Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 26

August 26
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 26, 2017.

FUCA me
 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  .  (non-admin closure)  f  e  minist  07:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * FUCA me → If U Seek Amy (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FUCA_me&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Implausible typo. I know what this is meant to be, but surely the fourth syllable is K rather than A? Laun  chba  ller  11:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The censored version of the song, released after the Parents Television Council realized that "If U Seek Amy" spells "FUCK me", is titled "If U See Amy". This instead spells "FUCA me". --Damian Yerrick (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a valid way to spell out the title of the song if the "k" is not heard, which is likely since the lyrics are sung pretty quickly. Damian Yerrick's comment makes this an even more likely search term. Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Booyahhayoob (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Damian Yerrick. Strange but plausible -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:52, 29 August 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.

Tigers on the Prowl 2
 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 article created at redirect.  The1337gamer (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Tigers on the Prowl 2 → Wargame (video games) (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tigers_on_the_Prowl_2&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

No mention of "Tigers on the Prowl 2" at target page. Redirecting to a genre page isn't useful to a reader. The1337gamer (talk) 08:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and possibly per WP:REDLINK. It's mentioned in several articles that this won what appears to be a significant award, but there is no information at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I don't see any news articles from the usual video game reviewers that would warrant such an article. The company doesn't have an article either. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 12:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Tigers on the Prowl 2 was a highly notable computer wargame from the era, covered in every major magazine that covered wargames. Give me a bit of time and I'll gather the sources myself. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's highly notable, don't you think creating an article would be more beneficial than keeping a redirect to a genre article? --The1337gamer (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It was an article until a user reverted it to a redirect about 2 hours before it was listed here. It was originally expanded by an IP user who's been helping me in my work on wargame articles, and I hadn't had time to dig up all the relevant sources yet. Doing that now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. How does that look? If it's still not enough, we can merge/redirect to a series page for the Tigers on the Prowl games. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems good enough for a stub. I'll close this RfD as it is no longer a redirect. Thanks. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:01, 26 August 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.

Afghanica (cannabis)
 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 No consensus to delete  or to do anything else really, and as two relistings have failed to generate any additional comments at all I don't think it likely leaving this open longer will result in a consensus. Whether the article should be restored or the title left as a redirect can be discussed elsewhere if anyone desires. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Afghanica (cannabis) → Cannabis strains (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afghanica_(cannabis)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Afghanica (Cannabis bigener) → Cannabis strains (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afghanica_(Cannabis_bigener)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Cannabis afghanica → Cannabis strains (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis_afghanica&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * "Cannabis afghanica" → Cannabis strains (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%22Cannabis_afghanica%22&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Afghanica Cannabis sativa subsp. indica 'Skunk 1' × Cannabis sativa 'Afghani 1' → Cannabis strains (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afghanica_Cannabis_sativa_subsp._indica_%27Skunk_1%27_%C3%97_Cannabis_sativa_%27Afghani_1%27&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

This is a follow-up to Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 17, which I have closed as delete. "Afghanica" isn't mentioned at the target article, so someone searching it is not going to find anything on the subject. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Pinging, and  who have recently been involved with some of these redirects (or their former content). – Uanfala 20:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The term not being in the article it is redirected to IMO is not justification for deletion. These direct new editors to were the content should go. It is one way we deal with spammy content. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Restore article, since I now realize there used to be an article on the subject. That would solve my initial concern about not having any content to redirect these to. Delete the last two as implausible. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943  (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 26 August 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.