retargetted to Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges; at present it targets a section of a failed proposal, which is confusing for editors. PamD 17:12, 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.

Current pendulum for the next Australian federal election

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. There was some discussion of a possible retarget and I close this with no prejudice against re-creating with a different target. However, I note that neither redirect has any inbound links, suggesting that editors have already cleaned up any uses of this phrase so that they point to less time-conditional pages. Rossami (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are both obviously out of date, the next Australian federal election likely being in 2018 or 2019. There is a section about a pendulum for the next election, Next Australian federal election#Marginal seat pendulum, but I don't know enough about Australian politics to know if this is a good target or not? I will ping WikiProject Australia about this and the discussion below. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:04, 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.

Winter of 2010

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 8#Winter of 2010

List of most viewed kpop music videos

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) 19:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not needed at all; there is no longer a section regarding "YouTube Views" for the K-pop section since that was a trivial metric in the first place. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the headsup. Only just noticed that that section was removed on Christmas Day, and if the article stays the same way, there is no need for this redirect. I don't know if anyone will feel strongly enough to restore the section, it was removed on the basis of OR rather than being merely trivial, so if anyone is willing to do the work to source it, and there probably is enough third party sources for Gangnam Style at the very least, it should by the removing editor's criteria still merit its own section. I'd say give it a week or maybe two, enough time for the people who have invested their time trying to keep that section updated to notice that its missing, realise why its missing, and come up with a response; if after that period of grace there isn't a target for the redirect, then yes please do delete this.-KTo288 (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The table has remained in the article since it was re-added but it is tagged as "original research?"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 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.

Candidates of the next Australian federal election

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) 19:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is redirect from a move left over after the date of the then next election became known. However, the 2016 election has been and gone, so it's no longer I think appropriate to keep it pointing where it currently is. There is an article Next Australian federal election but, perhaps unsurprisingly for an election not expected to happen until August 2018 at the earliest, there is no information in that articles about candidates yet so I'm unsure if that should be the target? Thryduulf (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:48, 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.

Israeli intervention in the Syrian Civil War

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. I leave tagging of the redirect as an option to be debated and decided on the redirect's talk page. Rossami (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing to delete the redirect as implausible - there has been no official intervention of Israel in the Syrian War to date (see community consensus at Talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel) and it can barely be even described as "involvement" (there has been some spillover well described at Israeli–Syrian ceasefire line incidents during the Syrian Civil War article and several unclear explosion incidents possibly associated with Israel by external sources, which is already listed at Iran-Israel proxy conflict and Hezbollah involvement in the Syrian Civil War articles) GreyShark (dibra) 07:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:33, 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.

Home Credit

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 wrong forum - see Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, Home credit (disambiguation) should be moved to the base title. The redirect Home Credit→Home Credit Group appears to be a misunderstanding because there's a bank of the same name (Home Credit Bank). I think that the base page Home Credit should be a dab for the variants and each of the two articles (Home Credit Group and Home Credit Bank) should be alternatively labelled. --Ungesellig (talk) 08:59, 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.

Mr. Trump

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 all to Trump (surname). The consensus for this was weakest for "Mr. Trump", but I still find the arguments for there not being a primary topic at this time slightly more persuasive. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_12#Mr._Trump, Mr Trump was newly created, I suggest retargeting back to Donald Trump due to the PTOPIC, but I guess the outcome will be influenced by the discussion on Talk:Trump. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking most of my previous comment per BDD. However, these redirects are still vague and I believe vague search queries should give vague results. Many other individuals of the Trump family are notable enough, anyway, and I'm not really liking the prospect of having to add a link in the hatnote to the surname if kept. That being said, I'm still fine with deleting Mrs./Ms. -- Tavix (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Mr. Foo" and "Mrs. Foo" redirects strike me as somewhat of a legal fiction. How many readers use them, and how many of them want surname pages? Where there's strong established usage, as with "Mr. Trump", it might be more helpful to call a primary topic where otherwise we might not. On the other hand, there isn't as much of an established pattern of calling Melania Mrs., let alone Ms., so I'm fine treating those as ambiguous. --BDD (talk) 19:48, 7 February 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.

Transport delay

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 7#Transport delay

President Business

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 The Lego Movie (non-admin closure). Thryduulf, I haven't added a hatnote at President (corporate title), but you're welcome to do so. – Uanfala (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure synonym. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:40, 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.

Ste.

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 STE. -- Tavix (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend retargeting the following redirect, based on Regnal years of English monarchs:

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.

Joh.

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) 19:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend retargeting the following redirect, based on Regnal years of English monarchs:

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.

Ph.

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 7#Ph.

Ja.

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, adding King James (disambiguation) to the dab page. -- Tavix (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend retargeting the following redirect, based on Regnal years of English monarchs:

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.

Ann.

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 and hatnote to Ann (disambiguation). There's almost a unanimous sentiment that the name is ambiguous, but I find consensus to keep it as a primary topic. -- Tavix (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend retargeting the following redirect, based on Regnal years of English monarchs:

Keep the current arrangement or apply disambiguation V8rik (talk) 17:53, 25 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.

Vict.

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. I'm not too sure what the disambiguation is supposed to look like, so feel free to edit it as necessary. -- Tavix (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend retargeting the following redirect, based on Regnal years of English monarchs:

No. Vict. is the standard botanical abbreviation by which the botanist Marie-Victorin Kirouac is cited. See, for example, Purdiaea. If there is another meaning, then by all means convert the redirect into a disambiguation page. To retarget, as though your regnal years are the only legitimate use, is not appropriate.
Vict. is the only one of the above that I've looked at, but presumably they all have legitimate targets.
Hesperian 02:37, 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.

Favouritism

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 5#Favouritism

More