This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 28, 2018.
International Public Conference on Vaccination[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. Per the target's page history and the (brief) discussion on the talkpage, it looks like the "merge" of IPCV into NVIC was really just blanking and redirecting. Moreover, the content does not appear to have been retained, so this can be safely deleted. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 20:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
all mention of this conference was removed from the nvic page as WP:UNDUE, so why are we still rederecting? Tornado chaser (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not mentioned in the target, nor in enough depth in any other article to merit retargeting (it's mentioned in prose in H. Hugh Fudenberg and Diane Harper, but only to say that each once spoke at this event). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Florida Institute for Complementary and Alternative Medicine[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 retargettoBrian Sheen. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 20:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. Vaguely no consensus-y, but I find the keep arguments to be stronger, at least suggesting this/these may be useful, albeit not popular ~ Amory(u • t • c) 20:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting here because this has been undeleted, see User_talk:Ruslik0/Archive_11#Overturning_very_old_RFD_close. In response to that discussion, while hanja was prominent at that time, that does not justify creating redirects from Mandarin romanizations for this is not a romanization of a Korean spelling, however it does justify creating redirects from the hanja form (we already have 李承晩). - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 12:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually there are precedents such as this redirect to a South Korean singer where the consensus is to keep Pinyin redirects to Korean proper names, provided that there such usage is seen in the wild (usually indicating the Korean subject has significant impact in the Chinese-speaking world) and there is no competing primary topic. This DuckDuckGo search shows that "Li Chengwan" is sometimes used as an English transliterations of the Korean statesman's name, mainly in books about China-Korea relations during the Cold War and transcriptions of library catalog entries of books about Rhee written in Chinese. Deryck C. 15:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix(talk) 21:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Not a likely search term. Almost all the GBooks hits come from one author who's self-publishing his books. The other hits are in bibliographies rather than prose, and they give the real English WP:COMMONNAME right there next to the citation. Web hits are largely Wikipedia copies or about unrelated people. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory(u • t • c) 17:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is going to be relisted again, could we add Li Chéngwǎn (erroneous tonemarks version pointing to same target, created at the same time as the old RFD was overturned)? 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Subsequent to my comment, it was moved to Lǐ Chéngwǎn without leaving behind a redirect, so I add the latter to this nomination. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deryck C. Would have appreciated a ping, since I was the one who re-created it. Doing a Google book search for "李承晩" (which already redirects to the Sygham Rhee article) shows a wide range of sources that use the hanja version. Since hanja uses the same characters as Chinese, this is really the East Asian equivalent of having direct transliterations as valid redirects. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:Involved relist to close the daily log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. This is a weak keep, as I'm quite sympathetic to the argument that this place isn't known as Bombay, but Little Bombay, and that in addition to using New Jersey instead of Jersey City (or even Marion Section) certainly suggests a few errors that could make this implausible. While I'm cognizant of the the partial title issues, the fact that this appears to be somewhat of a thing (highest concentration of Asian Indians in the Western Hemisphere) suggests the keep arguments are reasonable and convincing enough. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 20:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No sources exist that refer to this neighborhood as "Bombay, New Jersey". regentspark (comment) 01:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All the google results for "Bombay, New Jersey" are simple colations of words - most commonly where New Jersey follows Bombay in a list of places or where the title of something published in New Jersey by Princeton University ends with the word "Bombay". Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Is this wrong, though? It refers to a place called Bombay that's in New Jersey. "Neighborhood, State" is an unusual form, but could be useful when the distinctions between neighborhood and city aren't clear. I'm torn between seeing this as an unlikely search term and high confidence that it's taking readers where they want to go. --BDD (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is Little Bombay, New Jersey would be a reasonable redirect.--regentspark (comment) 14:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Thryduulf, and because it appears to be a WP:PTM of "Little Bombay" rather than a valid alternative name. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If Little Bombay, New Jersey goes there, then this shorter version is an entirely plausible attempt, by someone who knows it by a shorter phrase or mis-remembers the longer one. A PTM argument seems weak because there's nothing else that will be vying for this. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 19:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, no refs.Djflem (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bombay is better known as the city in India. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The first thing that comes to mind when I see the word "Bombay" is "Mumbai, India". The same answer applies to everyone being asked the same question. Also, the Bombay of New Jersey has little to no notability for being a small city or suburb in Jersey City. Hansen SebastianTalk 12:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To both of the votes above, what does this have to do with "Bombay, New Jersey"? No one is proposing that "Bombay" alone should redirect to a New Jersey topic. No reader using this search term would be looking for the city in India. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per BDD and SMC - If Little Bombay exists then this should too, Yes I know that's an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguement but either way it's plausible so keep. –Davey2010Talk 18:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. As you appear to point out, the rationale given to keep is strong. Castncoot (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Verifiability is a good rationale for deletion. Where is the source, the reference that clairifies that this is not just some made-up stuff?Djflem (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not true, User:Djflem. To answer your question, I've copy-pasted below the purpose of WP:Redirect:
"Reasons for creating and maintaining redirects include:
Closely related words (for example, Symbiont redirects to Symbiosis).
Adjectives or adverbs point to noun forms (e.g., Treasonous redirects to Treason)
Less specific forms of names, for which the article subject is still the primary topic. For example, Einstein redirects to Albert Einstein, whereas Johnson is a disambiguation page rather than a redirect, since no Johnson is regarded as the primary topic for that name.
Punctuation issues—titles containing dashes should have redirects using hyphens.
Representations using ASCII characters, that is, common transliterations (for example, Pele also redirects to Pelé while Kurt Goedel and Kurt Godel redirect to Kurt Gödel).
Likely alternative capitalizations (for example, Natural Selection redirects to Natural selection). This is not necessary for user searches made via Wikipedia's search engine, but may aid linking from other articles and external sites, as well as direct URL entry.
To comply with the maintenance of nontrivial edit history, pursuant to Wikipedia:Merging#PROMERGE for copyright licensing requirements.
Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.)
Redirects to disambiguation pages that do not contain "(disambiguation)" in the title (for example, Durham (disambiguation) redirects to Durham). These help maintenance by allowing deliberate links to disambiguation pages to be distinguished from links that need to be disambiguated.
Also copy-pasting a comment above from nom:
"My guess is Little Bombay, New Jersey would be a reasonable redirect."
So therefore, by the transitive property of geometry, if Little Bombay, New Jersey can redirect to Marion Section, then so can Bombay, New Jersey—as from the above list, several criteria would be applicable here:
"To comply with the maintenance of nontrivial edit history, pursuant to Wikipedia:Merging#PROMERGE for copyright licensing requirements."
"Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.)"
"Less specific forms of names, for which the article subject is still the primary topic. For example, Einstein redirects to Albert Einstein, whereas Johnson is a disambiguation page rather than a redirect, since no Johnson is regarded as the primary topic for that name."
"Closely related words (for example, Symbiont redirects to Symbiosis)."
We want to make it easier for the reader to access a page, not more difficult. So if the first thing that comes to the reader's mind when they think of the area is "Bombay, New Jersey" (very likely), then let them have that, rather than mandating them to additionally think of the "Little" adjective before it. Castncoot (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to Wikipedia:EDITATAFD which specifically states "You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AfD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community." You did turn Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bombay, Jersey City into a redirect, which can be "interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny". An attempt to push through this redirect based on a faulty closing of above-mentioned AfD is in appropriate. There are no references to support this page.Wikipedia:Verifiability is one Wikipedia:Five pillars of Wikipedia. Bombay, New Jersey (and subsquently this re-direct) is orginal research. If provide an source or the reason why you are not providing a source for this made-up place-name, plus do so.10:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)
It was actually merged into Marion Section according to the apparent consensus recommendation...oh, which included you. Castncoot (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoIndia Square (along with the other "Bombay" related redirects). One of the concerns I read above is concerned with whether or not the area is called "Bombay". I believe that can be resolved with retargeting; India Square has a reference to the area as "Bombay" (I can't access the reference, but I'll AGF) and that article also seems to be a bit more relevant with more specific discussion on the Bombay/Indian aspect of the Section. --Tavix(talk) 20:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Amorymeltzer: Weird thing just happened: my !vote got caught by your closure and I didn't even get an EC. I'm not sure if my findings would affect the close, but I'll let you make that call. If not, you or I could just move my !vote above {{rfd bottom}}. --Tavix(talk) 20:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over India Square (and Little India (location)) for some backreading/research on this close, and I'll be honest, I was surprised nobody even suggested retargeting there. I almost mentioned that surprise in my closing statement, but didn't want to get too close to putting a weight on the scale. I don't think it will affect my close, but I appreciate the note. I do think there's a fair bit of cleaning up and reorganizing to be done on both pages, though. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 21:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. Deryck C. 13:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate (1st choice) or retarget. This is a term that is used in reliable sources (e.g. [1], [2]) so it should not be a redlink. It is however ambiguous as it is an umbrella term for paedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia which we cover in separate articles, so the first option is a page (whether technically a dab or a set index I'm not sure, but there is probably precedent somewhere) which states it is an umbrella term for those three and links to them, possibly also including the {{Pedophilia}} navbox. The other option is to retarget to Chronophilia which is an article about a broader umbrella term, although that doesn't currently mention this term, and an introduction would require careful wording as it's a term that post-dates the work of John Money (who coined "chronophilia") and relates to only two of the three top-level categories there - for these reasons disambiguation is my clear first preference. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (From creator) Honestly I threw this together thinking there wasn't enough of an article to write. My opinion on the subject is that its an invented term to discredit the LGBT community (Snopes: [3][4]). If people think there's enough article in there, I'd be gangbusters for trying to write something out of it. Zero Serenity(talk - contributions) 16:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first link I gave above suggests that it wasn't invented for that purpose (or if it was they independently arrived at the same term). I don't know that there is enough for an article that has more than a sentence explaining that it's an umbrella term, linking to the three articles, a see also to Chronophilia and the navbox. That sounds like a set indexy sort of thing to me. If there is anything that can be added about the term from reliable sources then by all means it can be added. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say redirect to chronophilia, I'd forgotten the term exists and this new term seems to be sub group of chronophilia but probably not notable enough to have its own page. Maybe add a line with a couple of references notably the ones Thryduulf found. It doesn't seem to be a widely accepted term with a specific paraphilia attached to it. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's intended as an umbrella term for related paraphilias (AIUI largely because the social effects are significantly similar) rather than a specific paraphilia so your "not widely accepted" comment is partly tangential. "Chronophilia" and "minor attracted person" are different attempts to fill similar (but not identical) semantic gaps (the former relates to the conditions, the latter to the people who have them - c.f. paedophilia vs paedophile). Neither term seems very widely accepted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DAB. Looks like at least a three-entry disambig page, per Thryduulf. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 19:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is this a neologism? Does it have notability in media articles? I wouldn't want to disambiguate it solely based on our interpretation of what that means. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: It is a useful search term as it does get mentions, including in some media articles. There is no interpretation required as the meaning is very clear and consistent. I don't think there is enough that can be written about it for a separate article (I'm not certain the etymology has been covered in reliable sources for example), but that isn't relevant for a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've drafted a disambigation page at Minor-attracted person. Sources seem to be roughly evenly split regarding the hyphenation so the choice of title was just my personal preference - if others prefer no hyphen I have no problem with that at all. Thryduulf (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The phrase isn't defined anywhere in the encyclopaedia, so the reader who searches for this in pursuit of a definition, context or history is left none the wiser. A disambiguation page listing only articles that do not discuss or define the phrase would be inappropriate per WP:DABRELATED. There might also be an argument that this is worth deleting per the first final point of WP:RDEL in order to encourage the creation of an article, as the phrase seems to have been quite widely discussed in reliable sources. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The draft disambiguation page provides both definition and context, which is significantly more useful than a redlink. Can you point to any reliable sources that would be suitable for an article about the term (not the subjects it refers to)? Thryduulf (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To allow more time to discuss the disambiguation draft.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arms & Hearts. --Tavix(talk) 17:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DAB as per Thryduulf, From what I can gather the umbrella term applies to Paedophilia, Hebephilia and Ephebophilia so in this instance a disam makes sense, I would prefer an article but there's not much info on it so better off as disam. –Davey2010Talk 18:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate as there is evidence of some usage. feminist (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 retargettoJames Heilman. Arguments for delete mostly discuss the inappropriateness of the current target, so restoring the former target at least somewhat satisfies those desires. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 20:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-namespace redirect (see this bold change) out of the mainspace, to a different group of people. "WPMED" is a WP:WikiProject, which means it's a group of editors. "WPMEDF" is a separate non-profit organization, founded by a few of them. While most of the WPMEDF people identify as being part of the English Wikipedia's WPMED, most WPMED participants are not members of the New York corporation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I don't care what happens to the link: it could be re-pointed to the founder's biography, or maybe become a soft redirect to their page on Meta, or turned into an article, or whatever else someone wants. I just don't want it to point to a different group, which has a confusingly similar name, in the project namespace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget There's WP:BOLD and then there's WP:BOLD. To add to the confusion, the Foundation's page on meta calls it Wiki Project Med/WikiProject Med, scarcely mentioning 'Wiki Project Med Foundation'. Changing it back to James Heilman seems the best choice. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WikiProjects are not called "Wiki Projects", so this is a non-standard format in addition to being a recreation of an XNR. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory(u • t • c) 16:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is too confused and confusing for legit use; even anyone actually tried that exact string, they'd end up at a page that has nothing to do with a foundation. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 19:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to James Heilman. Wiki Project Med Foundation is mentioned and its activities described in that article. Redirects from article space to the project namespace are rarely justifiable; in this case, the off-wiki organisation discussed in an encyclopaedia article should surely take precedence. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To give the extra option of targeting to James Heilman more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to James Heilman - Wikiprojects obviously aren't called "Wiki Projects" however the target mentions the name so makes sense to redirect. –Davey2010Talk 21:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 19:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Harmless except that it sets the precedent that readers might expect to find "u.s." as an alternative to "U.S." everywhere else. Have fixed the one link to it from Big Brother (U.S. TV series). Probably best deleted. PamD 18:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Searches should be able to handle the lower-case. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harmless, and the idea that redirects like this establish a precedent or create certain expectations in the reader is unsupported and unfalsifiable. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arms & Hearts. I do think some redirects could establish unexpected expectations, but I'm not concerned about this here. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "U.S." must always be capitalized in article titles, since search engines are not case-sensitive. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. The discussion is split between two main options: "move and keep" and "delete". However, both options involve removing the redirect from the current title and there are doubts over whether "scour.net" was the correct domain name of this defunct service. I guess you can call this closure "no consensus, default to delete because the majority doesn't want to keep". Deryck C. 17:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meaningless redirect and unsourced Hhkohh (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. "Scour" points to general list of pages while the intent of the URL redirect is a link straight to the former P2P service (the URL instead of the name with the legal suffix.) 96.242.88.25 (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox clearly indicates that the URL was www.Scour.com not Scour.net — wbm1058 (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
regardless of the outcome, the purpouse of this was to make a redirect to the article in question. 96.242.88.25 (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Presumably the user who created this intended to create scour.net and (mistakenly?) used the Articles for creation process to create a page in the draft namespace. I don't know whether redirects from the draft namespace are usually kept after drafts are moved into article space. From looking at the Wayback Machine records for scour.net, though, it looks like the url redirected to scour.com from May 2000 to May 2001, so a redirect from scour.nettoScour Inc. might be appropriate. It doesn't look like scour.net has ever been a website in its own right, so there's no risk of confusion. There's obviously only a vanishingly small chance that this, from the draft namespace, could be of use to somebody, but this is true of many of our redirects (not to mention articles) and isn't a reason to delete it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Draft-to-mainspace redirects aren't inherently problematic, but typically, they happen when a page is moved from draft space. The rationale is that there could be incoming links to the draft. But this one was created as a redirect to an existing article! There's no way there would be incoming links to the nonexistent draft. I agree with Arms & Hearts that the IP wanted Scour.net (i.e., in mainspace) to redirect to Scour Inc. But as things stand, this is just actively misleading, suggesting we once had a draft on a topic called "Scour.net". --BDD (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BDD. No prejudice against recreation as a mainspace redirect if that turns out to be appropriate. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move then keep I think this can be dealt with pretty easily:
Relist this to discuss the mainspace Scour.net redirect...
Or, for a more clean process, close this as moot and (re)nominate Scour.net for its own RfD.
I'll add that according to this the url was indeed scour.net; accordingly I'd suggest keeping the mainspace redirect. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 20:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Move then keep per Amorymeltzer. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the website for Scour was "scour.com". Also, the "scour.net" domain is currently for sale, raising the probability of the domain being used for malicious purposes (eg:phishing). --Tavix(talk) 15:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Former South Korean President dead after apparent suicide[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. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 19:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Certainly an unlikely search term, but as far as I know there are no other South Korean presidents who died by suicide, so no risk that this might cause confusion or mislead the reader. While this title resembles a news headline, I don't think any of the four points of WP:NOTNEWS have any relevance to redirects. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was more than just an "apparent suicide", the suicide has been confirmed. --Tavix(talk) 17:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 4#Allopathic and osteopathic medicine
