Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 15

May 15
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 15, 2017.

Polyoxyfen
 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 history merge with Draft:Polyoxyfen. If the draft is accepted, it'll take the place of Polyoxyfen. In the meantime, this will remain red as the nominator's concern has not been addressed.  -- Tavix  ( talk ) 15:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


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

Polyoxyfen does not equal kratom; it appears to be some kind of mixture containing kratom (and other ingredients). There's an AfC about polyoxyfen that has been submitted for review, which should take this place if accepted. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   22:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The redirect was originally created with the exact same content as Draft:Polyoxyfen. It was redirected as I was attempting to clean it up and check for notability.  If the draft is accepted, the history should be merged since the content is identical. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 17:42, 16 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.

Dances with Aliens
 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.  --BDD (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Dances with Aliens → Avatar (2009 film) (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dances_with_Aliens&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

I'm not too sure if the connection is strong enough for a redirect. My search did have some Avatar related material mixed in with non-notable songs and other material. The phrase isn't mentioned in the article, for what it's worth. -- Tavix ( talk ) 01:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete a critic's catchphrase perhaps? That it isn't mentioned in the article doesn't help its notability or usefulness. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this not found in reliable sources? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 02:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think it actually is found in reliable sources, and also it's addressed in the article, just not in so many words. Someone curious about it will be able to figure out its meaning and significance from the article, so it's a legit redirect. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 06:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't use that exact phrase, although it does refer to Dances with Wolves. Is there a way to remove the synth of these two film titles? AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 03:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe this would help: http://www.salon.com/2009/12/18/avatar/ Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's a critical turn of phrase that's been mentioned, yes, but the redirect doesn't seem that appropriate. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:02, 16 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.

He got off a little while ago
 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.  --BDD (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * He got off a little while ago → Alvin and the Chipmunks (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=He_got_off_a_little_while_ago&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

I'm not seeing any significant connection between the redirect and the target. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as not a phrase particularly identifying. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very surprisingly Google finds exactly 1 result for this as an exact phrase, and it is not this redirect but a derivative of it - "How To Pronounce He got off a little while ago" (which unsurprisingly doesn't tell you how to pronounce it). Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete ... the hell? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete not a notable catchphrase for the franchise. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as confusing at best -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:15, 18 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.

Funk Wav Bounces Vol. 1
 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 procedural close.  Both of these are now redirects, so the former will also be redirected to Calvin Harris discography and the latter (Roman numeral I) will be categorized with R avoided double redirect. (non-admin closure)   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  04:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Funk Wav Bounces Vol. 1 → Funk Wav Bounces Vol. I (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Funk_Wav_Bounces_Vol._1&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Proper name is Funk Wav Bounces Vol. I, anyone searching for the album is going to see results in the drop-down box long before they get to the I or 1. This redirect will just add to the confusion as to the actual title. Kellymoat (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course. Easy to confuse "I" and "1", so let the possible search term remain helpful and serves its purpose. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But as stated, you get the results long before you get to the 1 or I. In fact, "funk w" is all you need. Kellymoat (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, I disagree, so I'll just let others decide. Thanks. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, it's even possible the article should be moved to Funk Wav Bounces Vol. 1, per the album's cover art. There are multiple reasons to keep this redirect for now. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Another Believer. The only people who see the search suggestions are those using the internal search engine with javascript enabled. There are many other ways to search and browse Wikipedia than that, and this is a very useful search term for at least some of those methods. Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's helpful enough. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Can an admin go ahead and close this discussion? Like I mentioned above, "Funk Wav Bounces Vol. 1" (not "Funk Wav Bounces Vol. I") is, as far as I can tell, the actual title of the album, so this page actually needs to be expanded and will not serve as a redirect. I'd like to start expanding the article ASAP. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you closed a discussion below, so if you're willing to help here sooner than later, I'd be much appreciated. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:55, 18 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.

Black mould
 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 withdrawn.    Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  15:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Black mould → Aspergillus niger (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_mould&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


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

Looking for consistency and guidance – I'm not an expert; however, I'm told that there are several "black molds/moulds", plus of course the different and correct spellings of the same concept need to be addressed.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  13:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * See also Black Mold (disambiguation) (from other capitalization).  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  13:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Retarget both to Black Mold (disambiguation). Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The dab page was originally at Black mold until it was unilaterally moved to the current title in 2016. The capitalized ambiguous terms are incredibly minor compared to either species, so it should be moved back. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think Xezbeth has the right idea, along with redirecting to  after the page move.  So Thryduulf, if you are in agreement, I shall withdraw this nomination and make the corrections.   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  14:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * go ahead. Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and they're on their way.  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  15:17, 17 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.

Bad Liar
 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 procedural close  . This is no longer a redirect.  -- Tavix  ( talk ) 15:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Bad Liar → Selena Gomez discography (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bad_Liar&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

multiple variations for the same song were made. this one will end up being a dab if kept. Kellymoat (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Disambig per nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Revert to article without prejudice to AfD. The nominator actually meant that two articles about the same song were created (the other at Bad Liar (Selena Gomez song), but this was the more developed), not that there are multiple songs with the same title. This was unilaterally redirected and then nominated here less than a day later (by different people, so good faith is presumed) so should be taken to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There were more than 2. Just two that I nominated. The two that serve no purpose.Kellymoat (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * They do serve a purpose as likely search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. Release date is May 18, so it should be checked whether it will have a chance to chart. It's certainly got the pop magazines and newspapers going:       AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right, I managed to find material to start several sections such as release, composition, and reviews. Plus, it doesn't take a genius to know the song will chart in its first week of release. It just won't today lol. So it would be nice if we could start working on the page. --Sofffie7 (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can somebody close this discussion? The article was supposed to be created today, but because the user who made this nomination is stubborn, they keep removing the content. —  MUST BE  Love on the Brain.  11:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There's currently 3 articles up for deletion. Perhaps you shouldn't have created so many. Also, what do you mean "supposed to be created today". Read up on WP Guidelines. Being released today does not mean that an article is automatically accepted.Kellymoat (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Have you guys ever heard of WP:TOOSOON or WP:CRYSTALBALL --- We don't write articles based on what might happen. This is an encyclopedia, we write articles after it happens. Kellymoat (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Lol you fail to understand it is no longer too soon. "Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles, require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. It is an encyclopedia that must be reliable. If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." WP:TOOSOON ... This doesn't apply here because, as said earlier, there are enough sources to create an article of 'start' quality. Anyway, I voiced my opinion, so now I'm going to leave it there. --Sofffie7 (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Recommend procedural close now that this is a fully-developing article that has demonstrated notability. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:56, 21 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.

Bad Liar (Selena Gomez 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 retarget  to Bad Liar. --BDD (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Bad Liar (Selena Gomez Song) → Selena Gomez discography (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bad_Liar_(Selena_Gomez_Song)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

multiple variations for the same song were made. this one violates mos. Kellymoat (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Bad Liar (Selena Gomez song) → Selena Gomez (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bad_Liar_(Selena_Gomez_song)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Keep. "Bad Liar (Selena Gomez Song)" There is only one song by this name released by Selena Gomez, there is information about it at the target and this is a very plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I didn't make it clear. There were multiple variations for this article made (I suggested two of them for deletion) . All for the same song. This one, with "S" goes against MOS and would clearly not be a plausible redirect since there is an article title with "s". Song vs song.Kellymoat (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added Bad Liar (Selena Gomez song) to this nomination as that should be considered alongside this one. That has only ever been a redirect, but I see now that Bad Liar and Bad Liar (Selena Gomez Song) were both created as articles and then unilaterally redirected - in that case the normal practice is to revert an article and send that to AfD. Thryduulf (talk)
 * See, I didn't nominate Bad Liar (Selena Gomez song), because that is the one that doesn't violate MOS/capitals. And based on current information, the subject of the articles should not be an article. People just like to jump the gun. So, really, the fact that someone attempted to make two of them an article instead of a redirect shouldn't come into play. Kellymoat (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Retarget "Bad Liar (Selena Gomez song)" to Selena Gomez discography per my comments above. Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Bad Liar is supposed be the title for the article that will created these days. —  MUST BE  Love on the Brain.  16:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Bad Liar (Selena Gomez Song). No modifiers where Song is caps unless it's Brenda Song or some other person named Song. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Retarget Bad Lair (Selena Gomez song) to Bad Liar as the article is now created and is primary topic. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as various users will likely search for the song. Very plausible. Carbrera (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC).
 * Retarget "Bad Liar (Selena Gomez Song)" → "Bad Liar (Selena Gomez song)" --<span style="font-weight:bold;font-variant:small-caps;color:#FFFFFF;background-color:#F49259;letter-spacing:1pt;">Jennica ✿ / talk 03:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Use "Bad Liar" as the main article and redirect "Bad Liar (Selena Gomez song)" there. The "Bad Liar (Selena Gomez Song) may obviously be deleted. Anyway, now that the song is released and that there are articles written about it, I don't see the point of keeping "Bad Liar" as a redirect. Can we just start the article with the material now available and stop the non-sense. Thanks. --Sofffie7 (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as Bad Liar. It's certainly notable, and nothing on Wikipedia currently matches that title. I guess if you were set on differentiating this song as a Selena Gomez song, you could name it Bad Liar (Selena Gomez song).  Aleccat  15:06, 19 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.

Sputnik (website)
<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 retarget  to Sputnik (disambiguation). --BDD (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * <span id="Sputnik (website)">Sputnik (website) → Sputnikmusic (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sputnik_(website)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Not endorsing Russian state media, but should this be retargetted to Sputnik (disambiguation)? Sputnik (news agency) has higher |Sputnik_(news_agency) page views and a higher Alexa rank ( vs ). f e  minist  09:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Retarget to the disambig page. I think the search engine is also a plausible target for someone using this search term. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment as with the Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_16 is there a website that would be a primary topic? <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:44, 16 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.

Ransom note
<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 retarget  to Ransom.  (non-admin closure) –  Uanfala (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


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

The term "ransom note" doesn't immediately invoke thoughts of the "ransom note effect". It seems like a bit of a WP:SURPRISE.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   08:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Ransom and add a hatnote to the present target. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Retarget and hatnote per Thryduulf. Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Retarget and hatnote per Thryduulf. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Retarget and hatnote per Thryduulf. Most notes are about the ransom in general, not some specific effect. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Retarget and hatnote per Thryduulf. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh. I'm surprise to see that ransom notes aren't mentioned at all at Ransom. --BDD (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if this would be a good candidate for WP:REDLINK deletion to encourage article creation. Notes aren't mentioned at ransom and the current target is a WP:PTM... -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How about adding I have added a section on ransom notes to Ransom, until there is clearly enough material to support an independent article? bd2412  T 22:05, 23 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.

Washington DC politics
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 26%23Washington DC politics