Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 16

September 16
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 16, 2015.

Animals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints



 * 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 Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. — ξ xplicit  19:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Animals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints → Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animals_in_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Animals in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints → Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animals_in_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Animals and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints → Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animals_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

I don't know enough about LDS theology to know whether there's enough material about this subject for a standalone article or not, but I can see that there's a single sentence about animals at the target article. If a reader only wants to know if the LDS Church believes animals have souls, these redirects could actually work, but I think it's more likely that they'll mislead readers into thinking we really cover this topic. Compare to, for example, Animals in Islam. --BDD (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Interesting... I do agree that the redirects as they are now are somewhat misleading to readers. There's two prominent aspects of Mormon tradition that would be relevant here: one being the possible ensoulment of animals (which is a very different take compared to most protestant churches, I think) and another being the controversy over the Book of Mormon describing animals that most likely did not actually exist in the areas the book details (as per Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon). The redirects that we have here... I don't quite know what to deal with it, myself. I'm leaning towards just saying that we should delete them. Not sure. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Refine to Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the only mention of "animal"). Weak because "Beliefs about Animals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" would be more appropriate than "Animals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" if you take it literally, because the latter almost sounds like they "use" animals within church practices (e.g. in sacrifices or as part of services, etc.) which doesn't appear to be the case. No opposition to Delete, count mine that way if the refine option isn't picked up by others, or I'll strike this if a better option is presented. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Retarget per Godsy. Rubbish computer 13:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep or retarget. There is some history to this, Animals and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was originally an article (at a few titles) (last version) that was nominated for deletion in 2006 with a result of "not delete"/"no consensus" and proposed to merged to the main The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article in June 2008 with the consensus against merging. In October 2008 it was nominated for deletion again, where in a sparsely attended AfD (including none of the participants of the then-recent merge proposal) was closed as "retarget to Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" without prejudice to a merge. I have not looked to see if anything was actually merged. I'll leave notes about this discussion on the main article talk page and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Godsy. As stated, the church doesn't use animals in its ceremonies, but is unique in its believe that Animals have souls - that could be expanded some in Beliefs and practices but it is not enough to justify a separate article. -- Trödel 12:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943  (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Bearded oyster



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Bearded oyster → Vulva (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bearded_oyster&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

I highly doubt anyone searching for an encyclopaedia article on Vulva would enter in this. 189.106.232.100 (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep redirect Assuming that it is a slang term for vulva, and not an actual species of oyster, I can see someone hearing the term, not realizing it was slang or not realizing what it was slang for and searching for it, in which case the re-direct would serve its purpose of informing them what was meant by the phrase. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 20:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Retarget to Bivalvia or more specifically, Bivalvia. According to this source, it seems that even Carolus Linnaeus sees the similarities between the female anatomical part and the anatomy of bivalves in his 1771 mollusc treatise. "Weak" since I have no idea how to include this cite in the rather well-written article. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Lenticel: thanks for the research. Rubbish computer 13:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete We're not a dictionary, let alone Urban Dictionary. Lenticel's point is interesting, but vulvae aren't discussed there, let alone a "bearded oyster". Unless there's a place we can discuss this phrase in an encyclopedic manner, this is juvenile and unnecessary, not to mention misleading. What's next, Roast beef curtains? --BDD (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943  (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per BDD. Steel1943  (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per BDD, unless there's some "slang terms for vagina" article. A problem with it redirecting to Vulva is that this slang term is not covered there. The link will be inexplicable to anyone not familiar with the term. And no, we don't need to redir it to the actual article on oysters. Even if the Linnaeus cite were added to that article, the redir is a slang term for human female genitals which is not the subject of the oyster article. If we don't have an article for genital-related slang, with this term appearing in it, we don't need this redir at all.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per BDD and SMcCandlish; they both sum up my thoughts well. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Template:Sc
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 24%23Template:Sc

Anatidaephobia
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 23%23Anatidaephobia

First On Race Day



 * 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) 14:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * First On Race Day → Ford Motor Company (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_On_Race_Day&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

I tagged some acronyms for G10, including Fix Or Repair Daily, Found On Road Dead, and Driver Returns On Foot (backwards acronym?). This one isn't an attack acronym, but it is an unfounded opinion. Retarget to American Pharoah Delete since there's nowhere that discusses this acronym. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as there appears to be no suitable target. Rubbish computer 17:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Dead end, Lou, execute the elimination. Per nomination. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - The redirect isn't really helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:ADVERT-like -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Whee



 * 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 soft redirect. --BDD (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Whee → Interjection (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whee&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Wheee → Interjection (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wheee&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

These redirects are examples of interjections, but they are not defined as a subject at the "interjection" article, nor are all interjections only these redirects. So ... either delete or soft redirect to Wiktionary. Steel1943 (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Soft retarget whee, delete wheee [no Wiktionary entry] per nom. Rubbish computer 21:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to WHEE (wheee would be a misspelling, whee would be a caps error) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to WHEE with a link to wiktionary's whee -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * Why was this softredirected to wiktionary? There's a topic on Wikipedia called WHEE; indeed the conversion of wheee to be a softredirect was supported by no one. It was to be a hard redirect to whee or a hard redirect to WHEE or deleted. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Something had to be done. There wasn't a clear consensus, but a typical "no consensus" (i.e., no change) would've pleased no one. I think the hatnote you added to Whee was smart, and the nomination statement indicates support for deleting or soft redirecting each. --BDD (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It could have been relisted again. Without the hatnote, it would have become impossible to find the radio station, something was required that wasn't just a softredirect (deletion would have allowed the search function to take over, a hard redirect would just lead you to the Wikipedia article). On another note, can't we make hardredirects to softredirects? Then we woudn't need to support two softredirect pages at "whee" and "wheee". "Wheee" would just hardredirect to "whee" -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In my experience, multiple relists at RfD are very rarely helpful. I think it does make sense to redirect Wheee to Whee, though. I'll do that. --BDD (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Crimenetly



 * 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 all. JohnCD (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Crimenetly → Interjection (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimenetly&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Crimenetley → Interjection (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimenetley&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Criminitly → Interjection (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criminitly&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

These redirects are examples of interjections, but they are not defined as a subject at the "interjection" article, nor are all interjections only these redirects. So ... either delete or soft redirect to Wiktionary. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Soft redirect all to Wiktionary - Deletion doesn't help anyone. Neelix (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Soft retarget per Neelix. Rubbish computer 21:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Retarget to crime, where criminality leads to -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak retarget to crime per 70.51. That was what first spraing to my feeble mind. (As of course). Si Trew (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to crime as that's where criminality goes to, as stated above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nominator comment: I see retargeting to Crime misleading (thus, I oppose) since the nominated words have no connection to the word "crime" in the least, nor are they truly plausible misspellings of "criminality". These words are longer versions of, and are synonymous with criminy. Steel1943  (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDICT (and these only marginally qualify as words; they seem to be schoolyard blather). If kept at all, soft redir to criminy; no evidence these are related to "criminality".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per SMcCandlish. These look like nonsense words to me, and they're not included at Wiktionary. --BDD (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDIC, we are not a provider of every word to a marginally related article. We have Wiktionary for that. -- Tavix ( talk ) 03:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Hockey on the ice



 * 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. I don't think there's really another possible outcome here, though I think all three options have a good deal to recommend them. For now, these redirects will remain as they are, and the hatnote can address potential confusion. (Though there's stills some merit to the idea of retargeting to Hockey, I think we can all agree that these terms are going to refer to either bandy or ice hockey.) --BDD (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hockey on the ice → Bandy (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hockey_on_the_ice&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Hockey on ice → Bandy (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hockey_on_ice&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

A couple months ago, as I was looking through sport redirects, I happened upon "hockey on the ice". Logically, I figured that would more likely refer to to ice hockey than bandy, so I retargeted it there. Yesterday, I got a message on my talk page saying that it was reverted due to "hockey on the ice" being a historical term for bandy. It's explained in the bandy article, something I didn't catch earlier. So I added a hatnote there and thought the problem was solved. Since then, a discussion broke out on my talk page by various people, offering differing suggestions on what to do with this. Due to this, I figured it'd be best to get a wider input on the matter here. I'm still balancing on a three-way fence between leaving it at bandy for historical purposes, retargeting it to ice hockey, due to the literal meaning of the phrase, or retargeting to hockey, which would be a compromise between the two as it briefly explains both codes. Thoughts? -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: I'm sending an WP:APPNOTE to all interested parties:, , , , , and WP:HOCKEY. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:14, 4 SeptemberBand 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment thanks for the ping, but surely it would be simplest to R this to Ice hockey? Bandy as an Oz term for a hockey stick I think is strine, though, somewhere mentioned by Clive James in his[Unreliable Memoirs] so I can RS this but will take me a bit of searching through the woodware to do so. Si Trew (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Bandy is a sport, not just the stick used for it. Snowsuit Wearer (talk&#124;contribs) 06:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment you're right of course, but dfor example, to muddy the waters, Shinty hatnotes, so I think Bandy should too. But that is beyond this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - perhaps go a little out of the box and make Hockey on ice a disamig page? Otherwise, I think the hatnote on Bandy is sufficient. There is going to have to be a hat note on one or or the other if we leave these as redirects, and if this specific term is more commonly used for Bandy, as opposed to being a french translation as for ice hockey, then the status quo is sufficient. Resolute 19:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment there is a disambiguation page at hockey (disambiguation) if this is treated as partial disambiguation... -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate between bandy and ice hockey, as this does not appear to be a common term for ice hockey, but is a plausible one nonetheless. Rubbish computer 22:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose disambiguation., : that's the point of redirecting to hockey. You fulfill the same role that a disambiguation would for the term "hockey on ice" since both terms are there, and you get the added bonus of being able to explain the codes/types more. Effectively, a disambiguation would be redundant. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to hockey per Tavix. Rubbish computer 23:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to hockey as I suggested in the talk page discussion. I don't think its used for bandy any more than its used for ice hockey. So in that sense send it to the page that talks about both. -DJSasso (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also support ice hockey for the reasons mentioned by Ivan below. I believe most people in the English language would associate hockey on ice with ice hockey rather than an obscure old name for bandy. A hatnote to bandy covers those who might. -DJSasso (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Retarget to ice hockey, since in many languages it is "hockey on ice", so some garbage mechanical translation will give out "hockey on ice" in English. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you Google translate Russian webpages about bandy, you often get this to say "hockey", "hockey on ice" or similar when bandy is meant, because of what bandy is called in Russian. So your suggestion is not based on what all other languages would be at translation. Snowsuit Wearer (talk&#124;contribs) 06:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep it as it is, i.e. as a redirect to bandy but with a hatnote pointing to ice hockey. "Hockey on the ice" as a term is bandy (even if the word bandy is preferred nowadays so not to confuse it with ice hockey). Snowsuit Wearer (talk&#124;contribs) 06:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems to have been done, at least when I just checked. I'm happy with the keep, then. Your bandy legged co-editor, Si Trew (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Except hockey on ice is ice hockey as well, it too has been called hockey on ice at times. -DJSasso (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that. Has that been an official term for ice hockey? I think I'll stick to my opinion anyway. Snowsuit Wearer (talk&#124;contribs) 21:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - If someone is looking for traditional ice hockey, then they will immediately see the hatnote directing them over to the "Ice hockey" page. If they want to learn about the history of bandy, then there they are. How things are now seems helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep target to bandy as CoffeeWithMarkets says. Skogsvandraren (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC) – Ivanvector got me thinking. I change my view to neutral. Skogsvandraren (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to ice hockey. I'm not convinced by "this is how it's always been"; to the vast majority of English speakers (and especially second-language English speakers) "hockey on ice" is synonymous with ice hockey. Many more people typing "hockey on [the ]ice" will be looking for ice hockey, rather than a historical name for bandy. A hatnote from ice hockey to bandy is the appropriate way to deal with this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * By that reasoning, Dancing on Ice should go to Ice Dancing (the two do not hatnote each other, probably should) or Walking on Sunshine should go to Sunshine Walking. One of the things about English (and I am not being WP:ENGVAR here) is that we conjugate adjective/s nouns and drop the prepositions. As someone who is not from Canadaland, where I believe they play a bit of it from time to time, I would think to a WP:WORLDWIDE audience it most likely is synonymous with ice hockey, but specifically not in the UK or Ireland. Hmmm. Si Trew (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, not really. Dancing on Ice is the title of a work, whereas "hockey on ice" is an historic name for a sport, for which common usage has long since been superseded by ice hockey. Sunshine walking just isn't a thing, redirecting Walking on Sunshine there would be nonsense. It's worth noting that there were various stick-and-ball games other than bandy (but similar to it and to one another) played on ice throughout the world which were called "hockey on the ice" at one time or another, to distinguish from other stick-and-ball games not played on ice, and nobody really knows what the origin of the word "hockey" is. We should therefore follow modern usage. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as sourced historical term, which it is not for ice hockey. If an English learner who has not gotten their word order correct yet and, used to a foo d bar order in their own language goes to Hockey on ice looking for Ice hockey, there's a DAB hatnote that sends them to the right place already. As a native English speaker, I'd expect a reference to "hockey on ice" to be somehow distinguishable from "ice hockey" or it wouldn't have been phrased that way to begin with.  The odd word order is in and of itself a signal "this doesn't mean 'ice hockey.  In sport and game names in particular, I think it's important to preserve the names as they're found; we do not want someone reading Dickens or some other Victorian writer to Google "hockey on ice", see that it points to our ice hockey article, then go back to reading their old novel, wrongly imagining the characters body-checking each other in NHL shoulder pads and helmets. They should see that it points to bandy, and click through to find out what bandy is if they don't already know. Remember that en.wp is written for English speakers, not beginning English learners.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to hockey (as nom). The more I read this discussion, the more I'm convinced that this phrase refers to both codes fairly equally. I don't think we should favor any particular code since there are strong arguments on both sides, so this should be redirected to hockey as a compromise, where our readers can learn about all types of "hockey on ice" (maybe refine it to Hockey?). -- Tavix ( talk ) 05:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Federal Building (Anchorage, Alaska)



 * 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. --BDD (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Federal Building (Anchorage, Alaska) → Old Federal Building (Anchorage, Alaska) (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Building_(Anchorage,_Alaska)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * <span id="U.S. Federal Building and Courthouse (Anchorage, Alaska)">U.S. Federal Building and Courthouse (Anchorage, Alaska) → Old Federal Building (Anchorage, Alaska) (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Federal_Building_and_Courthouse_(Anchorage,_Alaska)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * <span id="United States Federal Building and Courthouse (Anchorage, Alaska)">United States Federal Building and Courthouse (Anchorage, Alaska) → Old Federal Building (Anchorage, Alaska) (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Federal_Building_and_Courthouse_(Anchorage,_Alaska)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Originally nominated here, then withdrawn when the first response caused me to realize that the nomination was ill-formatted and premature. Renominating now that the associated RM has gone through. All of these redirects are ambiguous, as Anchorage has both this building and the James M. Fitzgerald United States Courthouse and Federal Building located about six blocks away, which has stood since 1977. Unfortunately, there's no article on that building. Lessee, it was named in honor of a major figure in Alaskan jurisprudence, it has stood for decades, its architectural significance has been written about, it covers three city blocks, IT HAS ITS OWN ZIP CODE...uh, what else? Perhaps that C Street Foodland was a neighborhood landmark until it was torn down to make way for Module G? Anyway, the fact that we lack an article here is further evidence of the bias we show towards the National Register of Historic Places, but I realize that this isn't the proper venue for that argument. Suggest retargeting all to List of United States federal courthouses in Alaska until such time as the aforementioned issue is rectified, as that article mentions both buildings, whereas other likely targets do not. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to retargeting all as proposed. Please be sure to fix any incoming links first. Cheers! bd2412  T 03:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Ford's latest model
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">


 * 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) 13:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ford's latest model → Ford Motor Company (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford%27s_latest_model&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Not sure if it's possible to determine what Ford's latest model (singular) is, but someone searching this wouldn't be be satisfied with a general article on Ford. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I suppose it could also refer to Ford Models, but this has no facility for either target. bd2412  T 02:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, I got a WP:SURPRISE. That link is for a modeling agency. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 03:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete highly biased, the Ford Modeling Agency is very famous -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:XY. As far as I can tell, Ford Motor Company releases their models for a production year simultaneously, so there is never a "latest model" per se. As for Ford Models, it's highly likely that the model that they've signed most recently would not pass our notability test, and it would be very difficult to determine who it is at any point in time, assuming that they sign models all the time. It's their business, after all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with Ivanvector's reasoning. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

<span id="شركة فورد">شركة فورد
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">


 * 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) 13:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * <span id="شركة فورد">شركة فورد → Ford Motor Company (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%83%D8%A9_%D9%81%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%AF&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Delete per WP:R. Ford doesn't have any special connection with Arabic. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Per the target article, it seems that the company has a weak presence in Arabic speaking countries so any connection with the language will be poor. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 06:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for any action. Wily D 12:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.