This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 20, 2014.
SpongeBong HempPants
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 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.
GNU/Linux
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.
Oppose. Hi. If I were the nominator, I'd have definitely tried to add a persuasive reason. But in absence of that, I am left to myself to figure out whether it is appropriate or not. So, I am asking myself the following:
"What does a person who enters 'GNU/Linux' into Wikipedia is looking for?" I think he either wants to know what is 'GNU/Linux' which he or she has read somewhere or wants to get in-depth information on it.
"How does it impact existing 'GNU/Linux' links in Wikipedia?" There are 343 inbound links in the article space of Wikipedia that need to be changed.
Now, is there a reason persuasive enough to counter these issues?
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 endorsements in the British unity referendum, 2014
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 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.
Opinion polling for the British unity referendum, 2014
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 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.
Musical score
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. All are agreed that this is a sensible redirect as things stand and the issues with the DAB can be resolved by bold editorial action outwith this RFD. NAC.
The Whispering Wind (
talk)
23:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)reply
All right,I'll go with speedy keep and close. The problem is, usually you get very little participation on DAB talk pages, and little more at their targets' pages, so I don't think I could ever achieve consensus. I might
steamroller it through, though.
Si Trew (
talk)
21:31, 20 September 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.
British unity referendum, 2014
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.
A "British unity referendum" (if there ever were such a thing) would presumably be held throughtout the whole of "Britain", whatever that means at the given point in time, rather than in one constituent nation. You're also missing the point that the referendum was instigated by a pro-independence Scottish Government with the objective of achieving Scottish independence. We don't call the 2011 Alternative Vote referendum the "endorsement of First Past the Post referendum", do we?
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
07:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict)The referendum was on Scottish independence only. Who knows whether the result will improve British unity? If the referendum had been about British unity, then I, as a British citizen, should have had a vote. Please stop pushing your point of view.
Dbfirs07:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Exactly, it was about breaking up the union not establishing one. There was unity in the end but it was the continuation of the existing union since the Scottish leaders failed to get enough support to break the union up. This title is obviously misleading and is the reason that neither of the Quebec sovereignty referendums are called Canadian Unity Referendums.--
76.65.42.142 (
talk)
07:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Redirects don't have to be
WP:RS, but "British unity referendum" does seem to be a neologism." Her Majesty called for "unity" in her written statement, but the two terms have thus been agglomerated by a well-known search engine, it seems. Neither she, nor anyone else that I can make out, called it a "British unity referendum". As an English citizen, I didn't get a vote either. Does seem a bit
WP:POV.
Si Trew (
talk)
08:04, 20 September 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.
Russian-Ukrainian War
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. See the discussion and my closing rationales at the related RfDs linked below. If anyone wants to create a disambiguation page at such a title, it can be discussed on its own merits, and taken to AfD if needed. --
BDD (
talk)
18:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Google News search comes up with 1 blog and a few translations of foreign news sources for "Russian-Ukrainian War". ZERO English news sources use this term for this conflict. Both sides in the conflict are manufacturing POV-push redirects. Wikipedia should not be used as a POV-battleground.
Retarget to the
Ukrainian-Soviet War of 1917-1921. Outright warfare between Russia and the Ukraine is not occurring at the present time, but the Ukraine and the Russian SFSR essentially fought several years of warfare (much more than what's going on now, and several times the duration) almost a century ago. If you disagree with my contention that it's the primary topic, you at least ought to support disambiguating it, per the IP.
Nyttend (
talk)
17:59, 28 September 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 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.
MOHROn
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.
Delete the "correct"
Volapuk encoding would write the "г" as lowercase "r" not uppercase "R", i.e.
MoHron (or maybe
MOHrOn). Redirects from Volapuk encoding may or may not be useful, but redirects from typos/misspellings of Volapuk encoding are probably a bridge too far.
61.10.165.33 (
talk)
16:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete because of the weird capitalisation, which really makes it implausible. I can see Mohron being a plausible redirect, and maybe MOHRON or MoHron, but not MOHROn.
Nyttend (
talk)
17:36, 28 September 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.
WİKİPEDİA
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.
Whatever this is it isn't inappropriate navelgazing. Wikipedia is a perfectly encyclopaedic subject and so appropriate redirects to it from mainspace are no different to redirects to any other mainspace article. No opinion at the moment about this specific redirect.
Thryduulf (
talk)
13:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Oh, the target is fine, of course. But the redirect is not. For if not, we stop using links and instead reference Wikipedia in Wikipedia articles: which we do not; we link them.Wikipedia proclaims itself not to be a reliable source.
Si Trew (
talk)
21:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)reply
What it has to do is that there is no RS that anyone uses it in this way in any reliable source. Of course "Wikipedia" is referenced in articles, and it can be because "Wikipedia" is referenced in reliable sources. But not "WİKİPEDİA". Unless you can find any.
Si Trew (
talk)
21:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep per the IP. This really is getting too many hits for us to assume that it's all bots, and the IP gives a solid explanation; I thought of Turkish as soon as I saw it, but I wouldn't have thought of leaving on the caps lock. Put that together with the obvious lack of alternative targets, and I see no reason to trash or modify it.
Nyttend (
talk)
17:43, 28 September 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.
亞墨利加
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 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.
吾父甘地
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 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.
孟尼王
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.
Isolated uses in zhwp and zh-classical wp (
Cambodia Commercial Bank) as transcription for a Cambodian road. I don't know whether Cambodia officially uses Chinese in tandem with other languages to sign roads (although 1% population looks thin), but if yes then this might just pass.
野狼院ひさしHisashiYarouin03:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Provisional delete. Much of Indochina used Chinese script (e.g.
Chữ nôm, used for Viet Namese), so it's possible that Khmer also used it. Aside from that, there's no reason to keep. I'm going to ask at the reference desk, since
Khmer language doesn't address the issue, as far as I saw.
Nyttend (
talk)
17:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Full delete, not provisional; WP:RDL seems to think that Chinese script wasn't used for Khmer, so this is no better than a Chinese title for a German or Guaraní topic.
Nyttend (
talk)
03:41, 29 September 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.
愜酷
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 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.
斯科特 · 凯恩
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 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.
盧金河
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.
Delete per
WP:FORRED and discussions [ad nauseam] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (
help) here about foreign-language redirects. Champ, if I can offer any help to sort the category, let me know.
Si Trew (
talk)
05:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete A few uses by some Chinese news outlets in 2008 ([news.sinchew.com.my/topic/node/48020]), but does not look official. Anyway no affinity with Chinese trumps over IMHO.
野狼院ひさしHisashiYarouin03:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep "not in a relevant language" is incorrect. He is of Chinese descent, this is his Chinese name as verified by multiple
WP:RS[1][2], and scholars have documented the role which his decision to publicise his Chinese name and ethnic background played in his rise to political power
[3].
61.10.165.33 (
talk)
01:10, 26 September 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.
芹菜糖苷
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 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.
馬容容
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 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.
`
姓名
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.
Not sure about this one. (Saying so explicitly rather than shutting up since my notvote is generally delete in this list of them all.)
Si Trew (
talk)
05:52, 20 September 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.
黃偉強
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 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.
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 20, 2014.
SpongeBong HempPants
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 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.
GNU/Linux
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.
Oppose. Hi. If I were the nominator, I'd have definitely tried to add a persuasive reason. But in absence of that, I am left to myself to figure out whether it is appropriate or not. So, I am asking myself the following:
"What does a person who enters 'GNU/Linux' into Wikipedia is looking for?" I think he either wants to know what is 'GNU/Linux' which he or she has read somewhere or wants to get in-depth information on it.
"How does it impact existing 'GNU/Linux' links in Wikipedia?" There are 343 inbound links in the article space of Wikipedia that need to be changed.
Now, is there a reason persuasive enough to counter these issues?
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 endorsements in the British unity referendum, 2014
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 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.
Opinion polling for the British unity referendum, 2014
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 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.
Musical score
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. All are agreed that this is a sensible redirect as things stand and the issues with the DAB can be resolved by bold editorial action outwith this RFD. NAC.
The Whispering Wind (
talk)
23:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)reply
All right,I'll go with speedy keep and close. The problem is, usually you get very little participation on DAB talk pages, and little more at their targets' pages, so I don't think I could ever achieve consensus. I might
steamroller it through, though.
Si Trew (
talk)
21:31, 20 September 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.
British unity referendum, 2014
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.
A "British unity referendum" (if there ever were such a thing) would presumably be held throughtout the whole of "Britain", whatever that means at the given point in time, rather than in one constituent nation. You're also missing the point that the referendum was instigated by a pro-independence Scottish Government with the objective of achieving Scottish independence. We don't call the 2011 Alternative Vote referendum the "endorsement of First Past the Post referendum", do we?
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
07:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict)The referendum was on Scottish independence only. Who knows whether the result will improve British unity? If the referendum had been about British unity, then I, as a British citizen, should have had a vote. Please stop pushing your point of view.
Dbfirs07:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Exactly, it was about breaking up the union not establishing one. There was unity in the end but it was the continuation of the existing union since the Scottish leaders failed to get enough support to break the union up. This title is obviously misleading and is the reason that neither of the Quebec sovereignty referendums are called Canadian Unity Referendums.--
76.65.42.142 (
talk)
07:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Redirects don't have to be
WP:RS, but "British unity referendum" does seem to be a neologism." Her Majesty called for "unity" in her written statement, but the two terms have thus been agglomerated by a well-known search engine, it seems. Neither she, nor anyone else that I can make out, called it a "British unity referendum". As an English citizen, I didn't get a vote either. Does seem a bit
WP:POV.
Si Trew (
talk)
08:04, 20 September 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.
Russian-Ukrainian War
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. See the discussion and my closing rationales at the related RfDs linked below. If anyone wants to create a disambiguation page at such a title, it can be discussed on its own merits, and taken to AfD if needed. --
BDD (
talk)
18:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Google News search comes up with 1 blog and a few translations of foreign news sources for "Russian-Ukrainian War". ZERO English news sources use this term for this conflict. Both sides in the conflict are manufacturing POV-push redirects. Wikipedia should not be used as a POV-battleground.
Retarget to the
Ukrainian-Soviet War of 1917-1921. Outright warfare between Russia and the Ukraine is not occurring at the present time, but the Ukraine and the Russian SFSR essentially fought several years of warfare (much more than what's going on now, and several times the duration) almost a century ago. If you disagree with my contention that it's the primary topic, you at least ought to support disambiguating it, per the IP.
Nyttend (
talk)
17:59, 28 September 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 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.
MOHROn
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.
Delete the "correct"
Volapuk encoding would write the "г" as lowercase "r" not uppercase "R", i.e.
MoHron (or maybe
MOHrOn). Redirects from Volapuk encoding may or may not be useful, but redirects from typos/misspellings of Volapuk encoding are probably a bridge too far.
61.10.165.33 (
talk)
16:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete because of the weird capitalisation, which really makes it implausible. I can see Mohron being a plausible redirect, and maybe MOHRON or MoHron, but not MOHROn.
Nyttend (
talk)
17:36, 28 September 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.
WİKİPEDİA
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.
Whatever this is it isn't inappropriate navelgazing. Wikipedia is a perfectly encyclopaedic subject and so appropriate redirects to it from mainspace are no different to redirects to any other mainspace article. No opinion at the moment about this specific redirect.
Thryduulf (
talk)
13:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Oh, the target is fine, of course. But the redirect is not. For if not, we stop using links and instead reference Wikipedia in Wikipedia articles: which we do not; we link them.Wikipedia proclaims itself not to be a reliable source.
Si Trew (
talk)
21:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)reply
What it has to do is that there is no RS that anyone uses it in this way in any reliable source. Of course "Wikipedia" is referenced in articles, and it can be because "Wikipedia" is referenced in reliable sources. But not "WİKİPEDİA". Unless you can find any.
Si Trew (
talk)
21:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep per the IP. This really is getting too many hits for us to assume that it's all bots, and the IP gives a solid explanation; I thought of Turkish as soon as I saw it, but I wouldn't have thought of leaving on the caps lock. Put that together with the obvious lack of alternative targets, and I see no reason to trash or modify it.
Nyttend (
talk)
17:43, 28 September 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.
亞墨利加
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 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.
吾父甘地
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 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.
孟尼王
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.
Isolated uses in zhwp and zh-classical wp (
Cambodia Commercial Bank) as transcription for a Cambodian road. I don't know whether Cambodia officially uses Chinese in tandem with other languages to sign roads (although 1% population looks thin), but if yes then this might just pass.
野狼院ひさしHisashiYarouin03:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Provisional delete. Much of Indochina used Chinese script (e.g.
Chữ nôm, used for Viet Namese), so it's possible that Khmer also used it. Aside from that, there's no reason to keep. I'm going to ask at the reference desk, since
Khmer language doesn't address the issue, as far as I saw.
Nyttend (
talk)
17:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Full delete, not provisional; WP:RDL seems to think that Chinese script wasn't used for Khmer, so this is no better than a Chinese title for a German or Guaraní topic.
Nyttend (
talk)
03:41, 29 September 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.
愜酷
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 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.
斯科特 · 凯恩
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 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.
盧金河
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.
Delete per
WP:FORRED and discussions [ad nauseam] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (
help) here about foreign-language redirects. Champ, if I can offer any help to sort the category, let me know.
Si Trew (
talk)
05:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete A few uses by some Chinese news outlets in 2008 ([news.sinchew.com.my/topic/node/48020]), but does not look official. Anyway no affinity with Chinese trumps over IMHO.
野狼院ひさしHisashiYarouin03:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep "not in a relevant language" is incorrect. He is of Chinese descent, this is his Chinese name as verified by multiple
WP:RS[1][2], and scholars have documented the role which his decision to publicise his Chinese name and ethnic background played in his rise to political power
[3].
61.10.165.33 (
talk)
01:10, 26 September 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.
芹菜糖苷
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 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.
馬容容
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 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.
`
姓名
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.
Not sure about this one. (Saying so explicitly rather than shutting up since my notvote is generally delete in this list of them all.)
Si Trew (
talk)
05:52, 20 September 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.
黃偉強
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 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.