The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• She-goats → Goat  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• She goat → Goat  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• She goats → Goat  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

The target doesn't discuss female goats separately from males, while this redirect implies content specific to females. Also, females are more properly called nannies or does. Unless there is a female-specific target, deletion is probably the best option.

Also nominated: She goat and She goats. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the target discusses goats, and has specific coverage of female goats, since male goats do not produce milk, nor get pregnant, etc. And these are terms used for female goats, so viable search terms, whatever the "official" names are, these are also used -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per 70... and because there is no apparent potential for confusion or ambiguity. Rossami (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all: Quite aside from that Billy goat and Billy-goat also redirect to Goat, and that Wikipedia is not the linguistic enforcement arm of the Goat Breeders Association, the only relevant question is whether "she goat" or "she-goat" are reasonable search terms. With 200,000 relevant hits on Google, it's a safe bet. Ravenswing 12:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meh, I guess. We have pages like cow and hen for this sort of usage. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is archaic, but it's real English.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to be discussed in the target article --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:38, 5 April 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Imelda (criminal) → Imelda Marcos  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Imelda (entrepreneur) → Imelda Marcos
• Imelda (diplomat) → Imelda Marcos
• Imelda (socialite) → Imelda Marcos
• Imelda (singer) → Imelda Marcos
• Imelda (model) → Imelda Marcos
• Imelda (politician) → Imelda Marcos

This is a batch of newly created redirects to Imelda Marcos. They have no incoming links. This is apparently an attempt to predict that people will type in random non-existent (disambiguators), after multiple unanimously-opposed attempts to move Imelda Marcos over the disambiguation page Imelda. Alsee (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Alsee (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (criminal) and (politician), as these are how Marcos is commonly seen and hence are potentially useful for auto-complete ("Imelda politician" works nicely), they also inform at least Google's search engine. Delete the others. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment these redirects were created by Imeldific (talk · contribs) who seems to be an Imelda Marcos fan (see wikt:Imeldific) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. If "Imelda" is ambiguous then Imelda (politician) is ambiguous – the DAB includes a British politican and an Irish politician. But she wasn't a politician in any formal sense, nor was she a singer nor a diplomat nor a model nor an entrepreneur, any more than say Diana (model) should target Diana, Princess of Wales. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • She worked as a beauty queen, model, and singer in the 1950s before she became First Lady and she became an entrepreneur and fashion designer after that.Imeldific (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: These redirects presume that the only notable "Imelda" in any of the categories is Mrs. Marcos. That's a tall order for which no evidence has been proffered. A casual glance at the dab page for "Imelda" reveals other Imeldas who were singers, politicians, actresses, businesswomen and socialites. Ravenswing 12:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it presumes that she is the most notable... but yes, I agree. Si Trew (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Imelda (criminal) per WP:G10; "criminal" implies that she was convicted of crimes but as far as I can tell from the article that is not the case. Still reviewing the others. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget Imelda (entrepreneur) to Bill and Imelda Roche. I don't see Imelda Marcos' business activities in her article at all; inheriting wealth is not a business venture. Imelda Roche is the only person listed on Imelda who could reasonably be considered an entrepreneur. Retarget the others to the dab page, where multiple people of each of these descriptions are listed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all and speedy the criminal one. SimonTrew's rationale is correct.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all, obviously. All of these describe her better than all the other Imeldas. She is still running for Congress so Imelda (politician) still applies (Electoral history of Imelda Marcos). Her role as First Lady is more of a diplomat; Imelda (diplomat) By far, she is the most recognizable Imelda political leader. The lawsuits currently being held against her qualify her as Imelda (criminal). Her offshore bank accounts makes her Imelda (entrepreneur), her shoes for Imelda (model) and her legacy as Imelda (socialite). She has been a singer longer than Imelda May and is still more popular based on page views. She should be mononymously name as simply Imelda based on reliable sources but current consensus prevents that.Imeldific (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If off-shore bank accounts make someone an entrepreneur, then I guess Vladimir Putin is one too. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Si Trew. I don't think the modifiers are enough to justify that the redirects specify Imelda Marcos --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Ravenswing —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. There is no point having disambiguation redirects which do not disambiguate. Even if we accept the argument that Imelda Marcos is currently the most notable Imelda in all of those categories (which in some of those cases she probably is), she is certainly not the only possible person to plausibly be disambiguated by that title. WP:R#DELETE suggests "it might cause confusion" and "the redirect is offensive or abusive" as reasons to delete; as far as I can see both of those are valid in this case. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:11, 11 April 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 keep. I would encourage expansion of the target article to describe this term, however. Unlike some of the redlinks used in discussion, it's a very common one, and I'm sure there are sources that discuss it. While it remains unmentioned, it's might just come up here again. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Grammar Nazis → Linguistic prescription  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Grammar Nazi → Linguistic prescription  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Grammar nazi → Linguistic prescription  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Unneeded pejorative connection of grammar prescriptivists to Nazis. Dicklyon (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Also: Grammar Nazi, Grammar nazi. See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016 April 4#WP:WORDGARBAGE for another redir created solely to attack another editor.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (all): That it's a pejorative and obnoxious term is true. That it's a very well known one and a highly probable search term is another. I'm all for it redirecting people to a fair and balanced article on the subject. Ravenswing 19:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia is not censored, and "unneeded" just means censor it. Gavriel D. Rosenfeld writes: "Common examples include: “feminazi,” “grammar Nazi,” “gym Nazi,” “stroller Nazi,” “breastfeeding Nazi,” and so forth. Many of these terms preceded the creation of the Internet, having first appeared on television and radio." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it's sole purpose on Wikipedia so far was for you to accuse me of being a grammar Nazi, here. Dicklyon (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree that RAN has a long and notorious history of incivility, that's scarcely the case: there are over 1300 uses of the phrase on Wikipedia [1], and it wasn't brought here specifically to target you. Ravenswing 12:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wrote: "Move back to comma version, 'grammar Nazis' have been removing the commas one by one ever since the mass comma deletion effort was thwarted in 2015." My comments refer to the whole ", Jr." to " Jr." movement to implement an obscure grammatical trend with stealth and zeal. Feel free to take me to ANI !court. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep extremely plausible search term. Linguistic prescription looks to be an extremely good target article. Alsee (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (as nom). Implausible, inappropriately plural, offensive, and only added as a personal attack (on me, here). Dicklyon (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While you are free to continue to contribute to the deletion discussion, please don't comment using this format. Your opinion that the redirect should be deleted is obvious from your nomination. Comments in this format give the appearance of trying to "vote" twice and create confusion for whatever admin eventually has to close this discussion. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't edit my comments; I am providing reasons for deletion. I've now marked it "(as nom)" to clarify. Dicklyon (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • While it's usual to do that simply by writing Comment instead of what may look like a multiple !vote, Dickylon didn't actually bold a !vote of any kind on the nomination anyway, and I think it's shaky to infer that nominating something without a !vote implies one for deletion. Si Trew (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I procedurally nominate things sometimes that I do not expect to be deleted, because they're a dispute about whether they should be retained, and it's more expedient to just use XfD than than let a circular argument continue. I also, like Lyon, frequently provide a more detailed rationale below XfDs (and RMs, etc.), to keep the main nomination short, though I also make it clear that I'm the nominator.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is still a double vote, if you want to comment, we have comment. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • This section is my only !vote. Please don't count my original nomination. Or count it if you prefer. Who counts !votes anyway? Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not count "votes" but we clearly count "!votes", and you have double !voted. You violated a !law.
• Delete—per Dicklyon. I don't mind if the pejorative term appears within an article on linguistic prescription as an explanation, but not in a title. Tony (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Pejorative redirects are explicitly allowed. See [[WP:RNEUTRAL}} above. So are redirect from pluralization including grammatically incorrect pluralization. (And, yes, I do note the irony of complaining about a grammatical error in a redirect about being fussy over grammatical errors.) No valid reason for deletion has been offered yet. Rossami (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That it was created specifically for a personal attack on me is not a valid reason to delete it? Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Grammar Nazis" is plural, it doesn't refer to any specific person, unless you are making a claim to be poster child for the movement. Would you prefer the term of art to be "grammar fascist"? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You keep claiming that, and you keep failing to provide any evidence for the assertion. Ravenswing 06:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Evidence – In this edit Richard Arthur Norton refers to me (implicitly but obviously) using a link to Grammar Nazis. Then he see's it's a red link; the very next entry in his contribs listing is the creation of this redirect to back up his attack on me. Dicklyon (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination has been expanded since my original comment. To clarify, I believe we should keep 'all the variants. As noted below, two of these variants have been around long before the dispute with Dicklyon so the assertion that this is solely a personal attack is implausible. Rossami (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all three for multiple reasons:
  1. WP:NOTDICT and is not Urban Dictionary in particular. We do not need a redirect for every turn of phrase that has some minor bit of currency (and notably decreasing in the case of this one).
  2. It's not normal for random insulting terms – flaming douchebag, blatant fraud, sneaky liar, etc., etc. – to have redirects here or articles, no matter how common they are. We do have articles for slurs of particular types (ethnic and sexual mostly) because they're actually notable, and some redirs from similar terms to those articles, but there are as many ways to insult people as you can imagine, then many more besides. This phrase is not notable and we have no article or section on it.
  3. More the point, the term is never mentioned at the article to which is redirects.
  4. The redir is just an excuse to trivialize the Holocaust, per Godwin's Law, in talk page discussions, and to inject gross PoV in mainspace. Not only should such a phrase not be linked in articles, nor ever appear except in a quotation we certain we need, WP should not act as an enabler of people being, well, flaming doucheabags. Cf. previous MfDs against WP:DICK and WP:DIVA; the rationale in them applies here, because the primary use of this redir is for editors to negatively label each other in talk and noticeboards and snarky edit summaries.
  5. The phrase does not actually align with the article it redirects to, anyway. Linguistic prescription is what a prescriptive grammarian engages in, the intent to impose fixed rules on a fluid, evolving language, especially in a "remedial" fashion that is not natural for the language (e.g., the easily disproven insistence that English sentences cannot properly end in prepositions or contain split infinitives when these have been features of the language all along and used by the greats of English literature; these "rules" were borrowed by snobbish Victorians from Latin which they believed to be the ideal language). The phrase "grammar Nazi" (and the variants "grammar fascist", "grammar fascism", which properly are redlinks), by contrast, refer to people who are rude or obsessive sticklers for conventionalized, formal grammar, spelling, and other style matters in contexts in which it they are unimportant or inappropriate, e.g. criticizing spelling in text messages, producing awkward revisions that Orwell would call "barbarous" out of a sense of obligation to formality levels not needed in the current writing task, even difficulty controlling the urge to sneak in edits to other Wikipedian's talk page posts to fix their typos.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Urban Dictionary is for contemporary slang, if you read my post, the reference says it predates the Internet. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Irrelevant.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If your argument is A, and we have a reliable source saying A is not correct, how is that irrelevant? I understand why you find it irrelevant, it contradicts your narrow worldview, but why should any other editor find it irrelevant? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - the two which SMcCandlish added have been here since March and November 2007, there's hardly any reason to delete them now. These terms are clearly in common use, and we explicitly allow and encourage this sort of redirect, even if the term is a tongue-in-cheek allusion to war criminals and possibly used in a pejorative sense, because it takes readers to information they are looking for. Editors who use it to engage in personal attacks should be swiftly punished, in exactly the same way as one calling another bitch or cunt or asshole, but that is not a problem with the redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:CONTENTAGE and WP:LONGTIME in "Arguments to avoid". Also, I already addressed this: Epithets like bitch that are notable are ones about which we have articles (or at least sections), and we redirect variant spellings to them. This is not the case here; Ivanvector is comparing apples and oranges. An argument that cunt should not be deleted has nothing at all to do with whether we need redirects for random insult phrases. We do not have any content at all on "grammar Nazi" so there is no reason to have a redirect for it. The phrase appears nowhere in the target article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dicklyon and SMcCandlish —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. (edit conflict) I've added RfD notes pointing here to Grammar nazi and Grammar Nazi, closer please note. I don't mind them being added formally to the nomination but it might be a bit late now. Si Trew (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the headers, just for consistency. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Oh, I can see why Dick and SMc want to delete this so badly. I'm surprised they're even bothering to ask... - ^theWOLFchild 08:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Either keep all or (if we accept SMcCandlish's argument that Linguistic prescription is not a good target) make them soft redirects to Wiktionary again. All of these are plausible search terms, and should lead somewhere; WP:RNEUTRAL applies. Sideways713 (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all as plausible and even useful redirects. The term is often offensive—though I've seen plenty of people avowing themselves to be "Grammar Nazis"—but that's not a reason to delete it in itself. The original reason for creating the redirect also seems irrelevant to me, assuming it's otherwise workable—there's nothing about the redirect as it is that indicates it refers to a particular person. The "flaming douchebag" etc. examples given above aren't comparable since in this case the term has a clear referent. Also in response to SmC, I don't think the way in which something may be used in talk pages should have any relevance for article space. WP:RNEUTRAL applies. —Nizolan ^(talk) 16:06, 9 April 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Scott Brophy → St. John's Fog Devils  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Subject was a NN amateur youth hockey player deleted at AfD nearly a decade ago for failing WP:NHOCKEY and the GNG. Recreated as a redirect to a long-defunct amateur hockey team by the infamous Dolovis, who was responsible for the creation of thousands of NN stubs and spurious redirects, and was banned by the community from new article creation and the revdel process. Improbable search term, and beyond that an inaccurate one: what makes this a more valid redirect target than the Gatineau Olympiques or St. Mary's University, for which Brophy not only also played, but played in more games than for the Fog Devils? Ravenswing 13:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Brophy was inaugural captain, according to the article. And the creator has no bearing on the decision here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Delete, multiple plausible targets, no perfect match. According to his Hockey DB profile, he played twice as many games for the the Gatinaeu Olympiues and four times as long for St. Mary's University. It's silly to say that someone looking for Mr. Brophy would find what they're looking for at the Fog Devils when that's only a fraction of his career. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. Redirecting a non-notable child article to a more notable parent title is routine. Tavix's argument that a different parent title might be better is an argument to retarget, not to delete. I have no strong opinion about retargeting but I will note his role as the inaugural captain does add some weight to the current title choice. Rossami (talk) 06:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:XY. Multiple potential targets, and even as "inaugural captain", an utterly nn subject. And with respect Rich, the creator's history of bad faith creations such as these very much does apply in my mind. Resolute 13:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are many potential targets. Not at all a valid redirect. -DJSasso (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I thought we deleted all of Dolovis' redirects. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: not even close. Resolute had User:Resolute/botreq made to find his "bad" redirects, but it looks like it hasn't been sorted through yet. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The goal at the time was to dump the 100+ redirects that pointed to a draft or season article. I never did go through looking for similar cases such as this. Resolute 02:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I caught these two is that I was in a burst of insomnia and decided to go back through every AfD in which I'd been involved that still came up blue link, and these were part of a bundled AfD of NN-at-the-time junior players. (Let's just say I raised no objection to Jonathan Toews or Timo Pielmeier!) Ravenswing 03:01, 5 April 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wes Welcher → St. John's Fog Devils  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Subject was a NN amateur youth hockey player deleted at AfD nearly a decade ago for failing WP:NHOCKEY and the GNG. Recreated as a redirect to a long-defunct amateur hockey team by the infamous Dolovis, who was responsible for the creation of thousands of NN stubs and spurious redirects, and was banned by the community from new article creation and the revdel process. Improbable search term, and beyond that an inaccurate one: what makes this a more valid redirect target than the Moncton Wildcats or St. Thomas University, for which Welcher also played? Ravenswing 13:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Welcher is mentioned in the article, as a record holder. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Retarget to Wes Welker. Delete, multiple plausible targets, no perfect match. According to his Hockey DB profile, he also spent time with the Moncton Wildcats and St. Thomas University. It's silly to say that someone looking for Wes Welcher would find what they're looking for at the Fog Devils when that's only part of his career. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. The fact that there are multiple possible targets for a redirect is not a good argument to delete. Rossami (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:XY. Multiple potential targets. Resolute 13:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As mentioned by Resolute WP:XY is applicable here. Far to many potential targets. -DJSasso (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per the thread above. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:XY is not a reason, it's a common outcome. WP:RFD#D1 (hinders search) is the underlying reason for that outcome, "The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine." Okay, the various targets may not be similarly named, but they have a subject in common. Si Trew (talk) 17:44, 5 April 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Files for deletion → Wikipedia:Files for discussion  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:XNR to non reader content. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The 'files' being talked about here... it's just all too vague. There are all kinds of contexts where you need to delete some files to get something else to get working. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete files for deletion. (I couldn't resist the wordplay, grin.) It's a particularly troublesome cross-namespace redirect. Alsee (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:XNR to pipework content, that is not encyclopedic content for the readership. Further, this isn't about the topic of files for deletion, this is a specific workflow for Wikipedia, and does not cover file deletion candidacy and various political and legal problems with that. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Trash (computing). SSTflyer 09:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible search term for that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an inappropriate CNR.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:17, 4 April 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion revision → Wikipedia:Revision deletion  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:XNR to non-reader content. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Strange reversal of wording, and cross namespace redirects are troublesome. Alsee (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete std XNR. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Delete WP:XNR to pipework that is non-encyclopedic content not for the readership. This is not about the generic topic of deletion revision, revisionism, hiding facts by revisionist history, etc. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP namespace excludes it from {{db-r2}} unfortunately. Si Trew (talk) 20:10, 4 April 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 speedy delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Andhra Pradesh AC SF Express → Visakhapatnam – New Delhi AP Express  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The target of this redirect is about a different subject than the redirect. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Visakhapatnam – New Delhi AP Express was moved to Andhra Pradesh AC SF Express which was an irrational move as these two trains are altogether different. I just reverted the move, so Andhra Pradesh AC SF Express ends up being redirected to Visakhapatnam – New Delhi AP Express. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 05:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, I'll try speedily as {{db-r3}}, also WP:G7 author (User:LeoFrank) requests deletion. Si Trew (talk) 17:52, 5 April 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Barnsley F.C. Current Season → 2015–16 Barnsley F.C. season  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Deletion preferable as this obscure redirect would have to be updated every year (and only seconds ago it was updated for the first time in eight years). There is no need for any "Current X" then redirecting to the incumbent, whether it is "Current President of the United States", "Current CEO of Hewlett Packard", "Current French number one single", any '''tAD''' (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not sure if WP:RELTIME applies, but no need for the maintenance burden which nobody actually carries. This is not useful as a link in articles, and anyone searching for the club's results can simply search for Barnsley F.C. It patently is not an editor's shortcut. (We do have Current President of the United States.) Si Trew (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to avoid unnecessary maintenance. Linking to the current season is standard practice within football club infoboxes, in any case. C679 12:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Just not a useful redirect term, since anyone typing the phrase out will have already typed "Barnsley F.C." Ravenswing 19:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it with fire. I do not want thousands of redirects of this type lurking around, needing to be updated every year. Kill it now, kill them all. Alsee (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - maintenance isn't a problem, that could be trivially automated. The problem is that "Current season" is undefined during the "off-season" (in the UK, between early May and mid-August). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Alsee —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - confusing and not required. GiantSnowman 07:21, 7 April 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• STD Wizard → Sexually transmitted infection  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete this was previously sent to RFD (closed as no-consensus, because discussion at talk was ongoing), with a rationale of Non-notable software should not redirect to a general article somewhat related to the software. This never should have been a redirect; this should have been csd'd. I endorse the rationale (basically, non-notable software was redirected to the STI/D article), and what's more, the article doesn't mention the software. Not particularly useful, and we're better off deleting this page than making it look as if we have an article that discusses this software somewhere. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Si Trew (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We have a non-notable, gimmick-based service that's not mentioned in the present article, nor do I think it will ever be. I'm in agreement. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per every reason given above. Alsee (talk) 22:17, 3 April 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 retarget to Thomas Hardy's Wessex#Wessex regions and actual English counties. --BDD (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mid Wessex → Wiltshire  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Is this redirect accurate? Or completely made-up and wrong? Two others nominated for the same reason:

• Outer Wessex (targets Somerset)
• Nether Wessex (targets Somerset)

Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding Mid-Wessex and South Wessex Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've anchored these other two redirects, otherwise the section links in the nominations on their pages wouldn't work. Add South Wessex → Wiltshire, and Mid-Wessex → Wiltshire too? Same creator, same time. Si Trew (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. WP:RFD#D1, hinders search, per WP:XY. But I imagine these were scraped from the table at Thomas Hardy's Wessex#Wessex regions and actual English counties, so perhaps retarget there; the table links to each of the real counties which they stand for. Si Trew (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Outer Wessex" and "Nether Wessex" seem to be "a novel or very obscure synonym" from fiction. No one searching for Somerset would use these search terms. Thomas Hardy's Wessex#Wessex regions and actual English counties doesn't even include "Nether Wessex" nor does the source given. If they were to be kept they should retarget to the table as suggested by Si Trew.— Rod ^talk 08:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd missed that Nether Wessex was not in the table. Delete that one per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. 10:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not a question of someone searching for Somerset or Wiltshire, but one of her searching for Mid Wessex, etc. Si Trew (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Thomas Hardy's Wessex#Wessex regions and actual English counties per Si Trew.

Note: A quick Google search shows that Nether Wessex is a synonym for Outer Wessex. I added an (unsourced) note of that in the article. That solves the WP:RFD#D2 issue. Nether Wessex should also be retargeted. Alsee (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget all without prejudice to reversing if the term is later covered in the "real world" articles. It's an interesting case where one synonym is targeted away from another. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Comment. If we retarget they should be catted as {{R to list entry}}. Si Trew (talk) 20:13, 4 April 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.