< April 30
May 2 >

May 1

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 1, 2017.

Conan the Conqueror (2017 film)

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. Deryck C. 14:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, this film has been cancelled, which means it's no longer "upcoming", nor could it be released in 2017. -- Tavix (talk) 23:07, 1 May 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.

Template:R cm

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. Thryduulf (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also and similarly

Delete, unused, obscure. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 1 May 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.

Homosexualism

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 Homosexuality. WP:SNOW retarget. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was set up in 2002 to point to homosexuality, and then in 2012 redirected to LGBT social movements. Since then it was changed back and forth with no proper discussion. To the best of my knowledge this term is an alternative spelling to "homosexuality," and this fact is reflected in many other languages. I tried searching the dictionaries, but OED and Mariam-Webster don't seem to have the word, dict.org[1], The Free Dictionary[2] and our own Wiktionary[3] support "homosexuality" view, while Urban Dictionary[4] provides both views. Looks like the LGBT social movements sense is rather a neologism on top of an alternative spelling, which is widely used in other languages. So far I see more sense in retargeting this page to homosexuality. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the only time I've actually heard "homosexualist", anytime in at least the past decade, was Mark Ashton's megaphone speech to his friends toward the end of the film Pride — and he was using it ironically. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 5 May 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.

Andres oend

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, or perhaps more accurately, "keep deleted". With no further input after the relist, it would seem there are no strong objections to the title being red. Should someone want to recreate it, it could be discussed anew as the creation of a human, rather than part of a somewhat suspect batch of bot creations. --BDD (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theres another to combine with this. Eubot. Si Trew (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonTrew: I didn't speedy it because I couldn't think of a criterion that fit. Is there a discussion somewhere about G6 applying to listed Eubot redirects? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Anthony Bradbury could explain why he thinks it's G6. -- Tavix (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel a different deletion criterion is more appropriate I will not argue. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still feels like it's a stretch (and WP:G6 is very often abused, which is why I'm wary of stretching it). Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 20#Andres ond closed with keeping the redirect and restoring another one, and because there seems to be some disagreement over whether or not WP:G6 deletion was valid in this case. I know, I know, deletion review and all that, but let's just work it out here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:09, 1 May 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.

2017 Maria Sharapova tennis season

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 procedural close. Wrong forum - article is restored and sent to AfD. Deryck C. 14:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was just created and should be speedy deleted. Maria Sharapova does not merit a stand-alone season article per Tennis Guidelines.She has not won a Grand Slam event (nor is she in the top 5 having won a grand slam event). She isn't even close yet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. All the other articles of this sort have either been deleted or speedy deleted. I thought this was the best place but obviously not. I will do as asked. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:58, 2 May 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.

Aß fiber

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 09:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is conflation between a Greek Beta β and a German Scharfes Es ß. Am nominating this off the back of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_21#Ass_fiber. Deryck C. 17:45, 1 May 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.

Nyet

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 wiktionary. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned on the target page. "Nyet" is indeed a common Russian word, but I can't imagine this arrangement helping readers. Those who already know the word will learn no more about it; those who don't are likely to only be confused. There was a DOS game called Nyet, a Tetris clone readers could be looking for, but we don't seem to have coverage of it or any other encyclopedic topic of the name. BDD (talk) 16:43, 1 May 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.

Sueleyman Nazif

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 14#Sueleyman Nazif

Ubisoft SRL

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 delete as unopposed. Deryck C. 15:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda amibgous, since e.g. Ubisoft Milan is legally "Ubisoft Studios S.R.L.", and there was Ubisoft SARL as Ubisoft Casablanca, etc., and I don't think that it is a popular term either, as Ubisoft subsiidaries are not usually (neither in primary nor in secondary sources) presented with their legal name. Lordtobi (✉) 13:51, 1 May 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.

Gyoergy Luntzer

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. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can go by consensus, we don't do Hungarian names like that Si Trew (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:50, 1 May 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.

Homeschool athletics

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. Two relistings and no additional comments in the 10 days since the last one so any consensus here seems unlikely. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No such section; presumably deleted or incorporated into section about social life etc. WP:RFD#D2 confusing. The only mention of this term (in its entirety) is via the transcluded navbox (((homeschooling))), where of course it navigates back to homeschooling. There is one other trivial mention of "athletics" about clubs home-educated children might join to socialise, but nothing particularly about how those clubs would differ from other athletics clubs. Si Trew (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:XY Otherwise you might has well have Homeschool (subject). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:42, 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) 17:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 1 May 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 (1969-2002) Feminist Philosopher

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 is a protracted discussion about what counts as "useful" with arguments on both sides. But on the whole, I find the "delete" side's arguments, that this title is poorly constructed and the article stayed at this title for only a few hours, more compelling than the "keep" side's argument that deletion will break external incoming links. Participants of this debate have warned about not counting heads in a RfD, but combining the majority favouring delete here and relative weights of the arguments presented, it does point towards the conclusion that deletion is the most plausible outcome. Deryck C. 17:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is extremely implausible as a search term. -- Tavix (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't fall for the page view fallacy, I prefer common sense. I could easily see those page views coming from Special:RandomRedirect, for example. So no, the page view tool does not prove that people are actively using the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really? There are more than 7.5 million in the aritcle namespace. Assuming that Special:RandomRedirect is viewed as often as the Wikipedia article (8.5 million last year) - something I think is exceedingly unlikely, then every redirect would get a random hit just over once per year, not 6 to 8 times. You can declaim the page view stats as fallacious if you want, but you will need much better evidence than that. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can use page views to make whatever claim you want. I think it's a laughable claim that people are actively using this redirect (eg: typing in "Hanneke Canters (1969-2002) Feminist Philosopher" into a search bar). I'll tell you what, back up your claim: If this term is being used, surely you'd be able to find the phrase somewhere, right? Find me a source outside of Wikipedia that uses "Hanneke Canters (1969-2002) Feminist Philosopher" and I'll change my !vote. -- Tavix (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous - you know as well as I do that people typing the exact phrase verbatim into the search bar is not the only possible way of using a redirect. I care that the evidence shows that it is being used (regardless of why) that it is unambiguous and harmless - if you can show me any reason at all how this deleting this redirect will benefit the encyclopaedia then I'll switch my recommendation, but all you've done so far is attempt to discredit the evidence that it is used. If we assume that all the evidence is wrong and this isn't used, and we delete it, what have we gained? Nothing. If we assume that the evidence is right, and we delete it, what have we lost? We've made it harder for people to find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's that? There's no evidence of this phrase being used outside of Wikipedia? That's what I thought. -- Tavix (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's that? There's no evidence of there being any benefit to deleting the redirect? That's what I thought. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:R#D8. -- Tavix (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:R#K5. We have evidence that people find it useful. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't. -- Tavix (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
<pantomime>Oh yes we do!</pantomime>. Seriously, we have evidence that the redirect was viewed 10 times last year in a way the tool classifies as human use. Based on experience we can say that 2-4 of those hits will not be humans but bots, leaving 6-8 hits to be accounted for. Statistically we can say that at the very most 1 of those might have come from the random redirect links. If someone did search this title, then there is no question that they got to the right article. This leaves 5-8 times last year that to the extent we are able to tell, this redirect enabled someone looking for this article to find it. This is either right or wrong and we can either keep it or delete it. Meaning there are four possible scenarios:
  1. People do find it useful. It is kept. The encyclopaedia benefits from people finding what they want.
  2. People do find it useful. It is deleted. The encyclopaedia is harmed because people find it harder to access the content they are looking for.
  3. People don't find it useful. It is kept. There is an infinitesimal overhead from potential vandalism, but in practice nobody gains or loses.
  4. People don't find it useful. It is deleted. There is a negligible overhead from the deletion, but in practice nobody gains or loses.

All the evidence, and the balance of probability (after all a human created it at this title), points to people finding it useful so scenarios 1 or 2 are the most likely but even if all four are equally likely then there is no harm from keeping this and potential harm from deleting it. There is no scenario in which deletion benefits the project, at best it's neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no use keeping redirects around that no one uses, they're better off deleted to save the maintenance burden. It's a shame you're obstructing that clean-up from happening—it's a lot of effort you're putting in to try to save a redirect that no one actively uses. That effort could be spent doing more worthwhile things, but here we are... -- Tavix (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is little use in keeping redirects that nobody uses, but (a) people do use this redirect (I know you don't think that the 6-8 people a year using this redirect are people who use this redirect, but they are) and (b) redirects that are truly not used but which are unambiguous, pointing to the correct target and not in the way of anything else are completely harmless. You're putting a lot of effort into something that, at best, will bring no benefits and at worst make life harder for around 6-8 people per year. That's the real shame. Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is little use in keeping redirects that nobody uses. Couldn't have said it better myself. :) -- Tavix (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking my words out of context - I had thought more highly of you than that. Perhaps you would like to respond to the points I actually made? Or perhaps you would prefer to just admit you can't find an actual reason to support deleting a redirect that is both harmless and in use? Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Defeat? You're the one in the minority here. -- Tavix (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Consensus is not found by counting noses, and I've presented evidence that backs up my assertions that this redirect is in use. All you've done is disagree with the evidence (without providing anything to back that up), repeated a few times your claim that this is unused (without providing evidence for that), ignored my requests for you to back up your claims, and then quoted me out of context. I'm not sure why you think you have the upper hand here? Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, let me clarify: you're in the minority in argument here. You've provided a page view link that (if anything) backs up my claim that it isn't being used. Remember, page views don't tell us that people are actively searching for a term and finding what they're looking for, it's literally just a note that the page has been viewed, which can happen in several contexts. I've asked for evidence of the term in use elsewhere. This would be an easy and concrete way to establish use, but you've balked at that every time I've asked. I presume it's because I'm correct: people simply don't use "Hanneke Canters (1969-2002) Feminist Philosopher" to refer to the subject. So why would they do so on Wikipedia? That doesn't follow. Stop clinging to a false narrative that the page view tool proves use and start using common sense. -- Tavix (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've presented evidence? The term is not used verbatim in online sources that I can find (which are a subset of all the possible places it could be used), but that is not evidence that the redirect is not used - the evidence that the redirect is used comes from, shockingly, the evidence that the redirect page is viewed. It's excruciatingly implausible that anyone will actively search this redirect while looking for something else. It's statistically impossible that more than 1 (and extremely improbable that more than 0) of these hits are from the random redirect tool. Commons sense to me says that when you have evidence that a tool which is specifically designed to record page views of Wikipedia pages records views of Wikipedia pages you treat that as evidence that the Wikipedia pages with views are being viewed unless you have evidence to the contrary. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary (repeatedly calling the page views fallacious does not make them fallacious, you need actual evidence to prove that). However, even in the unlikely event that 6 to 8 people last year ended up here without intending to, there is absolutely zero evidence presented or available (I've looked many many times over the years I have been at RfD) that this redirect or any other like it is actually harmful. The best argument you have for deletion is "assuming the evidence of use is wrong (even though this is unlikely) then nobody will gain or lose anything from the deletion." which is rather a contrast to "If we assume that the evidence is correct, when there is no evidence it is not, then there will be measurable harm caused to the encyclopaedia by deletion." Or to put it yet another way, if we keep we end up with either a positive (likely) or a neutral, if we delete it with a negative (likely) or a neutral. Why choose the latter? This is not a minority argument, this is WP:RFD#K5. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's boil it down, here. We're waging a war of WP:R#K5 against WP:R#D8, maybe WP:CHEAP vs. WP:COSTLY as well. You think it's useful, I think it's obscure. You think the page view tool proves people are actively using the redirect, I do not and counter that I do not think anyone is using the redirect to find information on Hanneke Canters. You think it's better off kept to aid anyone using the redirect to find Hanneke Canters. I think it's better off deleted to save the maintenance burden (rcatting, potential vandalism of the redirect, database reports, etc.). Is that a fair assessment of our differences? -- Tavix (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair summary of where we differ. I think the demonstrated utility and lack of harm outweighs the tiny cost - R-catting is a one-time time thing and the likelihood of vandalism is infinitesimal. Database reports might (depending on how well the report is written) add some time, but the encyclopaedia's readers must absolutely always come before its editors. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 6 May 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.

Galician Universities

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 Galicia (Spain)#Education. Opinion is split but a decision needs to be made. The discussion headed towards a weak conclusion that Galicia, Spain being the primary topic for Galicia and that a leader typing this search term is most likely looking for Galicia in Spain, though not overwhelmingly so. Nevertheless, this is the most plausible outcome. Deryck C. 15:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not at target, we have Category:Universities in Galicia, but I would oppose a CNR. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll note that Galicia is a disambiguation, so there's no primary topic for the term. If this is to be disambiguated, what would it look like?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:49, 1 May 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.

Needle inside a ball of cotton

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. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Totally implausible redirect. I'd love to know how the author came up with this! Exemplo347 (talk) 09:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, add in the phrase, please (I imagine you already have but deliberately saying this before checking.)
And I see your Steel Factory and raise you Steel factory (all lowercase) which I shall redirect, as does steelworks, to steel mill: we can have them both together on whether WP:DIFFCAPS then kicks in. What fun! Which I imagine was the point, i.e. we don't need every imaginable redirect. That's what search engines are for. Si Trew (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The phrase is still not mentioned in the target article. Just to clarify, adding such content does not undermine an ongoing RfD, and may do much to help bring it to its conclusion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give time for the discussion on the article talk page to proceed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:47, 1 May 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.

Seasea

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 See-see partridge. Deryck C. 15:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a connection between the redirect and the target. Seaching my favorite search engine showed no results for the Seahawks several pages deep. -- Tavix (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google returns results relevant for football teams for "jacjag", "oakrai" and "dalcow". On the other hand, "denbro" and "houtex" don't have football results on the first page. That's all I've checked, but at least for some teams, three letter abbreviation of team name and city gets some results. Plantdrew (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the bird is where it will go, we should have a "redirects here" and a hatnote to CC. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no objections to resonable hatnotes, and that suggestion looks perfectly reasonable to me. Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a WP:PTM, though. Is it referred to as "see-see" alone? --BDD (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at least according to the OED entry for "seesee" (and the examples given there). – Uanfala (talk) 22:31, 16 May 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.

Hybride Technologies

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 nominator wasn't sure what they wanted done with this redirect and nobody else seems to have an opinion either so there really is no consensus to do anything here! Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Target holds no information on the given subject, except for a single mention. Lordtobi (✉) 08:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We could probably redirect this to hybrid technology or some such. But since it is a Ubisoft brand name I am Not sure. (I have never worked for Ubisoft, never want to.) Si Trew (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Combine with the one I have below. for similar. Si Trew (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:17, 1 May 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.

A (betu)

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. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot). I think when we are taqlking about alphabets and so on, we must be 'very particular. That is what people are searching for. You cannot back-form it in this way WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:17, 1 May 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.

Mojave Greens

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 Crotalus scutulatus. (non-admin closure) feminist 09:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not mention anything about the Mojave Greens Flow 234 (Nina) talk 10:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Mojave green the snake. There was an Australian football club that went by this but it was not notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:50, 4 May 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.

South Carolina Hawks

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. Deryck C. 15:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not mention anything about the South Carolina Hawks Flow 234 (Nina) talk 10:48, 1 May 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.

Illinois Ironmen

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. Deryck C. 15:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not mention anything about the Illinois Ironmen Flow 234 (Nina) talk 10:47, 1 May 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.

Florida Redbacks

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 Eastern Australian Football League. Deryck C. 13:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not mention anything about Florida Redbacks Flow 234 (Nina) talk 10:45, 1 May 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.

Guillemot, Inc.

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. Deryck C. 13:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Completely contextless, likely a hoax. Lordtobi (✉) 10:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is a very strange one. I am trying to remember who said, in print, couldn't tell a guillemet from a guillemot. I have it in my bookshelf but cant think of the name, about 1950. Paddy Richards I think. Si Trew (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Guillemot" is the last name of the five founders of Ubisoft, yet this redirect has to do with neither Ubisoft nor Ubisoft Halifax, let alone that Canadian corporations do not include commas in their legal names. Lordtobi (✉) 10:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine they just registered any legal name they could to be on the safe side. But it is not encyclopaeidic. Si Trew (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The page that links to this redirect is Sprung (video game). The copyrights in this game credit it to Guillemot, Inc., as well as this press release. This PDF, titled "Information concerning the candidates for the Board of directors", states that Yves Guillemot is the director of Guillemot Inc., both in the US and Canada. While I cannot find evidence pointing towards this, I believe that Guillemot, Inc. and Ubisoft Halifax are the same company., given that both are located in the US and Canada, and have connections to both co-founders of Ubisoft. -Einstein95 (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Under Quebecian law, I was able to find a company named "Guillemot Inc." (w/o comma!), that is/was located at 440-6300 av. du Parc, Montréal (not Halifax!), so the current target is definetly wrong, also considering that Guillemot Inc. was registered 1997, and Ubisoft Halifax acquired in 2013. Also, your above statement saying that Ubisoft Halifax operates in the U.S. and Canada is false, as it only operates in Halifax. Now refining, in Montreal, there are two more Ubisoft entities: Ubisoft Montreal (the development studios) and Ubisoft Canada (the marketing office), the prior is located at 5505 Boulevard Saint-Laurent, while the latter is at 250 rue Saint-Antoine Ouest, so neither is related to Guillemot Inc. invalidating all likely targets for the redirect. I suspect that Guillemot Inc. is/was pretty unrelated to Ubisoft in general, why else would the licensing be handeled by a second hand and not directly Ubisoft Entertainment SA in France (HQ) or Ubisoft, Inc. in California (North American publishing and distribution home for Ubisoft since establishment in 1991)? According to Bloomberg, "Guillemot Inc operates as a subsidiary of Guillemot Corp. SA", the latter being a hardware manufacturer/designer. I found the German Wikipedia article (which, though, is farily horribly sourced) on the case stating that said company is a different company from Ubisoft, though from the same people, which is nowadays held up by Claude Guillemot (rather than Yves, who is the director of Ubisoft). Talking around alot of corners here--tl;dr--Guillemot Inc. is a subisidiary of Guillemot Corporation SA, which is unrelated to Ubisoft (and especially Ubisof Halifax), and we have no information at all regarding that company, wherefore the redirect is implausible and should be deleted. Lordtobi (✉) 11:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:42, 1 May 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.

Coty Inc Class A

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 14#Coty Inc Class A

Texas Instrument Inc

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) – Uanfala (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely for readers to look for/link to this article from an incorrect spelling of the company's name coupled with its corporate form. Unlikely typo. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird. You'd expect me to be the first person to want to delete this as clutter... I am not doing this on purpose to make a point or oppose the nominator, who I respect very much. Weird why my opinion is what it is. Si Trew (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I change my mind. Delete. People will be better served to find what they are looking for when this is not here. Si Trew (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is simply not true, User:AngusWOOF. The NY Times has made this exact mistake, including here, here and here. And one of the examples you cite is already a WP redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll strike my vote as someone finds it useful, even though it should be marked as ((R from typo)) and maybe ((R from singular)) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
((R from typo)) now marked. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is this a useful ((R from typo))?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:33, 1 May 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.

News coverage

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 News. Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that "News coverage" is a synonym for "media bias". I would have thought it meant more how many inches of print or minutes of a newscast was taken up by a story. Newsworthiness is red; Newsworthy redirects to News values. There must be something better. Airtime is a software program; All the news that's fit to print is red, Column-inch would seem stretching it. Si Trew (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:13, 1 May 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

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 Moved. I've moved Slaphead (album) to Slaphead and redirected Slap head to Slaphead. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slaphead formerly targeted Hair loss until today when it was retargeted to where it targets now. I am unsure if the term "Slaphead" has any encyclopedic connection to "hair loss" at all, considering that the two terms seem to be connected only by the "Urban Dictionary". Steel1943 (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of slaphead being used for hair loss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:55, 1 May 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.

Gueenes

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) 15:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) well the council of Guenes might be, but the council of Gueenes isn't. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:56, 1 May 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.

Infovia

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 both the nominated redirect and Infovía. -- Tavix (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) I am only listing this because it might be a bit prejudiced on the bot's side. I would say Weak keep. Si Trew (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:56, 1 May 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.

Blue Byte (version 2)

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. Deryck C. 15:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was originally a doubled article with what was "Ubisoft Blue Byte" (falsely), and then moved to the current name, redirected again to "Blue Byte". Lordtobi (✉) 09:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:55, 1 May 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.

Ubisoft Romania

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 keep. Deryck C. 13:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading, Ubisoft Romania (located in Brăila, rather than Bucharest) was a marketing office, and not the studio it currently redirects to. Lordtobi (✉) 09:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:55, 1 May 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:Gears of War/Sandbox/Ubidays

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect to a page where nothing about what the infobox formerly included is present. Lordtobi (✉) 13:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning User:Lordtobi. Do you want to combine these with the other Ubisoft ones from yesterday? Si Trew (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think so, this is a cross-namespace redirect of no real use, purpose, or sense, and adds atop of what we have with the Ubidays redirect, so it's its own case, probably a speedy? Lordtobi (✉) 08:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Seeing that the "Ubidays" redirect, which this redirect formerly targetted, was also deleted, makes this redirect context- and use-less. Do you think you would change your vote? Lordtobi (✉) 15:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:54, 1 May 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.

Democratic Primary Results

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. Retargeted Democratic Primary Results to Democratic Party presidential primaries and Republican Primary Results to Republican Party presidential primaries. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous, not suitable for a disambiguation page. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:04, 1 May 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 Explorers Guild

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. Technically this is an "unbundle" decision as there is consensus to delete all except "The Explorers Guild" which has yet to reach consensus. So I'm closing it as delete all without prejudice against recreating "The Explorers Guild" and adding relevant information to the target article. @AngusWOOF: You're free to do as you see fit. Deryck C. 13:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Assassin! was very ambitious about this one. According to his crystal ball, there was to be at least a film, a TV series, and a franchise. Unfortuntely, his crystal ball was a bit faulty and there isn't even a single mention of "The Explorers Guild" anywhere on Wikipedia. That leaves deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 03:16, 1 May 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.
More