This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 6, 2017.
The General Election 1906
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) 17:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The definite article in front makes this a pretty unlikely search term. --
Nevé–selbert 23:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator due to odd formatting. As a second choice, it could be retargeted to
list of elections in 1906, but I don't think this is necessary.
59.149.124.29 (
talk) 05:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom as it is not referred to with the definite article capitalized as such, and could refer to any of the 1906 elections. The event
Liberal landslide would be a better informal title that points specifically to that UK general election.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 15:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)reply
If this isn't deleted—and I'm not saying it shouldn't be—
List of elections in 1906 would be the appropriate target. --
BDD (
talk) 21:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect I cut and pasted "the General Election" from some article somewhere and probably from the context added 1906. If I had instead inserted 1906 to create "
the 1906 General Election", would there be a problem?
Bosley John Bosley (
talk) 22:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Note: Bosley John Bosley created "The 1906 General Election" as a redirect to
List of elections in 1906 right after commenting here. I'm including it in this discussion for completeness. --
Tavix(
talk) 23:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete both - I'd rather that we just get rid of these.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk) 04:58, 18 December 2017 (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.
Security barrier
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.
Since this redirect currently targets a disambiguation page, it could be considered confusing. In addition, I'm not finding a specific target which this redirect could be considered exclusive to in its meaning.
Steel1943 (
talk) 22:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. If there's no specific article then a redirect to a dab page seems sensible.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 10:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) The problem with the current setup is that there are no subjects at the target dab that are called "security barrier". In a case like this, it could be more helpful for this redirect to be deleted so that Wikipedia's search function can help readers find what article they are looking for, rather than being redirected to a disambiguation page which may not contain the subject which they are trying to locate.
Steel1943 (
talk) 15:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. The dab page provides a number of different types of barriers used for security.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 15:38, 8 December 2017 (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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --
Tavix(
talk) 22:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Was listed at MFD by mistake. Rationale was "Unused, nonexistent acronym only used to disparage current/former graduates of George Mason University. Nothing redirects here and the acronym is not a likely search term." Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?) 22:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. The existence of this acronym was what prompted the current name of the law school as opposed to the original one. This scenario is mentioned in the first footnote. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment added
ASSoL and
A.S.S.O.L. to this discussion. (These were all created at the same time, along with
ASS Law,
ASSLAW, and
ASSLaw, following an AFC request
in April 2016.) The acronyms themselves aren't mentioned at the target. The erstwhile full name "Antonin Scalia School of Law" is only mentioned in a footnote.
59.149.124.29 (
talk) 16:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep ASSOL and ASSoL which made news
[1][2] and Snopes
[3]. Delete A.S.S.O.L. as the version with the periods was not propagated in news sources. Add the appropriate tag as would be used for working titles.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 17:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Tavix(
talk) 17:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Not likely a search term and any references can be made in the article. Disparaging redirects are not encyclopedic. This was never the name of the target and was used purely for disparagement by detractors. Fits #3 of
WP:R#DELETE. --
DHeyward (
talk) 20:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep all - The college made this unfortunate name decision (before wisely taking it back, albeit too late), and their choice generated a significant response. Although, I can see deleting "A.S.S.O.L." as that particular version appears far more obscure.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk) 00:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep A likely search term and it is irrelevant whether or not references can be made in the article. The institution was at one time known as the
Antonin Scalia School of Law and the acronyms are valid.
Bosley John Bosley (
talk) 09:29, 14 December 2017 (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.
Am I being detained?
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 on deletion. People are mostly split on whether a redirect to an article that doesn't mention the phrase would be useful. However, also retargeting to
Detention (imprisonment) as the clear choice over the other two options.
(non-admin closure)Galobtter (
pingó mió) 08:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)reply
This question isn't unique to "sovereign citizens", but is a question asked by anyone who isn't sure if they are being detained or not. The most appropriate target would be
Detention (imprisonment) (the target of
Detainment), but the question isn't mentioned there either. That leaves deletion. --
Tavix(
talk) 14:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Someone searching for this phrase is presumably looking for information about the phrase, which doesn't appear to be provided in any article. —
Xezbeth (
talk) 08:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Detention (imprisonment). If someone is unsure enough as to whether they are actually being detained that they need to consult Wikipedia, hopefully that article will clarify it for them. (Just kidding. I think that's a better target than
Stop and identify statutes, which isn't global enough.) —
Scott•talk 14:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Tavix(
talk) 17:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Stop and identify statutes as the best target. --
RAN (
talk) 20:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Detainment. Searchers are looking for what detainment is, like
Indicted goes to
Indictment. If the statutes article has a list of common phrases, then consider hatnote to it, but there is no such list there. The phrase "Am I free to go?" can redirect there since it is posted there.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 21:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. This redirect is too vague, as hinted by the several different options for retargeting presented in this discussion thus far.
Steel1943 (
talk) 22:18, 6 December 2017 (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.
Heaveno
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) 22:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as failed
WP:NEOLOGISM. There was coverage on this idea across news:
[4][5] He did make the Encyclopedia of American Loons though
[6] so it might be
WP:BLP1E but not seeing much on overall news coverage for notability. This is not as notable as
Fishkill, New York#OtherAngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 21:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Well, notability isn't really the standard here..definitely shouldn't be included in
hello as extremely undue, but maybe in Kleberg county
Galobtter (
pingó mió) 12:42, 14 December 2017 (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.
2018 T10 Cricket League
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) 22:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't really care whether you delete it. I realized that it was a mistake to create the redirect but I can't delete pages.
Fcbbminiestadi (
talk) 12:53, 6 December 2017 (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.