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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. -- BDD ( talk) 22:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC) reply

• Spark Productions → Wake Me Up (Avicii song) ( links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ delete ] 

Delete per WP:REDLINK. Well, I don't know if we exactly want to encourage creation of an article on a company that's already been speedily deleted, but it's not mentioned on the target page, so it's not very useful as a redirect either. BDD ( talk) 16:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep: This article was deleted by RHaworth as blatant first-person spam last year. This month, it has gone to #26 with a pre-release cover version of it which charted through sheer lack of availability of the Avicii version. The only reason it is currently a redirect is because I can't find any information about them; there was information there but I do not put unsourced content into my articles.-- Laun chba ller 17:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC) reply

So Spark produced this song? If so, mentioning it in the article would be an improvement. If this is the only notable song they've produced, this might be fine. Otherwise, WP:REDLINK deletion is probably a better idea. -- BDD ( talk) 18:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I never said that. I said that they released a version in the UK before Avicii did.-- Laun chba ller 18:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Now I'm just confused. Avicii's version was a cover? What exactly is the relationship between Spark Productions and this song? -- BDD ( talk) 21:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC) reply

No. Avicii released his version in early July worldwide, with plans to release it in September in the UK. In the absence of the Avicii version, Spark Productions recorded their own version, which made #26 on the UK Singles Chart.-- Laun chba ller 21:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Okay. I had been assuming Spark was an actual production company. If you want to add a Cover versions section to the article, I'll withdraw. -- BDD ( talk) 22:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC) reply

There is only one cover version of this song so far, so the current section is located at Wake Me Up!#Spark Productions cover.-- Laun chba ller 22:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Great. I'll withdraw and make the redirect target the section. -- BDD ( talk) 22:54, 25 July 2013 (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 to Chemical element, improvement of target at editors discretion. Tikiwont ( talk) 14:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Pure element → Graded ring ( links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ delete ] 

I propose retargeting to Chemical element. The phrase isn't mentioned on the target page, and a quick Google search on the phrase suggests its usage in chemistry is more common. At this time, only three incoming links would need to be fixed. BDD ( talk) 16:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC) reply

• Retarget per nom. Chemical element is where I would expect to end up if I searched for this. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Retarget per nom. -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 07:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Retarget, just that common usage would be a pure element (admittedly a tautology) is an element, a chemical element, and would not suggest to the casual that it would be a graded ring (or aromatic ring or double bonded chimeral ring or any other kind of ring). Common name for title, with little evidence, though a quick Google search on "pure element helium" yields [ helium a pure element or a compound?], at fifth, which suggests it would be used in that sense. (Higher rankings tend to point directly or indirectly to the article in question.) Si Trew ( talk) 00:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Retarget per nom but define the term at the target. This will do the job just fine. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 02:45, 29 July 2013 (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.