Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 30

April 30
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 30, 2017.

R.P.M. (song)
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 fixed.  -- Tavix  ( talk ) 17:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * R.P.M. (song) → Revolutions per minute (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R.P.M._(song)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Does not redirect to an article about "RPM song", should be deleted JMHamo (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Retarget to RPM_(disambiguation) where several RPM songs are listed. Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is the result of a double-redirect fixing bot incorrectly fixing a double redirect, resulting in the redirect pointing to the wrong target. (The reason being that RPM (disambiguation) was moved to RPM and then back again.) To fix it, all that needs to happen is revert to the previous version. The redirect is a R from incomplete disambiguation, and is useful when redirecting to the disambiguation page that lists multiple songs by the title, as Patar knight pointed out., would that be okay with you if the redirect is fixed instead of deleted? (As an aside, the rest of the redirects that are supposed to target the disambiguation suffered from the same problem. I have fixed them.) -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry. Fix rather than delete is fine. Thanks for your help. JMHamo (talk) 09:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, . Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I'm going to go ahead and fix it then since we're all in agreement. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Restore old version per Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.

Obongo
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 10%23Obongo

Brijbhasha film industry
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 Cinema of India.  (non-admin closure) – Train2104 (t • c) 17:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Brijbhasha film industry → Brijesh (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brijbhasha_film_industry&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

The target article has nothing to do with any film industry. Largoplazo (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Cinema of India. – Uanfala (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Uafala. Thryduulf (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.

Kemono
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 create a set-index article.  There is clearly a consensus against deletion.  There were three main proposals for what to do with this search term.  The first was a redirect to kimono as a typo.  The second was retargeting to Moe anthropomorphism, where the term is described. The final option was a soft redirect to wiktionary.  Basically, this discussion proves that we don't really know what someone is looking for when they use this search term.  Therefore, a set-index article is appropriate to allow the reader to find the correct article.  Tazerdadog (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Kemono → Furry fandom (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kemono&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Became a redirect after a 2013 AfD. The target article does not contain the word. Other targets suggested on Talk:Kemono do not contain the word, either. All articles that link to it So in my judgment this is only a word. Other languages do not have citations for this article, either, so the parties in the AfD that mentioned WP:OR and WP:NEO are probably right. --Pgallert (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * list it as 'see also', which is not helpful for a redirect,
 * have a citation needed stuck to the very phrase where it occurs, or
 * use it in a piped link for 'anthropomorphic'.
 * Delete. kemono marks it as the Romaji transcription of "けもの" which it translates as "Beast". The Kanji "獣" gives a more precise definition, "an animal covered in fur, a beast". ja:けもの is a redirect to the disambiguation page at ja:獣 that is interwiki linked to Beast - also a disambiguation page (ja:Kemono is red). Targetting this to Beast would neither be helpful nor in accordance with WP:FORRED. Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think a soft redirect is appropriate here as this is word seems to be used in English only in environments where embedding of Japanese terms is common and frequent where readers are seemingly expected to know the meaning. If it had a specific, perhaps ideomatic, meaning when embedded in English then linking to Wiktionary may make sense but that does not appear to be the case so the link wont actually help anyone. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Might a 'soft retargeting' over to Wiktionary make sense? One can object that the page there needs more information, but we can add more there ourselves anyways. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Soft Retarget to wiktionary per CWM. Seems to be the best target for now -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * soft retarget and add a PTM (articles starting with Kemono) and a "see also" to Kimono, in case that attracts some typos. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 01:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Changed my recommendation to Set index as described in later discussion. This helps the reader get to what they want and includes the kimono option. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. According to the Wiktionary entry, this is purely Japanese, not English. There's a few article titles where the word appears, so I believe search results to be the most helpful for our readers. -- Tavix ( talk ) 01:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Kemono (anime) should also be added to RFD, as there is no specific anime called Kemono. However, there's also Category:Kemono and Category:Kemono anime and manga which tries to explain it as a genre? But that's a lot different from furry fandom which is dressing up in animal costumes, rather than describing anthropomorphic animal characters. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Retarget to kimono and mark with R from typo. I can imagine someone mishearing the initial vowel and imagining that it's spelled this way.  Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's a good alternative, particularly as the dress is spelled "Kimono" in other languages, e.g. German. --Pgallert (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm okay with this alternative if the wiktionary suggestion won't gather enough consensus -- Lenticel ( talk ) 08:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm also happy with the suggested retargetting. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Kimono per Nyttend or delete. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Retarget to kimono and mark with R from typo. WJBscribe (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943  (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Kimono. Not everyone pronounces their vowels the way you might, Si Trew (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete to enable search box to do its job per user:Tavix above (rather than second-guess a typo). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per User::Shhnotsoloud, let the search engine do its job, let redirects do theirs. Si Trew (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Some Wikipedians (like myself) choose to use the URL bar to check whether an article exists, not the search engine. I feel the redirects entirely do the job the search bar is supposed to do. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * sure people search in different ways. My general argument is that they should end up at the same result. Si Trew (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Retarget to Moe anthropomorphism, which is where Kemonomimi currently targets, which I came across by mining Category:Kemono for any kind of context. The former article seems to support this treatment as well. That short section subsequently links to wikt:kemonomimi so at least there is some encyclopedic context before the jump to Wiktionary. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think retargetting this as a typo for Kimono is going to surprise fewer people than ending up deep in an article about anthropomorphism, but I'm not going to object to a hatnote if anyone desires. 12:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)
 * Retarget to Moe anthropomorphism or create set index article (per Deryck C. below) . Redirecting to wiktionary or retargetting as a misspelling would have been eligible options if there didn't exist a wikipedia article that covers the topic, but now that such an article has been uncovered by Ivanvector the other two options aren't really on the table anymore. – Uanfala (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Noting that I also support Deryck C's alternative proposal. – Uanfala 12:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Uanfala, but hatnote to Kimono per above arguments. Patar knight - chat/contributions 10:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Create set index, or reluctantly retarget Moe anthropomorphism. I've been watching this discussion with a view to close it for a few days, but as I dug deeper into the issue I found myself wanting to create some sort of index/disambiguation page. Essentially what has been found above is:
 * Kemono is a loanword from Japanese, literally meaning "beast", but primarily referring to the act of dressing up as animals in anime culture.
 * The relevant information we have are split across Moe anthropomorphism, Kemono, and Category:Kemono.
 * This would support dropping the current target in favour of Moe anthropomorphism, until I found:
 * ja:獣 (redirected from ja:けもの) is a disambiguation page which lists furry fandom as an entry, in a way that indicates the phrase "kemono" refers to "furry fandom" in English-language discourse and has been back-borrowed into Japanese.
 * So with all these in mind, I think the best course of action is to give readers a landing page which lists all three pages that they may be looking for. A set index can also cater for people who accidentally land there intending to search for kimono. I've drafted a set index for consideration. Deryck C. 20:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Moe anthropomorphism. The deletion rationales here boil down to WP:RFOREIGN which is a supplement to WP:R, I do not see a consensus here to delete though as we have Category:Kemono, and Kimono which sounds similar. This being the case I recommend a retarget for now while a fresh discussion is opened regarding a proper retarget destination. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think that going to 'Moe anthropomorphism' is reasonable enough, I suppose. That section should probably be expanded with more information (probably a link to 'human-animal hybrid' going in there somewhere), but it seems like an appropriate target. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.

Moen Island
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 Moen.  -- Tavix  ( talk ) 03:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Moen Island → Weno (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moen_Island&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Moen (island) → Weno (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moen_(island)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

also an island in Denmark

note that i've discovered that this is an anglicization of Møn and fixed this on Sømarkedyssen where I found it, but perhaps there should be a disambiguation page Elinruby (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've combined the two nominations.– Uanfala (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Both islands are listed at Moen, although it's not clear which of those two are primary topic. Should Moen, Micronesia, Moen, Denmark be created, or perhaps Moen Island, Micronesia, Moen Island, Denmark? Should the island ones direct to dab or be deleted? AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 13:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Moen, the relevant section of the disambig. Searching for "Moen" island -Wikipedia -ship (as the most numerous hits are for a container ship) finds a roughly equal mix of results about the Danish and Micronesian islands. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Moen. (I've pruned the red-linked disambig entries from that page). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.

Yvette Felarca
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 10%23Yvette Felarca

Austrosynthemis cyanitincta
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  . I have performed the history merge as requested. Do let me know if there's any other loose ends that need to be tied up. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 02:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Austrosynthemis cyanitincta → Austrosynthemis (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austrosynthemis_cyanitincta&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Please delete the redirect Austrosynthemis cyanitincta.

This is step 2 of the Classic sequence for swapping two pages WP:SWAP This page Austrosynthemis cyanitincta has been a redirect to Austrosynthemis due to monotypy. I am attempting to swap Austrosynthemis with Austrosynthemis cyanitincta, with a view to making one a page about a species, and the other a page about a genus.

Since this page was created in 2009, a lot of category tags have been added to both this page and it's redirect page. Those tags are quite confusing as they reference the page title, which in some cases, is quite different to the page text.

I wrote this in the talk page for talk:Austrosynthemis: I find this page quite confusing with its adherence to the rules for monotypy: WP:TOL The heading of the page is the GENUS, yet the text of the article, and the taxonbox, is about the SPECIES. However, the categories, the taxonbar, and the links to wikispecies refer to the GENUS. There is a SPECIES page, however its main function is to redirect to the GENUS. That species page needs its own categories, a taxonbar, and links to wikispecies, yet all of those seem inappropriate on a page that is difficult to get to, and by its nature as a redirection pointer, readers are probably not supposed to get to. Does anyone mind if I create two separate pages: one for the genus and one for the species? John Tann (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)'' John Tann (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The established precedent, where a genus contains only one species, is for there to be a single article, at the title of the genus. In such cases, the genus and the species cover exactly the same set of animals, so the description, range, ecology, threats and so on will all be identical. It is therefore unhelpful to have separate articles repeating the same information (or, worse, giving different information). This is the established practice over thousands of articles. If you wanted to overturn that practice, it would probably be best to argue the general point at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life, rather than taking on a single case in isolation. The redirect in question should be retained (and restored to point directly to Austrosynthemis – see Double redirects). --Stemonitis (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose deletion This redirect is exactly in line with over 4,000 others under the policy at WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA and WP:MONOTYPICFLORA. Of course there should not be two separate articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment This discussion was originally and incorrectly created as an AfD. All of the above text is copied from Articles for deletion/Austrosynthemis cyanitincta, which I will be nominating for speedy deletion shortly.  Further, the AfD was never transcluded to a daily log page, so it escaped notice for over a month and was never closed.  Relisting here for continued discussion as my non-admin attempt at cleanup.  Pinging original nominator  and commenters  and  for their attention.  John, for future nominations please fully follow the instructions at WP:RFD and/or WP:AFDHOWTO as appropriate.  Thanks. -- Finngall   talk  05:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I can only repeat that this redirect follows standard practice. The deletion notice should be speedily removed. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Assistance will be needed I suspect. I am out of my depth here. A few things:
 * 1. I now see the reason for the approach to monotypy, and accept Peter coxhead comments.
 * 2. Sorry about not fully following the instructions at WP:RFD and WP:AFDHOWTO. This wiki lingo takes a bit to get on top of.
 * 3. The deletion, were it to take place, was step 2 of a classic sequence for swapping two pages WP:SWAP. Now that this deletion has been rejected, can Step 1 be undone? is this straightforward, or do I need a Wiki wizard to do that. (Reminder: Step 1 renamed Article Austrosynthemis cyanitincta to Turquoise-tigertail)


 * John Tann (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ok, if you're now withdrawing your nomination, then I don't think anything needs to be done. Austrosynthemis cyanitincta correctly redirects to Austrosynthemis. Turquoise-tigertail, Turquoise tigertail, Turquoise Tigertail and Turquoise tiger tail all correctly redirect to the same place. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Functionally that is correct, but the 2009-2017 history of the page Austrosynthemis cyanitincta now sits with Turquoise-tigertail (which is where I moved it in Step 1). I think the history needs to move back to Austrosynthemis cyanitincta.


 * I didn't think I was withdrawing, Peter, rather allowing the process of rejection to run its course. However, if withdrawing is preferred, I can do that, just that I don't know how to do that formally.


 * Am I being too pedantic here? John Tann (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, pedantry isn't always a bad thing (speaking as a frequent pedant myself). Yes, I think that ideally the history needs to be sorted out by an admin. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.

2027 Cricket World Cup
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  .  Deryck C. 09:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 2027 Cricket World Cup → Cricket World Cup (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2027_Cricket_World_Cup&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Delete, this is too soon. The target article provides no information about the 2027 world cup. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Target contains no mention of 2027. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.

M&M Community Development
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  .  Deryck C. 09:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * <span id="M&M Community Development">M&M Community Development → Urban contemporary (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M%26M_Community_Development&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

The connection is unclear as the term isn't mentioned at the target article. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redirecting a company name to the generic service it provides is not useful.  Beyond that, the redirect creates a blue link for a CSD A7 company named in 2 radio station articles. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no mention of M&M at the target. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.

List of artists that refused to perform at Donald Trump's inauguration
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  .  Deryck C. 09:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * List of artists that refused to perform at Donald Trump's inauguration → Inauguration of Donald Trump (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_artists_that_refused_to_perform_at_Donald_Trump%27s_inauguration&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Delete as misleading, the target does not contain a list of this nature. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. This redirect came from a 10 January 2017 merge of content. The merged content was later removed from the target article. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Eh. If it's not there anymore, delete. If there's consensus at the article to restore, then restore the redirect as well. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 12:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the content is not there at the target, this is now a misleading redirect. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.

RadioInsight
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  .  Deryck C. 09:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


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

Yes, RadioInsight is a website, but a reader would learn nothing about the RadioInsight from being redirected to "website". RadioInsight is not discussed in the target article, and redirecting readers there only serves to create confusion. Tdl1060 (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Useless redirect to a tenuously related subject. Only incoming link names RadioInsight as the publisher in a citation.  This would not even be a real red link. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Website and its authors are used as reliable sources, but the website itself shouldn't go to the website link. Use WP:REDLINK to create article if notable, otherwise send a bot to clean up the references. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 13:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, useless redirect that provides nothing about RadioInsight at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not mentioned at website, and we don't seem to cover it anywhere else. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 06:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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 Voyager with Josh Garcia
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 10%23The Voyager with Josh Garcia

Vacation Creation
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 10%23Vacation Creation