Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 29, 2014.

Shawn Hochuli[edit]

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) 14:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted per WP:REDLINK and for consistency's sake. It should remain a redlink until an article is created. Every other official on that list without an article has a redlink except for Shawn. Tavix |  Talk  21:35, 29 December 2014 (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.

Test Stage[edit]

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. No prejudice against recreating as a retarget to the glossary (once such content is added) or as an appropriate dab. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A concept by this name could be part of several subjects other than the target of this redirect. Also, the redirect is not mentioned in the target article. So, delete, unless a good retargeting option can be found. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have a preference between deleting (per nom) or a retarget to The L.A.TEST Stage, as that's the only retarget candidate that I could find. Tavix |  Talk  21:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be opposed to the retarget suggestion presented above since it's a partial title match. If anything, LATEST Stage or Latest Stage could redirect to that proposed target. Steel1943 (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just created the two above-mentioned redirects anyways. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, I thought this was a "Glossary of video game terms", and I was going to agree with you. However, this is a glossary of terms found in "Defining Video Quality Requirements: A Guide for Public Safety", per the lead of that page. Therefore, this retarget would be inappropriate as "Test stage" is not one of the terms defined by that document. Tavix |  Talk  05:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did mean video games, sorry! I fixed my link above. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have assumed that! I was going to create the blurb myself, but I couldn't find a good definition of the term and I don't know a whole lot about the concept to begin with (most of the hits I got were actually about the Melee stage). I love the idea, but it's pointless redirecting it there until there's an entry. Salvidrim!, would you be willing to do that? Tavix |  Talk  17:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or weak disambiguate) "test stage" is used in more than just video games. Software in general, for instance, or rocketry, or sports, or employment, or academics, or R&D, etc -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2015 (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.

List of Assist Characters in Super Smash Bros.[edit]

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) 16:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was formerly a list of characters that are not "playable characters", but rather characters that randomly appear when specific items are used in the game. This content currently does not appear in the target article, and adding it there probably constitutes as a WP:GAMEGUIDE violation due to the lack of notability of these characters appearances in these game titles (as opposed to playable characters, which have a notable enough connection to the game series to be mentioned in the target article.) Lastly, the target article's section does not go in enough detail to explain what "assist" means in the redirect, rendering it somewhat misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The points made be the nom are sufficient reason to delete. In addition, I note that this is not a likely search term. NotUnusual (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2015 (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.

Template:Super Smash Bros. playable characters[edit]

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) 14:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of cross-namespace redirects that redirect to a specific section on its target. Also, both redirects currently have no transclusions. Steel1943 (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2014 (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.

List of Super Smash Bros. cast members[edit]

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) 14:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has a history as an article that listed some voice actors for the redirect's target's subject; however, at this point, this material does not exist in the target article, and I do not see it returning per WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2014 (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.

Upcoming Super Smash Bros. video game[edit]

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) 16:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the redirect's title, it will always be subject to having issues due to WP:CRYSTALBALL. In addition, since this redirect does not currently target a specific section on the page and the most recently "upcoming" titles were released earlier this year, the redirect isn't particularly helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It is correct as a former title of the article (which was kept at AfD under the "upcoming" title since notability was established before a title was announced), but since it currently not used and unhelpful as a search term, it could be deleted. The current target is no longer an "upcoming video game". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:09, 29 December 2014 (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.

Game set[edit]

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) 16:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is not mentioned on the target page, and is honestly too ambiguous to be helpful. This redirect could refer to any set of games; in my case, it also makes me think of tennis given the terminology. There is a possibility that a concept article could be placed at this title, but until then, the best option would probably be delete. Steel1943 (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from nominator: I'm okay with this option as well, though I'm more partial to "delete". Steel1943 (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is or turn into a disambiguation page. The phrase is a very common one in the game. Stifle (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Stifle: There are two issues I see with the "keep" option: 1) The subject is not mentioned at the target article, which will leave readers trying to figure out why they were redirected there. 2) In my opinion, the connection between the target and the phrase is not notable enough to be retained in the article as the primary use for the term "Game set", or to have exclusivity to its current target, per WP:WORLDWIDE. Also, in regards to "turn into a disambiguation page", I would say that Lenticel's option above may be the best for the time being, but I do have second preference for creating a disambiguation page if it can be proven to be helpful to our readers. Steel1943 (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if not mentioned at Super Smash Bros. Oppose retargeting or disambiguating to Set#Sport_and_games because it doesn't really mean anything in that context. It also makes me think of tennis but doesn't mean anything in that context either. I think the best option is to delete, saying basically "we have nothing to say about this but the search results may help you". Siuenti (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2014 (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.

Protesters (disambiguation)[edit]

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 by nominator with no votes to delete. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deletion, because "protesters" is not a likely search term for anything listed at the target. Siuenti (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2014 (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.

Chuckie Finch[edit]

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. This was a little tricky, but I find the argument to delete stronger. I had initially closed as no consensus, noting that these were former page titles of C. J. Fick, but then I noticed that was only true for a matter of minutes, when the page was first created. Absent evidence that this was a fleeting typo by a Wikipedia editor, the delete argument is convincing, especially given the possibility of other people with this name. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are two redirects that point to someone who isn't on this page anymore. The person that these redirects are referring to is C. J. Fick, but I don't think they should be retargeted there because they are incorrect and implausible search terms. Tavix |  Talk  03:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tavix, could you clarify? You said "The person that these redirects are referring to is C. J. Fick", so I'm sure that's why Oiyarbepsy suggested that course of action. Is there also a Chuckie Finch/Fink? --BDD (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the person that was on the St. Louis Cardinals minor league players page, C. J. Fick. Someone decided to create these redirects to the minor league page, referring to C. J., even though these names are incorrect (meaning that these aren't his name, he doesn't go by "Chuckie" and his last name isn't "Finch" or "Fink"). They need to be deleted because they are so far incorrect that it isn't helpful for anyone to have them retargeted to C. J.'s page. And no, there isn't anyone named Chuckie Finch/Fink as far as I'm aware. Tavix |  Talk  21:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2014 (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.

⛄[edit]

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, defaulting to keep. Bagunceiro makes a good point that if Unicode symbols are to redirect to Miscellaneous Symbols, it should probably be done consistently. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this requires deletion, exactly. But the section "Unicode" no longer exists and I think the redirect needs a different target. If we can't find one, delete, I suppose. NYKevin 20:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or restore the unicode section to the article. It's not clear to me why it was removed. Bagunceiro (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove section redirect, and keep. It's a valid Unicode redirect, as tagged. Steel1943 (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Miscellaneous_Symbols which explains what it is as well as what it means (or restore the unicode section to the article). Siuenti (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per standard practice for other Unicode characters. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That isn´t the usual practice with these symbols; they normally redirect to a page appropriate to their common meaning (in fact I cannot find one that follows your suggestion). I see no reason to set a precedent with this one: If you consider that it is preferable behaviour then that's a wider subject and should be raised for discussion elsewhere (probably on talk:Miscellaneous_Symbols). Bagunceiro (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Suienti. (I don't get a glyph for this on my system, but that is and should be irrelevant.) Si Trew (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2014 (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.

OpenStructures[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the name of a company that offers some service related to open-source architecture, but only has one unsourced mention in that article (and a link in "External links" until I took it out).

Per WP:R#DELETE this is a "redirect [that] could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject" and may "[constitute] self-promotion or spam" (the editor who created it has been adding it as a "See also" on other articles). McGeddon (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2014 (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.

Renzokuken[edit]

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) 16:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect's topic is essentially a "special move" performed by the redirect's target's subject. The redirect is mentioned only in the infobox of the article, and is not explained in detail anywhere in the article, and is only used in Final Fantasy VIII, whereas the redirect's target has been in more video games than that (including the Kingdom Hearts series.) for this reason, I believe this redirect should be deleted per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Steel1943 (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2014 (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.

Indepedent Access[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 6#Indepedent Access

Fed[edit]

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 move FED (disambiguation) over redirect. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate this term. "Fed" has too many meanings to refer primarily to this one agency (which, I believe, is more commonly known as The Fed. To begin with, it is the past tense of "feed", and is the common term for any federal agent. bd2412 T 05:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

My slight unease with my suggestion above is that feed rightly lists nouns, not verbs. Feeding (a verbal noun, gerund or the continuous present or present participle depending on what grammar you were taught) redirects to eating, as does eat. Si Trew (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2014 (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.

Wilayat Algeria (ISIL)[edit]

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) 15:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication by reliable sources that the terrorist group the redirects leads to controls land in Algeria, let alone that it is recognized by anyone besides the terrorist group. As such, the redirect should be deleted since it is unduly promotional, a violation of section 4 of WP:RFD#DELETE. I’ll also note that ISIL Wilayat redirects have been routinely deleted, as demonstrated by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilayat Kirkuk (ISIL) and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_24#Wilayat_Homs_.28ISIL.29. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly oppose deletion - So? This group is currently ISIL's operating branch in Algeria, and regardless of the fact of whether or not they control any territory at all, we must address the fact that ISIL does have a faction operating in Algeria. It isn't recognized, but then again, no one will recognize ISIL as an independent state. This redirect is needed because there are some people who are now referring to this group by its association with ISIL in Algeria, rather than the name that this group used to be known as. Also, this group is operating outside of Iraq and Syria, ISIL's primary areas of operations, so it is important that we keep this redirect for the people who don't know the name of this organization. There is no real reason why this redirect must be deleted. People are nominating way too many things foe deletion these days. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If no one (or at least no one who constitutes a reliable source) is going to recognize ISIL as an independent state, then we should not have a redirect recognizing this group as an official state. This constitutes original research and is unduly promotional of a terrorist organization (which violates redirect policy, and is thus reason to delete). Also, why not just create a redirect entitled "ISIL in Algeria"? This addresses all of your concerns, does not violate policy and is a more likely search term anyways. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@LightandDark2000: should it be kept just because "some people" are now referring to this group by its association with ISIL and people who don't know the name of this organization? Mhhossein (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nomination and WP:G11. Mhhossein (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per community concensus already established like 20 times. Creator is pushing this against the community here. The creation of this is especially inappropriate because the country of Algeria is divided into 48 whalyat each named for their principal city including Walayat Algeria for the capital region, so this redirect actually suggests ISIL controls the province containing the country's capital. Legacypac (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The redirect was speedily deleted per G11 (unambiguous advertising) on December 30th, but recreated a little over an hour later. I support re-speedy deleting this redirect per G11. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why bother? Unless it is seeded, it will likely just be created again. In my view, WP:G11 does not apply here – the redirect itself is not "unambiguous advertising or promotion", and this is the right place to have the deletion discussion. Neither does WP:RFD#D4, since it is not "self-promotion or spam". Si Trew (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I note with this edit of 31 December you retargeted Wilayat Algeria (R created by User:LightandDark2000 on 25 December) from Jund al-Khilafah to Provinces of Algeria. That seems sensible. Si Trew (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only reference to it being called anything like this is "Wilayat of ISIL in Algeria" in the target article's infobox. The references there actually call it ISIS, Islamic State etc. never ISIL. The text of both references is largely the same:
  • Zelin, Aaron Y. (14 November 2014). "ISIS Has Declared The Creation Of Provinces In Several Arab Countries". Washington Institute for Near East Policy. businessinsider.com. Retrieved 31 December 2014.
  • Zelin, Aaron Y. (14 November 2014). "The Islamic State's Archipelago of Provinces". Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Retrieved 31 December 2014.
I am not sure if Washington Institure for Near East Policy, a think-tank, is RS, but whether or not, the refs don't support the assertion that it is called what this redirect says it is called, nor what the infobox says it is called. I therefore !vote for deletion by WP:RFD#D8, "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name". Si Trew (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The relevant changes for the addition of those refs (and the term "a Wilayat of ISIL in Algeria" in the lede) are here, on 7 December, with no edit comments, all by IP editor User:139.190.40.95. Whether the organization is a wilayah is presumably another matter. Si Trew (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted through AfD or various speedy deletion criteria

  1. Wilayat Homs (ISIL)
  2. Wilayat Haleb (ISIL)
  3. Wilayat Fallujah (ISIL)
  4. Wilayat Baghdad Al Shamaliye (ISIL)
  5. Wilayat Baghdad (ISIL)
  6. Wilayat North Baghdad (ISIL)
  7. Wilayat Salah al-Din (ISIL)
  8. Wilayat Nineveh (ISIL)
  9. Wilayat Al Janoob (ISIL)
  10. Wilayat Al Barakah (ISIL)
  11. Wilayat Al Kheir (ISIL)
  12. Wilayat Al Badiya (ISIL)
  13. Wilayat Homs (ISIL)
  14. Wilayat Idlib (ISIL)
  15. Wilayat al-Sahel (ISIL)
  16. Wilayat Fallujah (ISIL)
  17. Wilayat Haleb (ISIL)
  18. Wilayat al-Anbar (ISIL)
  19. Wilayat al-Sina (ISIL)
  20. Wilayat al-Sinai (ISIL)
  21. Template:Wilayats of ISIL
  22. Wilayat al-Dimashq (ISIL)
  23. Wilayat al-Furat (ISIL)
  24. List of Caliphs of the Islamic State
  25. ISIL Caliphate
  26. List of Islamic State Wilayahs
  27. Wilayat Hama (ISIL)
  28. Wilayat al-Dimashq (ISIL)
  29. Wilayat Barqah (ISIL)

Closed Deletion Discussions

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_al-Dimashq_%28ISIL%29
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Barqah_(ISIL)
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Baghdad_(ISIL)
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Kirkuk_(ISIL)
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Hama_(ISIL)
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Nineveh_(ISIL)
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_24#Wilayat_Homs_.28ISIL.29
  8. Plus many speedy deletes under various criteria

Under Nomination for Deletion or Redirected

  1. Wilayat al-Raqqa (ISIL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_al-Raqqa_(ISIL)
  2. Wilayat Algeria - redirected away from the ISIL linked Algerian terror group as its a real place, a province of Algeria

Legacypac (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE:I've renominated this for speedy deletion as a recreation of a page after a deletion discussion. Recreated AGAINST CONSENSUS, please SALT this time. Legacypac (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Speedy was declined by User:GB fan I understood that the previous G11 delete was a response to this discussion but User:GB fan evidently did not understand it that way. Going to put it up for speedy under G11 as others have suggested. Legacypac (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2015 (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.

Bigflo[edit]

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) 15:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of South Korean idol groups (2010s) has been pruned down to only include notable groups, so this redirect is unnecessary. Random86 (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2014 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_29&oldid=1138579520"