This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 22, 2015.
- 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.
Der
yck C.
08:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
Delete per
WP:RFD#D5, nonsense. Aaliyah doesn't have anything titled "Aaliyah X" --
Tavix (
talk)
15:32, 22 July 2015 (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)
14:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
Parks and Recreation is not a spinoff from
The Office. The show was originally going to be, but that idea was scrapped early on (see
Parks and Recreation#Conception). Delete as confusing. --
Tavix (
talk)
15:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete both per the RfD delete confusing/misleading criterion (I'm too lazy to look it up right now, just like these redirects are lazy).
Parks and Recreation is not a spinoff of
The Office, it was barely a spinoff of
The Office (U.S. TV series), and in any case it's not untitled.
Ivanvector 🍁 (
talk) 15:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC) I copied my comment from the discussion below, because that's just how lazy these redirects are.
Ivanvector 🍁 (
talk)
15:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete both as vague. --
Lenticel (
talk)
01:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete The Office is a The Office spinoff, and office spinoff can refer to oh so many things, such as Microsoft Works with Word, etc. --
67.70.32.190 (
talk)
04:02, 23 July 2015 (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.
Skittles (confectioner y)
- 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)
14:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
Delete, implausible typo. It's less than four months old so I don't think we have to worry about breaking any links. --
Tavix (
talk)
14:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I thought about that but didn't because I figured it was too long ago. Is there anywhere that defines "recent" or is that just up to the admin's interpretation? --
Tavix (
talk)
15:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Admin interpretation, I think. What defines "recent" would be an explosive ANI case I'm sure. I figured since you called it "less than four months old" then it's probably "recent" enough.
Ivanvector 🍁 (
talk)
15:32, 22 July 2015 (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 (surprisingly, but that's the consensus).
Der
yck C.
15:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
This was originally an article basically explaining "how to grow a fresh pickle" and was redirected instead of deleted (
WP:NOTHOWTO). Now it's sitting at a disambiguation page which is completely inappropriate because there is nothing at that page titled "Fresh Pickle." The previous RFD was derailed due to an entry at
List of cucumber varieties called "fresh pickle" but it was removed because no one could find any sources on it. Due to that fact, I'm recommending deletion. --
Tavix (
talk)
14:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
- delete I was one of the keep opinions the last time around but we are certainly not pointing this anywhere that says anything about a fresh pickle. Looking at the original "article" it was patent nonsense that should have been speedily deleted rather than converted to a dubious redirect.
Mangoe (
talk)
20:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete absent evidence that this is actually a cultivar. Also, can a pickle really even be fresh? --
BDD (
talk)
21:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
- That's the joke... --
Tavix (
talk)
21:20, 22 July 2015 (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 Untitled Office Spin-Off
- 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)
13:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
Delete, no longer untitled. --
Tavix (
talk)
14:35, 22 July 2015 (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
Monarchy of Australia. There's consensus that this is an unacceptable synonym for Australia, but that relevant information can be found there. I've also tagged the redirect with {{
R unprintworthy}}. --
BDD (
talk)
13:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
There is no such place, could not find any significant usage of the term. -
The
ChampionMan
1234
05:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I suppose that works, and I'll go with it. The problem I see with that is that "kingdom" (
wikt:kingdom) implies an
absolute monarchy where the king is the supreme ruler. That is very far from the case for the
Head of the Commonwealth/
Queen of Australia who actually wields very little absolute power (maybe none). However, someone searching this probably won't be disappointed with an article on the monarchy, unless they're looking for an ancient or pre-European Kingdom of Australia, which doesn't exist.
Ivanvector 🍁 (
talk)
22:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I did a little bit of research and ended up changing that definition. Take a look at other major dictionaries (I tried
M-W and dictionary.com), and they define it simply as a nation/state/country/whatever that has a king and/or queen as it's head. That makes sense when we think about the modern day "Kingdom" of the
United Kingdom: Queen Elizabeth II is the
head of state, so it would make that definition fit. We can apply that same definition to Australia. Even though it's not a Kingdom (capital K), we can still say "kingdom (lowercase k) of Australia" because Queen Elizabeth II (a monarch) is the head of state of Australia. --
Tavix (
talk)
22:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note:
WikiProject Australia has been informed about this discussion. Thanks, --
Tavix (
talk)
22:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete or redirect to the monarchy for reasons illustrated above.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
00:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Australia is a federation of states, it was formed by the states for the benefit of the states not the monarch
Gnan
garra
04:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per others.
ColonialGrid (
talk)
05:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Totally disagree with Tavix's explanation as to usage, there is nothing in the history of australia where the term has been used, the standard appellation for the country where it is an entity in any way other than the country name is the Commonwealth of Australia and nothing to do with anything relative to any monarchy in any way, much closer to Gnangarra's explanation.
JarrahTree
06:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
- if some just heard Australia had a Queen they would search for
Queen of Australia
Gnan
garra
02:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
- Delete per
WP:R#DELETE item 8 - "the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym ..."
- Retarget at
Monarchy of Australia. It is not in dispute that the country is not and has never been known by that name, but it is a plausible that someone might assume that since there is a "Queen of Australia" (or a King perhaps, in the future), that there's a Kingdom too. It's best to direct such readers to a page that will clarify the matter for them.
Lankiveil (
speak to me)
06:15, 25 July 2015 (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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 29#New Gold Mountain
- 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)
13:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
There are several non-notable, obscure uses of this word (mostly corporate/institutional names). However none refer to London. -
The
ChampionMan
1234
05:37, 22 July 2015 (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. --
BDD (
talk)
13:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
Term not mentioned in target article.
Steel1943 (
talk)
05:31, 22 July 2015 (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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 29#Max Read
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 31#Summary of trojan war
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 5#Wittle
The intersection of Clinton & Fidelity
- 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)
13:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
Delete, not mentioned at the target's article. --
Tavix (
talk)
01:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Yeah, that's why I believe it to be a BLP issue. If not for the connotation, why create the redirect?
Ivanvector 🍁 (
talk)
21:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Check it out for yourself. --
Tavix (
talk)
23:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I don't dispute its existence; it's clearly there. The issue is that the user who created this redirect asserted its notability, and it can only be notable for being a coincidental but direct inference to the
Lewinsky scandal. Furthermore, the creator is a user so toxic they got themselves globally banned by both ArbCom and the community, and there is a suggestion in their block log that they're connected to one of our most prolific vandals. Thus I don't assume good faith that this was created innocuously.
Ivanvector 🍁 (
talk)
16:13, 24 July 2015 (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)
13:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
Delete per
WP:PROMO as it appears to be a foosball table brand. --
Tavix (
talk)
01:01, 22 July 2015 (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)
13:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
Besides the fact that basketball was originally played with a soccer ball, I'm not seeing a connection between the phrase and the sport. --
Tavix (
talk)
00:47, 22 July 2015 (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)
13:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
Delete per
WP:RFD#D8 and
WP:RFOREIGN. --
Tavix (
talk)
00:17, 22 July 2015 (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, G10 by
Chillum
Lenticel (
talk)
03:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
reply
Delete per
WP:RNEUTRAL, not well known name and not found in the article. It's been around since January 2007. --
Tavix (
talk)
00:12, 22 July 2015 (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.