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) 21:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• ISO 639-1:er → Burushaski  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This redirect was originally created as part of User:Kratie222's Erina language hoax. Through a path I can't fully follow it was retargeted to Burushaski. I bring it here in hope that someone more knowledgeable than can determine it is a legitimate code or a continuation of the vandalism. — teb728 t c 22:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. As far as I know or can tell from reference works, there is no such ISO 639-1 code. The codes en (English), el (Greek), and es (Spanish) exist, but not er. Cnilep ( talk) 01:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. The ISO 693-3 code in the infobox for Burushaski is bsk, although it's not listed at the DAB at BSK to which Bsk redirects; I'll add that. Si Trew ( talk) 13:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

As you see bsk doesn't, I must have gone through the automatic case matching. I don't see any great need to create it. Si Trew ( talk) 14:05, 14 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 no consensus. Refined to UEFA#Corruption and controversy. -- BDD ( talk) 21:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• UEFA mafia → UEFA  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

To me this doesn't seem like a useful redirect. Why would anyone write "UEFA mafia" instead of just "UEFA"? Laber□ ^T 13:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 15:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment plausible search term, 600+ hits on Google News within quotes and 36k without; 47k and 495k respectively on the regular Google search. Possibly retarget to the currently sparse-looking UEFA#Corruption and controversy, where relevant information could be included. C 679 16:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL. Redirects from non-neutral terms need to be sourced at the target article, and we don't have that here. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 18:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - as nonsense. Giant Snowman 19:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment I understand your concerns. 'Nonsense' is "spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense". I don't feel this applies. Per WP:RNEUTRAL, "Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion". I have added sourcing from BBC, AP, Guardian and Eurosport, which I hope would fall under WP:RS. @ Laberkiste, Tavix, and GiantSnowman: Any other objections? C 679 21:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I tend to write " WP:RFD#D5 nonsense" as a shorthand since D5 says "the redirect makes no sense", but that's using nonsense in the dictionary sense you give above (and I also link to the policy, so there's no doubt), which I don't think is GiantSnowman's meaning here. Before your additions, I'd have been more inclined to say it fell under WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. But not now. Si Trew ( talk) 23:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Refine to section UEFA#Corruption and controversy, or create an anchor "Mafia" there and {{ R to anchor}} it. @ Cloudz679: would you be happy with that? Thanks for adding the content and sourcing. Si Trew ( talk) 10:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ SimonTrew: Both of those sound reasonable to me. C 679 13:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Not only is this plausible but RNEUTRAL says the exact opposite of what Tavix implies above. Redirects are deliberately held to a lower standard of neutrality than article content or main titles. Rossami (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

I agree with you that there is a lower standard, but there still needs to be some standard. I believe WP:RNEUTRAL supplies that standard in the last paragraph: "redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful...may be nominated for deletion." In this case, sources have been added to prove that it's an established term, so I have stricken my !vote. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 14:38, 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) 21:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Zelena Stranka → Greens of Serbia  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Зелена странка → Greens of Serbia  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] Cyrillic equivalent added by Si Trew ( talk) 22:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply

This redirect has been incorrect from the very first version. Zelena Stranka, or the Green Party (Serbia) (currently without a Wikipedia article, but with a website at http://www.zelenastranka.rs), has never been the same as Zeleni Srbije, or the Greens of Serbia (website: http://www.zelenisrbije.org/). All subsequent versions were inappropriate as an article.
Without a proper target to redirect to, there's only two things we can do here: create an appropriate article on Green Party (Serbia), or delete this redirect. PanchoS ( talk) 13:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Well, unless there is a better target, there is only one thing we can do here, delete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. If an article is created, the R can be recreated to target it (as {{ R from native name|sb}}). Si Trew ( talk) 19:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Google-Translate suggests that this is direct translation of "Green Party" into Serbian. While not the correct title for the party itself, it seems to be an entirely plausible error that a non-serbian-speaker might make. Greens of Serbia is a political party and seems like a reasonable target for this title. Rossami (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• I don't see how a non-Serbian speaker would expect to get to a different party by typing this in. I can understand why they might type in an English translation such as "Greens of Serbia" or " Serbian Greens" or " Serbian Green Party" or something similar and not be sure which green party of Serbia they wanted; but if they type (or copy-paste) the Serbian name, I think it's reasonable to assume that they want the article about the party of that name and not another one; it's very important not to misinform them if they are unaware of the distinction. I think that's more likely that a Serbian speaker would get confused than a non-Serbian; but Serbian WP doesn't have an article on sr:Зелена странка either: in fact, it was speedily deleted on 6 May 2007, within an hour of its creation. Si Trew ( talk) 03:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• delete It would be one thing to redirect a translation, but redirecting a transliteration of one party to the other is plainly wrong. Mangoe ( talk) 18:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per the above, the redirect is nonsense, since it redirects to a party with which they aren't affiliated. Joseph2302 ( talk) 07:31, 17 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) 21:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• •Electorate of Hesse-Cassel → Electorate of Hesse  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Impaussable and unused title; seems to be a typo from creator. © Tbhotch ^™ ( en-2.5). 20:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete highly unlikely typo involving a leading bullet point -- 70.51.45.100 ( talk) 04:39, 13 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 restore, move, and send to AfD. I'm using the IP's proposed title and will link back here. -- BDD ( talk) 18:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Interpretation (version 2) → Interpretation  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

I don't normally nominate {{ R with history}} redirects for deletion, but this one is an exception for a reason. The edit history of this redirect shows it to contain a topic which it seems as though Wikipedia currently doesn't have an article: interpretation's dictionary definition ( WP:NOTDIC.) For this reason, this edit history seems to represent neither its current target, nor any other page listed on the disambiguation page. For this reason, the edit history on this page does not seem to need to be retained since it does not correlate with any existing article's subject. As a functional redirect, it's misleading as a odd "version 2" redirect. For these reasons, I think this redirect should either be deleted or weak restore and send to WP:AFD (for a discussion to delete the contents of the page.) Steel1943 ( talk) 19:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Restore and send to AfD restore to being an article, rename to Interpretation (linguistics) and send to AfD -- 70.51.45.100 ( talk) 04:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Artifact of a pagemove which also contains significant history for the edited pages. Rossami (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Restore and send to AfD. I'm not sure the rename is helpful. Yes, it will clutter search results, but so will any other name. Si Trew ( talk) 14:11, 14 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 no consensus. See the linked discussion. -- BDD ( talk) 15:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Ouevre → Work of art  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Really a procedural listing; see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 7#Oeuvre. I'm only listing so it doesn't get missed; it would be perverse to differently for this than what we do for that, but it's four days apart, so I hesitate to combine (don't mind if someone else does). In the meantime marking as {{ R from misspelling}}. Si Trew ( talk) 18:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• I agree that this redirect should follow the same result. (I also agree that given the timing, it was appropriate to list this separately rather than try to expand the prior discussion. Thanks.) Rossami (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• The {{ R from misspelling}} was reverted, I can't think why, because wherever it goes it would be a misspelling. But I'm not getting into an edit war over it. Si Trew ( talk) 20:10, 13 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 boldly disambiguated by User:Cnilep. ( non-admin closure) by Si Trew ( talk) 23:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Work of Art → Deborah Cox discography#Studio albums  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

I think it's a WP:SURPRISE that this is not a redirect as {{ R from other capitalization}} to Work of art. Work of art has three hatnotes, but this isn't in any of them; I think it cries out to Çreate a DAB together with the hatnotes at the top of Work of art. I imagine making a DAB is fairly uncontentions, but do we make it at Work of Art (this redirect) or Work of art (disambiguation)? (It wouldn't make sense to have the DAB proper at Work of Art (disambiguation) unless this was retargeted to Work of art). Five links in article space; one at least Polly Morgan is wrong (I'll fix that so it makes four). Until this edit of 5 October 2015 by User:Jax 0677 it targeted Work of Art: The Next Great Artist. Si Trew ( talk) 18:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Chicano was wrong; should have been changed to The Next Great when retargeted; Michael Leavitt (artist) and NewNowNext_Awards#Nominees, left only Publishers Weekly list of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1930s, which I have turned into a redlink (to Work of Art (book)) by Sinclair Lewis; it is that target but only as a list entry (maybe create a {{ R to list entry}} to there?) And then there were none. Si Trew ( talk) 19:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to lower-case work of art. FYI: Work of art (disambiguation) now exists, and contains half a dozen links. Cnilep ( talk) 05:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • ...and I added Si Trew's redlink at Sinclair Lewis so the DAB would have somewhere to point to. Cnilep ( talk) 06:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Why do I bother. This is a fait accompli, so there is no point discussing it farther. Do what Cnilep says and Csnilep, I hope, will follow up doing the tidying up (I will be watching.) Csinelp's option ain't bad, but it weren't the only one on offer; that is why I left em red. An admin can delete the disambiguation page, but I certainly can't so procedurally closing, please fix up the redirect to it. Si Trew ( talk) 22:56, 12 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) 20:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Atlee's Untitled Project → Raja Rani (2013 film)  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Harish Shankar's Untitled Project → Ramayya Vasthavayya  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Harish Shankar Untitled Project → Ramayya Vasthavayya  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Kiruthiga's Untitled Project → Vanakkam Chennai  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Krishna Vamsi's Untitled project → Govindudu Andarivadele  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Lingusamy's Untitled Project → Rowdy (1966 film)  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Nara Rohit - Kumar Nagendra's untitled project → Tuntari  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Prabhu Deva's Untitled Project → Ramaiya Vastavaiya  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Ravi Teja - K. S. Ravindra untitled project → Power (2014 Telugu film)  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Shakun Batra's Untitled Project → Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Reema Kagti's Untitled Project → Talaash: The Answer Lies Within  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Shakun Batra's untitled film → Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Stephen Frears' Untitled Lance Armstrong Biopic → The Program (2015 film)  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Sukumar's Untitled Project → 1: Nenokkadine  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Trivikram's Untitled Project → Attarintiki Daredi  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Untitled Bruce Willis comedy → Going Under (2016 film)  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Untitled Detective comedy film → Going Under (2016 film)  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Untitled Cullen brothers film → Going Under (2016 film)  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Untitled Illumination film → Sing (2016 film)  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Untitled Illumination project → Sing (2016 film)  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Untitled Srinu Vaitla project → Bruce Lee - The Fighter  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Untitled Venkatesh - Maruthi Project → Babu Bangaram  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Untitled Venkatesh - Maruthi project → Babu Bangaram  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Venkat Prabhu's Untitled Project → Venkat Prabhu  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Venkatesh - Maruthi Untitled Project → Maruthi Dasari  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Venkatesh - Maruthi untitled project → Babu Bangaram  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Vijay Milton's Untitled Project → 10 Endrathukulla  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete, another batch of "untitled" redirects to targets that do have titles and have no significant history. These are unneeded and could cause confusion. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 17:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete all as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew ( talk) 19:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete all. They all now seem to have titles, and these redirects could have a WP:XY issue if another "untitled" work is in production or if more than one "untitled" work is in production at the same time by the subject(s) referenced in the respective redirects. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:46, 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 fired. -- BDD ( talk) 20:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Firething → Firefox  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

I don't see evidence of Firefox being known as "Firething." -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 17:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:REDLINK. This seems to be a song -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 00:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:REDLINK. I don't think the Gudrun Gut song by this name is at all notable, though. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 15:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - A redirect to the artist's own page, with an expanded discography section, could be reasonable in the future. Right now, lets just get rid of this. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 13:48, 17 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) 20:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Pocket Windows → Microsoft Windows  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete: No evidence that any Microsoft product was ever named or nicknamed "Pocket Windows". There are no hits in the microsoft.com or msdn.com domains. Also "Pocket Window" is a term used for a type of window (the kind that houses have, not the kind that computers have). See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing#What is Pocket Windows? Guy Macon ( talk) 12:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:XY. Pocket is an application which released a Windows version in 2013, called "Pocket Windows". But that release is not inherently notable, it definitely shouldn't redirect to the OS, and there are other things that this is ambiguous with. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 14:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as WP:XY per WP:RFD#D1, hinders search. Pocket (application) is the application, I dunno why Ivanvector piped it in the discussion. Si Trew ( talk) 20:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete It seems the redirect as created referred to " Windows Mobile running on a Pocket PC device", but this does not seem to have been a common usage even when the platform was current. Since there are other more plausible possibilities, this should be deleted. Reach Out to the Truth 21:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply

This is purely navel-gazing but I was a Microsoft Most Valuable Professional when Microsoft first tried to introduce handheld devices with Windows CE. (That is, someone who uses Microsoft products but does not work for them and is not expected to agree with them: the award comes without warning and you get lots of free stuff, but genuinely they don't want you to agree with them, they want to hear your views of how their product sucks.) I never heard the term "Windows Pocket" even as insider slang. Unless the trade press started using this term, it seems to me unlikely to refer to the platform rather than a particular application. Considering that Microsoft's vision was "A computer on every desktop", something they pretty much achieved, I could imagine that their vision changed to "Windows in every pocket", or some such, but it doesn't seem to be the case. Si Trew ( talk) 21:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per the above reasons CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 13:46, 17 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.