This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 16, 2016.
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete.Deryck C.13:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable victim redirected to aircraft accident page where they are not mention, similar redirects have been deleted in the past.MilborneOne (talk)21:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 24#Shawyer theory
The Fires of Avalon
[edit]- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete as unopposed.Deryck C.13:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither film is mentioned at the target; apparently these films are still in development. --Tavix(talk)21:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- The 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete all as unopposed.Deryck C.14:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The target is not a film, nor are there any films mentioned there. --Tavix(talk)21:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Women in Burkina Faso
[edit]Resource Location Protocol
[edit]- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion waskeepBécs →Vienna;disambiguateBecs. (batch closure)Deryck C.13:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- DWeakDelete. No particular affinity for Austrian. This is the Hungarian name for Vienna. Yes, I am aware of theAustro-Hungarian Empire andAustria-Hungary, but I still feel atEnglish Wikipedia this is essentiallyWP:RFOREIGN.Si Trew (talk)09:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Fwiw, the term is mentioned at the target. –Uanfala (talk)13:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The name is significant enough to be mentioned at the target, so it's significant enough to warrant a redirect. The connection withAustria-Hungary should also be enough to satisfyWP:RFOREIGN regardless. This isn't an unrelated language, it's one that's connected to Hungarian culture through decades of union. --Tavix(talk)17:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Tavix. ----Patar knight -chat/contributions22:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - I'm somewhat persuaded by the above arguments.CoffeeWithMarkets (talk)17:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Igen igen en tanulok, ertem. I stil stand and say tha sinceBecs andBécs go to different things, foran english speaking audience to whom diacritical marks are basically fluffs in the wind, this makes no sense in Hungarian and no sense in English to have them go the same waz. Becs is an occurence of flatulence, by the way.Si Trew (talk)08:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm,User:Uanfala has made a pretty good DAB atBecs. I listed these seperately because my concerns were slughtly different, but with that DAB, I think we can safely
{{R to DAB}} with this one. I hesitate to say withdrawn, because the last time I did, within two seconds it was a(non-admin closure) for withdrawn, I am quite happy to withdraw the nom if we haveWP:CONSENSUS to take it to the DAB. We're close, but no cigar, yet. I could and perhaps should have listed them together but deliberately kept them separate because of the accent. Not important in english, extremely important in Hungarian.Si Trew (talk)08:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article does not mention "Becs", although the references (but not the article itself) mention "BECSBECS, which also redirects to this target. I can see the reason for keeping the caps "BECS", but I think "Becs" might be pushing it a bit. I was half-expecting it to go toVienna (and it would be wrong, in my opinion if it did, but that's why I was checking it: because "Bécs" is the Hungarian for Vienna.Si Trew (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Si Trew (talk)09:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]- Dabify: I've drafted a disambiguation page below the redirect. –Uanfala (talk)14:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for doing that,USer:Uanfala. I've ce'd the dab because what a DAB should do is givejust enough information to disambiguify. e.g. we don't need to say that Vienna is in Austria, so I cut Austria. We just have to say it is Vienna. Have a glance over, o wise one, but I am pretty happy thatDabify is the way to go on this one.Si Trew (talk)08:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- The 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete.Deryck C.13:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was redirected because of an AFD discussion;one person expressed the opinion that this would be a valuable redirect, and the closer (non-admin) went with that option even though all of the other participants in the discussion supported a straight delete. The problem is that the target article containsno information about VF2477 specifically -- it just contains an extremely general overview of theconcept of VF stations, while containingno identifying information whatsoever aboutthis VF station. All other VF stations that have come up at AFD recently were simply deleted (or redirected to their specific programming source if they wererelay transmitters rather than originators of their own distinct programming), and there's no particular reason why this one would need special treatment as the only one that redirects to a general concept article.Bearcat (talk)07:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
NDelete as a confusing redirect. The mention of Resource Location Protocol is trivial in the target list, and prevents creating ared link if someone is interested to create an article onRLP. Thus, the page would redirect to itself (or I could not wikilink toResource Location Protocol in the list at all).80.221.159.67 (talk)12:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]