From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 10
December 12 >

December 11

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 11, 2019.

Kh Capricorni

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) 21:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Proposed for deletion. Hundreds of these redirects were created years ago by a bot that rampaged away beyond all sense. Most have been removed, but a handful remain. The abbreviations are not valid and potentially refer to a different star from the redirect target. Lithopsian ( talk) 21:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: these are extremely unlikely to actually be used. Loooke ( talk) 16:00, 15 December 2019 (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.

JS Air

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) 21:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply

The target section no longer exists and there is no mention of air-related activity. "JS Air" is possibly ambiguous with Air Koryo, North Korea's state-run airline, IATA code JS. I suggest delete. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 21:16, 11 December 2019 (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.

Nexus 11

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. Creator request. Hut 8.5 21:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

A "Nexus 11" never existed, nor does there appear to be plans to create a device with such a name. — Searingjet ( talk) 20:09, 11 December 2019 (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.

Bullard community library

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) 21:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned in the target, making this a less than useful redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 19:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Rosguill, This is fair, but it is also a genuine location associated with the town that I can see being searched for. Working in information on it will come in due time, I have it on my TODO list. -- MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) ( talk) 19:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete until a notable separate article or section can be created. Please note there are other towns and cities named Bullard and those may have libraries, but it seems like the Texas one is the primary topic for that. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 02:04, 14 December 2019 (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.

RIAA afiliated music artists

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) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply

No corresponding section, and the title is misspelled. Nothing links here. Reyk YO! 18:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete that's about as useful as a List of SAG-AFTRA people. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 04:07, 14 December 2019 (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.

Non-American

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) 21:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Although probably a good faith redirect, in practice, feels close to a borderline WP:G10, and I think fails #3 of WP:RFD#DELETE. The article on Alien (law) is not specific to America (or any other country), so being a Non-American, does not make you an "Alien" in general law. Britishfinance ( talk) 00:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 16:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Combative terms shouldn't be redirects. cave ( talk) 22:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't think "non-Canadian", "non-American", etc. are "combative terms". "Un-Canadian" and "Un-American" seem to be the combative ones (e.g. House Un-American Activities Committee), whereas "non-Canadian", etc. seem to be merely factual descriptions (e.g. RBC is a Canadian bank, while Mizuho Bank is a non-Canadian bank). That said, Alien (law) apparently only covers actual living people, whereas "non-Canadian" could apply to businesses, non-profit organisations, etc., and I don't see any better target. 59.149.124.29 ( talk) 13:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. It is not that the term is of itself combative, but when non-American is equated to being an Alien, I think it is more problematic. I am not American, but that does not make me an Alien in general law. thanks. Britishfinance ( talk) 18:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per 59.149 above, and I agree I don't see these as "combative" terms - the usage Google finds is entirely descriptive, often in the context of cultural explainers (e.g. Brexit explained for those who aren't British). Using "non-Brit" to refer to anything other than a human would be odd (although having checked, it seems it is used for bands and music in the context of the Brit Awards, which is another strike against the current target), but that isn't true for the others. Ultimately it's just sum-of-parts meaning "person or thing who/that is not (national adjective)" and even when referring to people these are not necessarily aliens - for example this article is about a British man hosting a Thanksgiving party in London for his "fellow non-Americans" (almost all of whom are presumably British and therefore not legal aliens in London). The best you could do would be to retarget "non-American" to American (disambiguation) (and equivalents) as search results like 48 Non-American Shows You Should Definitely Watch On Netflix show it's not just related to nationality, however such a redirect would be unhelpful as it wouldn't give the searcher any information on who or what a "non-American" is or means. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:38, 12 December 2019 (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.

MICRO$OFT

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 Satiric misspelling#Currency signs. -- BDD ( talk) 21:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Deleteper WP:RCAPS; renominating nine years after the no-consensus mass nomination here. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 18:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. " MICROSOFT" itself is a clearly useful redirect given that the logo was in all caps from from 1975-1987, so it's entirely plausible for this pointed misspelling to be rendered in all-caps too. Looking at google, it's clear the mixed case Micro$oft form is predominant*, but as there is no way of making the search case sensitive and no alternative general purpose** search engine I know of offers this feature either it's not possible to say it never occurs.
    * One hit on the first three pages of results for a verbatim search excluding Wikipedia was in all caps, but that was as part of a sentence that was rendered in all caps for emphasis so offers no useful evidence either way.
    **It's not a term that is likely to appear in books, but google's ngram search doesn't recognise it as a valid search term anyway. The only case sensitive search engine I've ever found is designed only to find snippets of computer code and so has a very restricted corpus in which this search term is very unlikely to appear.    . Thryduulf ( talk) 20:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The nominated redirect previously targeted Satiric misspelling. Steel1943 ( talk) 05:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply
    • The current target contains nothing relevant to the redirect but a lowercase version of the redirect exists on the Satiric misspelling article so if it is kept it should be moved back there.-- 69.157.252.96 ( talk) 05:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It's a common alternative spelling, though I think the Rcats could be added per Steel1943 and others above. I see no reason for deletion; or,
Retarget back to Satiric misspelling#Currency signs with applicable Rcats (not sure which off-hand; misspelling, to section, to name two of them) -- Doug Mehus T· C 16:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 16:34, 11 December 2019 (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.

Alkine

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) 21:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply

According to Lexico, "alkine" is not a misspelling of "alkyne" at all, but a synonym for "alkamine", which is an entirely separate category of chemical compounds. Currently we have no article about alkamine. As such, the redirect is misdirecting anybody who is looking for information about the chemicals that are correctly called alkines. This is worse than there being no alkine entry at all. I've checked alkylamine, which Wiktionary points me to, but that seems to be different again, making me even more unsure what to do with this. — Smjg ( talk) 12:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Using nom's rationale, this redirect may lead to confusion. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 09:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Dictionary.com gives this as an alternate form of alkyne. Lexico says alkine= alkamine = organic compound containing both an alcohol (—OH) and an amino (—NH ₂) functional group. This definition is more or less the same as Wikipedia's definition of Alkanolamine. I think disambiguate alkine and redirect alkamine. Also alkyl amine and alkylamines should go to the same place as each other. The Language Learner ( talk) 09:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 16:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not clear what this could redirect to? Alkane? Alkene? Alkyne? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 04:10, 14 December 2019 (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.

Holy Inquisition

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 and retarget to Inquisition, respectively. I'm WP:INVOLVED, but we appear to be unanimous, we're past the full listing period, and this is the last open discussion on this day. Please contact me with any concerns. -- BDD ( talk) 22:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC) reply

This term is not mentioned at all in the given target. Hildeoc ( talk) 12:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ 59.149.124.29: Thanks a lot!-- Hildeoc ( talk) 15:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the first and retarget the second; there's at least no need to have different targets. There are a decent number of uses of this phrase on Wikipedia. Some are specifically referring to the Spanish or Portuguese Inquisitions, but it makes sense to point to the broader concept here. -- BDD ( talk) 15:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and retarget as above. Clearly a very common term. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC) reply

information Note: Now done.-- Hildeoc ( talk) 15:08, 17 December 2019 (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.

Contact ~The force of the Sound Four~

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) 21:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Does not appear in the target list. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 00:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This was originally a translation of the episode 111 title of Naruto, however, the episode isn't individually notable and was replaced by an official English title "Sound vs. Leaf" AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 04:14, 14 December 2019 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_December_11&oldid=931740896"