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$27 and 27 dollars, no consensus regarding 27 bucks with no prejudice against anyone renominating the latter individually if they wish. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I get it, I get it. The average individual campaign contribution was only $27. But should this article own the $27 redirect? I am uncomfortable with giving a common monetary value to Bernie2016. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all three ($27/27 dollars/27 bucks) as is: Look, at the very least, Bernie's incessant references/commercials to $27 are one thing someone would be looking for when searching for $27. So that eliminates delete as an option. If there are other topics, $27 should be a disambiguation (the way most other dollar values are). But, apart from a vague belief that others exists, the nominator has not demonstrated what those are, and therefore there's no need to change anything. Also, nominator should merge all three discussions into one RfD, instead of three separate ones. pbp 23:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is there a catchphrase for this? Is it 27 dollars? Ross Perot had a campaign where people could join his party and contribute $15. Should that also be notable? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether $27 should have a redirect is entirely independent of whether $15 should have one. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: In answer to your question, "Did $27 become a catchphrase", I'd honestly have to say yes. pbp 13:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be discussed in the article then if it is a significant catchphrase brought up during his campaign coverage. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It IS discussed in the article... pbp 20:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it [1]. I see a statement for $31 though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: Ah, I see somebody took a hatchet to the fundraising section yesterday, deleting several kilobytes of text that had been in there for months. It's back now (FWIW, here is the revision prior to the hatchet job). Also, if you question the important of the $27 figure, I challenge you to do a Google search on it. pbp 23:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some news sources for the popularity of $27, but it only supports $27 and 27 dollars. It doesn't support 27 bucks. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this was a central theme of Sanders' campaign, and a very plausible search term. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep $27 and 27 dollars and Delete 27 bucks. My research largely lines up with AngusWOOF's. --Tavix(talk) 22:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, weak because I'm saying WP:IDONTKNOWIT. But I've been following this election, including the primary, quite closely, and I was not aware of this meme. It seems unlikely to have the enduring significance to be a meaningful redirect in the future. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the two dollar ones. This meme was used by Obama to roast Bernie Sanders at the Press Correspondents' Dinner [2], so it's a plausible redirect. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do remember that, now that you linked to it. I must have assumed the amount was arbitrary, though. --BDD (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2016 (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) 19:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen this used. Reminds me a lot of Jeb Bush's campaign logo. I just don't think "Hillary!" is a notable phrase associated with her political career. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That name has no more affinity for an "!" than any other name; it's only arguable plausibility wise targeting what it currently does.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly vandalism given the edit summary of the creator. I'd be persuaded to keep if there's evidence of Hillary Clinton using this in any sort of way, but I'm not seeing it. --Tavix(talk) 00:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete!. We don't need to have wow'd versions of our first names. We don't have Bob! or Nate! or whatever. Herostratus (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I implied above about another suggested target, that makes no sense, unless your claiming that the name itself is more likely to be followed by an exclamation mark than any other name or that the usage of the exclamation mark is relevant to more than one term listed there resulting in ambiguity.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per Tavix - Nabla (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2016 (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.
Regarget and add a hatnote. There is not a single instance of "Ornithes" on the current target (although the string occurs as part of a few different taxons). Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget. Name of famous play, more likely. Herostratus (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Recent news and book articles refer to Ορνιθες [3][4] Is that the play? You can also add a "redirects here" hatnote or bold it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:23, 6 August 2016 (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. --Tavix(talk) 17:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
not even mentioned in the article , and not the sort of major education institution that ought to be . DGG ( talk ) 15:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a franchise of schools. [5] Is it notable? It's certainly not specific to Greece. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:27, 6 August 2016 (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 keep. --Tavix(talk) 17:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article at Linaria is about a genus of plants. Linaria (bird) is about a genus of birds. "Linaria (genus)" is an incompletely disambiguated title. I'm not interested in arguing for the plant genus being the primary topic for Linaria (I don't think there is necessarily a better claimnant for primary topic, but I can accept that there isn't a primary topic). I'd be happy to move Linaria to Linaria (plant), and make a dab page at "Linaria" with "Linaria (genus)" redirecting there as an incomplete disambiguation. "Linaria (genus)" shouldn't exist as a redirect to "Linaria" as long as that title is occupied by the plant genus. Plantdrew (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keepas{{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. I don't object to dabifying the target title as you've specified, but right now, the plant genus is de facto primary topic. Either way, "Linaria (genus)" should redirect to "Linaria". --BDD (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BDD. The target article is currently the primary topic and has a hatnote to the other genus, so the redirect is both correct and desirable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2016 (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. --Tavix(talk) 17:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing about this at the target article. There was at the time the redirect was created, but it doesn't look notable. The phrase ends up difficult to google, with all the stories about Daisy Ridley "wrapping" up Star Wars filming, but "ridley wrap" -wikipedia -"star wars" is giving me just about nothing. BDD (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a notable catchphrase. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:27, 6 August 2016 (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. --Tavix(talk) 17:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find any notable person of this name, so why does he have a redirect? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a Mike Barca. His actual given name is Miguel, but perhaps a likely mistake. --BDD (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notable Michael Barca or anyone who goes by Big Mike Barca. Searches show a lawyer, an Australian football player [6], and a high school American football player. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:37, 6 August 2016 (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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 17#Interstate 13
