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. WJBscribe(talk) 12:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How many readers would search for a novel based on its month and year of publication, and nothing else, as disambiguation? Seems an implausible search term. BDD (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the second one missing the ")" as bad disambiguation missing paren -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both due to the titles' disambiguators' failure to be accurate or useful. With the list of other articles and topics listed on Wanderlust (disambiguation), there could be the possibility that this disambiguator could accurately refer to another item on the page; however, also, this disambiguation in the title is not a standardly accepted disambiguator per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Standard disambiguation, so the redirects are bound to cause confusion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We do not and cannot expect readers to know our disambiguation and article titling conventions, which is why they only apply to disambiguation pages and articles not redirects. Redirects from other titles are a Good Thing as they enable people to find what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the goal of the project is to help editors/readers find what they are looking for. That's why I think these redirects should be deleted: the disambiguator is a bit too ambiguous and odd to be a sensible disambiguator for searching purposes, and I found a precedent/policy that enforces what I have stated. In addition, there are some cases where redirect were previously articles, and the purpose of redirects is to lead the reader to the target which they desire, so it seems to make sense to apply some "article title criteria" to redirect titles, especially if the redirect doesn't make enough sense to be useful. Steel1943 (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand all of that, but the usage figures I quote below indicate that this disambiguator is useful to some people, despite being odd. Just because you do not find something useful does not mean that nobody does. The existence of this redirect does not preclude the existence of other redirects to aid people searching on other terms. If a disambiguator is ambiguous then we either disambiguate it directly (e.g. Ocean (ship)) or target it at a wider disamibguation page (e.g. Yesterday (film)), but "September 1991" does not appear to refer to any other uses of "Wanderlust" on Wikipedia so it is not ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there are only 8 hits a month, my thought would be people use this redirect since they have no idea what they are looking for, and use this redirect out of curiosity. Best leave this redirect nonexistent so that the people can search "Wanderlust" and have a better idea of what they are about to read, rather than basically picking a random item out of a mixed grab bag. Steel1943 (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? The stats show circa 25 hits/month (not 8), and how do you know that people have no idea what they are looking for when they view this redirect? If you think that people are searching "Wanderlust" and ending up confused as to which article they want then the correct thing to do is to create one or more new redirects from more likely search terms, not to delete existing ones. The rest of your comment makes even less sense. Thryduulf (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Type "Wanderlust" in the search bar for Wikipedia, and look at the list of options that comes up. People may click on it due to being curious, and not really caring where it directs. I guess the question is ... how do you know the opposite of my point is true? Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I have no idea where the number "8" came from, but it has no bearing in my opinion stated above. Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see where the "8" came from now: the stats for the redirect with no ending paren; 8 versus 25, though, it has no bearing on my opinion above. Steel1943 (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the opposite is true - as far as I am aware it is not possible to know. This means we have to make a choice - do we assume that everybody knows what they are looking for, some people know what they are looking for or nobody knows what they are looking for? Regardless of that we can either keep the redirect or delete it (as retargetting somewhere else is not a sensible option here). This gives us the following matrix of potential outcomes:
Who knows what they are searching for?
Everybody
Some people
Nobody
Who is Inconvenienced?
Redirect kept
Nobody
Redirect deleted
Everybody
Some people
Nobody
Who benefits?
Redirect kept
Everybody
Redirect deleted
Nobody
From this it is very clear why this should be kept. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as implausible, and the latter also as malformed. — Scott•talk 10:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWanderlust (September 1991) as both harmless and (surprisingly) well used with at least 25 visitors every month. Usage figures like that strongly suggest a link from somewhere, we should not cause linkrot without a very good reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 00:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the malformed Wanderlust (September 1991, as although it generates a smattering of hits (8/month on average) this is not enough to suggest deliberate use of an unlikely typo. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 7 April 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.
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) 17:15, 4 April 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.
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 Jax 0677 (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget this one seems to be the obvious choice.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom. --Lenticel(talk) 05:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget - I'm late to the party, but it certainly seems that a reader searching for American politics wants Politics o' the United States, not political science in America. WilyD 10:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as above. I put into WP search "Two-party politics in the United States" just to see what comes up, the proposed link comes up as the second one (the first was United States Navy and the third was Independent (politician)). That one has a redirect from Independent Party (United States); there is also an R at Politics in the United States to the proposed target, so this seems entirely reasonable to me. I am very late to the party. Si Trew (talk) 07:56, 6 April 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.
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 Jax 0677 (talk) 23:20, 6 April 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.
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) 17:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not especially related to whatever language this is in. Gorobay (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the topic has no particular affinity for Cyrillic. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. WP:UE use English for topics with no particular affinity for other languages. If they were searching using this they probably want an entry written in Cyrillic, which English Wikipedia does not provide. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. EN.WP's database is not a translation tool. — Scott•talk 09:16, 3 April 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.
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) 17:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both of above. — Scott•talk 09:16, 3 April 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.
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) 17:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both of above. — Scott•talk 09:16, 3 April 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.
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) 17:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not especially related to any non-English language. Gorobay (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Twitter was invented in the USA and was originally used for English. The topic has no particular affinity for Cyrillic. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. WP:UE use English for topics with no particular affinity for other languages. If they were searching using this they probably want an entry written in Cyrillic, which English Wikipedia does not provide. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. EN.WP's database is not a translation tool. — Scott•talk 09:16, 3 April 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.
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) 17:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not related to any Cyrillic-using language. Also, it says Ferejdu bâglrâ, which is not his name. Gorobay (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFereydu byahlrya There is no indication that this person uses Cyrillic, being an Iranian. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. EN.WP's database is not a translation tool. — Scott•talk 09:16, 3 April 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.
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) 17:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not especially related to any non-English language. Gorobay (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the topic has no particular affinity for Cyrillic. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. WP:UE use English for topics with no particular affinity for other languages. If they were searching using this they probably want an entry written in Cyrillic, which English Wikipedia does not provide. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. EN.WP's database is not a translation tool. — Scott•talk 09:16, 3 April 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.
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) 17:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not especially related to any non-English language. Gorobay (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the topic has no particular affinity for Cyrillic. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. WP:UE use English for topics with no particular affinity for other languages. If they were searching using this they probably want an entry written in Cyrillic, which English Wikipedia does not provide. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. EN.WP's database is not a translation tool. — Scott•talk 09:16, 3 April 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.
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) 17:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not especially Ukrainian. Gorobay (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the topic has no particular affinity for Cyrillic. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. WP:UE use English for topics with no particular affinity for other languages. If they were searching using this they probably want an entry written in Cyrillic, which English Wikipedia does not provide. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. EN.WP's database is not a translation tool. — Scott•talk 09:16, 3 April 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.
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) 17:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not Mongolian. Gorobay (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, same reason as Gorobay. Lighthouse01 (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a Korean topic, the topic has no particular affinity for Mongolian. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. EN.WP's database is not a translation tool. — Scott•talk 09:16, 3 April 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.
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. Thryduulf (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the topic has no particular affinity for Cyrillic. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. WP:UE use English for topics with no particular affinity for other languages. If they were searching using this they probably want an entry written in Cyrillic, which English Wikipedia does not provide. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plausible search term, no one has presented an argument for deletion. WilyD 10:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. EN.WP's database is not a translation tool. — Scott•talk 09:16, 3 April 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.
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 Disambiguate. Zince34' 07:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect redirect for it redirects to the Album's creator. There is an article about a satellite of the same name here so if this was deleted, the satellite page could be moved to this page. Zince34' 08:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Zince34' 08:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. The chemical element iridium has atomic number 77, so it's a potential meaning as well. In any case, I don't believe the satellite is the clear primary meaning here. 172.9.22.150 (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate, per 172.9.22.150. Lighthouse01 (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. The album title is actually a reference to the atomic number, so it makes more sense to dab. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, to allow moving Iridium 77 (satellite) here. I agree in principle with those advocating disambiguation, but I would suspect there's a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. We could make an Iridium 77 (disambiguation) page, but in the interests of keeping it simple, we could just include a {{two other uses}} hatnote or something like it. Unless it can be demonstrated that the element is commonly known as "Iridium 77," it would seem odd to have a dab consisting of one article of that name along with some alternative uses. --BDD (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IsIridium 77 (satellite) even notable in itself, or is it just one of the 66 satellites in the Iridium satellite constellation?Iridium 33, for instance, is notable in that it collided with another satellite, but I don't see any indication in the Iridium 77 article that it's more noteworthy than any of the other satellites in the constellation, nor is it mentioned in the constellation's article. If it's not notable, then it fails primary topic. If it is, for whatever reason, notable in itself, then I'd say we should go for the redirect with the {{two other uses}} hatnote. Either way, in that case. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is anyway a satellite right?Zince34' 03:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As things stand, satellites are generally considered to be inherently notable provided enough content can be provided and reliably sourced to take the article beyond a simple stub. In its current state Iridium 77 is a borderline case (granted, not a stub, but there's not an awful lot of content or sourcing) however there is room for expansion and plenty of content which can be added - since deletion is not cleanup it therefore justifies having an article. --W.D.Graham 11:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. Makes more sense to disambiguate. - Ninney (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not needed. We don't do or need a double definition redirect (both "iridium" and Z="77" define the same element. There is no confusion in sight with an isotope "iridium-77" (off by spelling and by low number, isotopes begin at ~iridium-188). -DePiep (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WD, its just an awful mess to make. I'm sure nobody is going to search "Iridium 77" for the element. They may search "Iridium-191" or "Iridium-193", but the Isotopes begin at 164Ir or 164m Ir. If someone comes to search for the album (or even the Satellite), he is never going to be happy with the output. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zince34 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks like an attempt at a disambiguation page has been started on Iridium 77 under the RfD template. Steel1943 (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then better close this, right ? Zince34' 11:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The disambiguation page has been created so I request some admin passing by the way to close this discussion and say that the result was to Disambiguate which I, the creator of this discussion, also feel a sensible decision. Zince34' 06:09, 1 April 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.
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.
Mentioned only in passing at the target; should be probably deleted to encourage creating a proper article, per WP:REDLINK. — Keφr 07:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the redirect in question, I agree. —Tobias Bergemann (talk) 10:02, 28 March 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.
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) 17:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in target article. This redirect is a left-over artifact of this AfD from 2007 for an article about a hoax. At the time there was some contention that the subject of the title was an attempt to build on the success of the "toothing" hoax, and thus worth mentioning in its article. However, that contention was challenged in June 2009 with the deletion of the material in question, which has not been restored. So, this has been a useless redirect for almost four years. It has no realistic prospect of pointing to relevant content. — Scott•talk 18:10, 28 March 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.
