Eisspeedway

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 10

August 10

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 10, 2016.

List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by date of birth

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 List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by age. --BDD (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The dates of birth of each Prime Minister are not included in the article this redirect directs to. --Neveselbert 23:51, 10 August 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.

Atlantis 7 (film)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 24#Atlantis 7 (film)

Pichkari

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. 11:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would presume these to be WP:RFOREIGN redirects. From what I can tell, a pich(a)kari is a special water gun that is used during Holi. -- Tavix (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking there could be an article written on the subject, so a deletion to encourage article creation could also be a good idea. Until then, search results can guide people to the relevant articles, including the Spathodea genus. -- Tavix (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that search results really don't here. They are overwhelmed by the partial title match for the song, it took effort to exclude that result (using google) before I found the genus and even more searching (including within the articles) for the content we have about the pistol. Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On Google scholar I see a couple references that have pichkari as a term for hypodermic injections/syringes. Squeezing flower buds of Spathodea makes them squirt a yellow liquid; children like to play with them (and "squirt tree" is another English name for Spathodea). The common thread with the water gun, syringes and Spathodea is that all of them squirt. I'd guess that the water gun might be the source of the term, with syringes and Spathodea being named pichkari by association. Plantdrew (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:28, 10 August 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.

Gaza Holocaust

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 Gaza War. Not the easiest of closes, but from reading through this discussion a few times, I think this solution would satisfy the most people here. Arguments in favor for retargeting to the disambiguation page seemed to be the strongest as it has been shown to refer to multiple conflicts. As an aside, it's rare to see so much apathy in a discussion about such a controversial subject. -- Tavix (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A 2012 RFD reached no consensus regarding this redirect. At the time it pointed to the article Gaza War, which was later moved to Gaza War (2008–09). That was the title to which this redirect pointed from then until February of this year, when it was changed to its current target by 158.169.40.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), an unregistered user who remains active, and who continues to make good-faith edits in the Israeli–Arab topic area. Since this redirect hasn't been discussed in about four years, I thought it might be worth putting it up once more.

I am personally undecided (at least for now). I see the argument for the old target. I see the argument for the new target. I also see potential arguments for retargeting to Gaza War (the DAB page) or for simply deleting the redirect. What do others think? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 03:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:24, 10 August 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.

Long article

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, as consensus shows that this title is vague term that doesn't necessarily refer to journalism. -- Tavix (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything that might be described as a "long article" is journalism, though. Academic publications come to mind. I think it would be useful to ask whether this is what our friends at Wiktionary would call an "idiomatic phrase". Does it mean something besides "article which is long"? --BDD (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The creator, Jax 0677, was never notified of this discussion; I've done that now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorthian (talk • contribs) 18:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete While we don't precisely follow the Wiktionary standard I alluded to above, it seems a useful yardstick in this case. I don't think has an inherent connection with journalism, and I also have doubts as to its plausibility as a search term. Perhaps journalistic usage would be a more likely destination than others, though. --BDD (talk) 17:01, 17 August 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.

Integrated watchlist

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. WJBscribe (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural note: WP:G5 does not apply if other well-meaning editors have argued to keep the content, as is the case here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I merely offered a !vote instead of tagging it or deleting it myself. If those who want to keep it flip their !votes to speedy delete (WP:BMB, WP:DENY, etc.), then it will be safe to delete. -- Tavix (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tavix, I don't see any vote from you here...? I don't think WP:G5 applies, either, as this redirect was created months before the ban.— Gorthian (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote is before the second relist. Sarsaparilla was blocked in February 2008. This redirect was created in May 2010, a couple years after the block. -- Tavix (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Tavix used 5 tildes to sign his first comment. Deryck C. 21:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks for signing my comment. I didn't even notice that after double-reading it! -- Tavix (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deryck, I may well be wrong on this, but can you point me to a policy or guideline that says keep arguments override G5? I thought, in the spirit of WP:DENY, G5 was applied pretty inflexibly. I know withdrawal works the way you described. --BDD (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • From WP:REVERTBAN: If editors other than the banned editor have made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a banned editor, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do. So I apologise, I think we're all in agreement. It's still a valid rationale for deletion, but not sufficient to "speedy" anymore. This is similar to withdrawal (becomes a normal "keep" rationale if anyone else had already argued for change) but dissimilar to the Neelix injunction (becomes void on its own once anybody argues for "keep"). Deryck C. 21:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the avoidance of any doubt, I still think this should be kept despite the creator being banned. The application of G5 has always been controversial, but it has never applied to creations made before a ban. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks both for your replies. It sounds like I've just encountered stricter applications of G5. But Thryduulf, it looks like the sockmaster here was banned in March 2008, and this redirect was created in May 2010. Am I misreading the history, or was your comment a general one about G5 application rather than this case specifically? --BDD (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Whether G5 should apply regardless of the quality of the submission has been a point upon which there has been no consensus as long as I've been aware of it (and I've been an admin over a decade), so it's hardly surprising you've seen different interpretations/implementations of it. My comment about creations before a ban was based on Gorthian's comment that "this redirect was created months before the ban", I have not looked at the timeline myself and my view that this is worth keeping is independent of the timeline. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        My interpretation of the WP:G5 criterion would seem to imply that there is consensus for this. The only pages created by a blocked/banned user that shouldn't be deleted include: those with significant edits from others, transcluded templates and useful categories. There is not, however, an exception for "quality." In fact, that would seem to contradict the banning policy, which states that "bans apply to all editing, good or bad." If you feel there should be an exception for "quality," I'd recommend that you propose a change to G5 and WP:BAN. -- Tavix (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Put at it's most simple, there is a consensus that pages created by banned users may be speedily deleted, but no consensus that they must. No other speedy deletion criterion imposes a requirement to delete. Some people feel that all pages that meet the G5 criterion should be deleted, but others (including me) think that pages which improve the encyclopaedia should not be deleted simply because of the author. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps as an application of WP:IAR, your argument could work since you feel that it benefits the encyclopedia. However, I think the banning policy makes it clear that banned uses are not allowed to contribute and they deserve no credits for their work, good or bad. If there's a "good" contribution by a banned user, then someone in good standing should be the one to create it. -- Tavix (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        You can call it IAR if you wish, but that doesn't alter the fact that there is no consensus on how strictly either G5 or the banning policy should be applied in practice in every circumstance. This debate has been going on for at least 10 years (and probably longer) so we are not going to resolve it here. You just need to accept that your view is not universally held. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not trying to solve a 10 year debate, but rather offering evidence and arguments to support my side, and you are doing the same. I'm not going to get you to change your beliefs on the matter and you probably won't be able to sway me either. What matters here is that we both present our cases for the closer and those who will participate behind us, so they can read our cases and figure for themselves which is stronger. It's been fun debating you, I've enjoyed it. -- Tavix (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Watchlist per WP:CNR. This comes up in the search dropdown when readers are trying to find actual articles (e.g. Integrated writing environment. Casual readers should not just be thrown into the WP: namespace 109.159.41.193 (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CNR. Confusing for casual readers and doesn't serve much of a purpose even for experienced editors. — JFG talk 03:16, 29 August 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.

Hindi language movement

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 DrKay (G5). --BDD (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more of the same, already blocked author, who created dozens of articles and redirects, failing WP:NPOV in the first day in Wikipedia. This topic just simply does not exist Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:37, 10 August 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.

Brahui nationalism

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 DrKay (G5). --BDD (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article as created asserted that there is/was an insurgency movement without any source material. The current redirect seemingly equates Brahui nationalism with Brahui people (without any material in that article to support the existence of a nationalist insurgency). Neither of these options is supportable or referenced. Delete for (;;) (talk) 12:10, 10 August 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 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 DrKay (G5). --BDD (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically incorrect, besides a host of other problems regarding redirects created by the user. Mar4d (talk) 11:20, 10 August 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.

Indian annexed Kashmir

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 DrKay (G5). --BDD (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect clearly fails WP:NPOV. The author of this page created dozens of articles, failing WP:NPOV in the first day in Wikipedia Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like we have a G5 on our hands. Will give the deleting admin a few minutes before I start procedural closes... --BDD (talk) 20:07, 10 August 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.

Occupied Sikkim

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 DrKay (G5). --BDD (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect clearly fails WP:NPOV. The author of this page created dozens of articles, failing WP:NPOV in the first day in Wikipedia Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:42, 10 August 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.

Occupied Khalistan

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 DrKay (G5). --BDD (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

his redirect clearly fails WP:NPOV. The author of this page created dozens of articles, failing WP:NPOV in the first day in Wikipedia Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:38, 10 August 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.

International recognition of East Pakistan as Bangla-desh

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 DrKay (G5). --BDD (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect clearly fails WP:NPOV. The author of this page created dozens of articles, failing WP:NPOV in the first day in Wikipedia Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:32, 10 August 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.

Recognition of East Bengal as an Independent polity

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 DrKay (G5). --BDD (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect clearly fails WP:NPOV. The author of this page created dozens of articles, failing WP:NPOV in the first day in Wikipedia Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:30, 10 August 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.

Occupied South Tibet

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 DrKay (G5). --BDD (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect clearly fails WP:NPOV. The author of this page created dozens of articles, failing WP:NPOV in the first day in Wikipedia Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all this author's WP:NPOV redirects. for (;;) (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV term that occurs in no WP:RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not because it's POV (see WP:RNEUTRAL), but because "South Tibet" is such a vague term that "occupied South Tibet" could refer to several different places depending on your point of view - google searches find about equal occurrences of "Indian occupied"/"India-Occupied" and "China-Occupied" (the latter clearly not relating to the current target) meaning there is no primary topic. If the areas referred to were unambiguous and there was sourced content at the target articles a disambiguation page might be appropriate, but neither condition is met. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 10 August 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 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 DrKay (G5). --BDD (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect clearly fails WP:NPOV. The author of this page created dozens of articles, failing WP:NPOV in the first day in Wikipedia Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:27, 10 August 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.

Political status of Occupied Kashmir

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 DrKay (G5). --BDD (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect clearly fails WP:NPOV. The author of this page created dozens of articles, failing WP:NPOV in the first day in Wikipedia Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:25, 10 August 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.

Category:Azad Jammu and Kashmir

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 DrKay (G5). --BDD (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, newly created category. The author is creating WP:NPOV material without regard to what already exists. for (;;) (talk) 08:16, 10 August 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.

룦래빝

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) 04:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On today's menu of probable nonsense we are specializing in redirects to disambiguation or set index pages. None of the targets have any connections with Korea or Korean, so these need to be deleted per WP:RFFL. — Gorthian (talk) 04:26, 10 August 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.

Wikipedia:Crescent Communities

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 per WP:CSD#G1 and WP:CSD#G6. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No use about this page. 333-blue 03:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gorthian: If the page is ultimately deleted,then this RFD discussion will become moot; if that happens, then this discussion can be closed at that time. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:34, 10 August 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.

Church cantatas in Leipzig between Trinity Sunday 1725 and St. John's Day 1728

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) 10:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect from a retitled page, but the specificity of title combined with the huge timespan makes this not a likely search term or target, and nothing in mainspace links to it. I think we can safely get rid of it. MSJapan (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schonken, I don't see how it would be confusing to use the actual article title in the hatnote there, as the entire page is only concerned with the one Bach. But the hatnote template is more flexible than you may realize. You can add |label= to specify whatever text you want to show in {{see also}}, sort of like piping a link. Or use {{see also2}}, which is designed to take an actual piped link as a parameter. There's no need to keep the redirect around just to use as a link. — Gorthian (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I want to show "Church cantatas in Leipzig between Trinity Sunday 1725 and St. John's Day 1728". I want the same to show up on mouseover. If you know better, please go ahead and write these Bach-related articles. Tx for showing possibilities, but let's apply Occam's rasor here: why devise a complicated system, when the simple one is one for which no further action or high-tech is needed? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In short, WP:Redirect#keep:
  • K4 – "You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect..."
  • K5 – "Someone finds them useful...." — The reason I find it useful is that it is more precise. WP:PRECISION and WP:CONCISE can be a trade-off, as it is in this case. I'm OK with the shorter-and-less-precise name for the actual article, which can create the wrong impression this is about church cantatas by (J. S.) Bach; There is however no impediment to keep the more precise name for a redirect. J. S. Bach's second cantata cycle ended on Trinity Sunday 27 May 1725 and the first published libretto for his fourth cantata cycle was for St. John's Day 24 June 1728. What happened in between of those two dates with the church music (and in particular the cantatas) in the main churches of Leipzig is the exact and precise topic of the article.
--Francis Schonken (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Francis Schonken, at the time this was nominated, I saw no page links to the redirect. But since you're planning to use it for links, I've changed my opinion above to "keep". — Gorthian (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:12, 11 August 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.