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. Der yck C. 14:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Wasabi (website) → Social networking service  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This is not mentioned in the target page or in the list of social networking websites. It was created as an article then redirected because of lack of coverage. Peter James ( talk) 22:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete. Wasabi (software) is a development platform, not a website, and Wasabi (disambiguation) has no mention of it; perhaps I am confused but I thought it was an East Asian search engine, but Google thinks not (gives me lists of Japanese/Chinese restaurants around the world). Si Trew ( talk) 11:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Non-notable entry that only causes confusion. Andrew ³²⁷ 12:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete There is no wasabi.com or primary topic website. Searches under Wasabi lead to all sorts of random restaurant listings. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per AngusWOOF. -- Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:47, 29 April 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 retarget to SpaceX launch facilities. Several good arguments have been raised for not deleting the redirect: somebody found it useful and deletion is not cleanup. But there is also a desire to change the redirect because there are now multiple SpaceX private launch sites, so retargeting to the superset article would be appropriate. There is also a desire to retarget the other redirect, SpaceX private launch site, to the superset article, but that's left open as an editorial decision since that redirect wasn't formally included in this discussion. Der yck C. 09:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• The SpaceX private launch site → SpaceX South Texas Launch Site  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Useless double redirect now that target page has moved to a better name — JFG ^talk 21:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Deletion is not cleanup. If the target is wrong then fix it. Actually, normally bots fix it within a couple days, and the redirect would have been fixed, but I don't think bots fix redirects at RfD. This is also a very plausible redirect, and I could see curious people typing in exactly this to learn about the launch site. In case you haven't noticed, keep. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 00:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Bots (and search) don't see pages at RfD as being redirects, so, no, they don't fix them. Si Trew ( talk) 06:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• I've updated the target article listed here. If the redirect is kept, this is where it will point. -- BDD ( talk) 03:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete SpaceX private launch site already exists, and isn't correct, since SpaceX has multiple private launch sites. Grasshopper was launched at their testing site, and not this South Texas site. -- 70.51.45.100 ( talk) 04:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment: This redirect was a placeholder, it is unused except for this discussion and a user page. And SpaceX private launch site was the tentative name given to their future launch site before they selected the Texas location. I moved that page to clarify, and incoming links should be cleaned up soon. — JFG ^talk 05:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Update: All links from mainspace to SpaceX private launch site cleaned up. — JFG ^talk 08:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
    • SpaceX has more than one private launch site -- 70.51.45.100 ( talk) 05:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply
      • From the article: When completed, it will become SpaceX's fourth active launch facility, following three launch locations that are leased from the US government. Unless I'm missing something, that would make the South Texas the only private launch site. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 05:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply
        • That's not correct. The Grasshopper (rocket) launched and landed at the private SpaceX McGregor, Texas test site. The article is only referring to the space launch sites, not all SpaceX launch sites. The McGregor site is detailed at SpaceX launch facilities -- 70.51.45.100 ( talk) 06:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Reluctantly Keep per WP:RFD#K5, somebody once found it useful. Si Trew ( talk) 06:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment 2: I just realized that this redirect was not used at all before I submitted it for deletion. The aforementioned user page only points there because of the RfD. The similar SpaceX private launch site redirect is the only one used, and that can stay (search will pick it up). — JFG ^talk 08:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I'd noticed that, but just the act of creating it presumably means once upon a time someone found it useful. It's annoying to Obsessive Compulsive Cleaners such as myself because it is just so much flotsam but there's no real reason to delete, it's not harming anything. Si Trew ( talk) 11:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Odd that we don't have an entry for obsessive cleaning. Si Trew ( talk) 11:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete There's already one without the "The" that can be searched as it does not require "The" in the name. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 14:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the existence of other redirects neither allows nor disallows the existence of this one. It can't go WP:RFD#D1 "hinders search" and it is not confusing, or any other deletion criterion. It is annoying but harmless; gets people where they want to go. It doesn't even clutter search results because by a Byzantine algorithm that only the Wikimedia folks know, redirects to the same target are pared down in search results. We have WP:THE, but it's often argued that that applies strictly to article titles and not other pages. Si Trew ( talk) 19:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per IP. SpaceX private launch site should probably also be retargeted to SpaceX launch facilities. -- BDD ( talk) 19:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Oiyarbepsy. The correct response to a double-redirect is to update it. This is not obviously confusing to readers and meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects as far as I can see. "Unnecessary" is explicitly not a valid reason for deletion (since that is a value judgement based on how you navigate the wiki). Rossami (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to SpaceX launch facilities. The the doesn't make any difference and most of us seem to be in favor of keeping the other redirect. 71 makes a good point that there is multiple private facilities, so the best situation would be to retarget it there. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 21:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Retarget per Tavix. -- Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Retarget per Tavix. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 08:21, 4 May 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 retarget to Redenção (album). -- BDD ( talk) 20:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Passado → Social networking service  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete per WP:R#D1, as it inhibits search. There are a few mentions of the word throughout the 'pedia, but nothing substantial enough where a redirect would make sense. No mention of 'passado' at the current target. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 00:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to the Wiktionary article as there seems to be a reasonable use of this in English, what I think is an alternate form of a term meaning to thrust forward while turning. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 04:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• There's a song on Redenção (album), so redirect to that. If other uses can be found then disambiguate - there may be more but the number of partial matches inhibits search more than this redirect does. Peter James ( talk) 22:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Weakly delete. I must admit I was thinking it may be a fused word -> combined form DAB) -> Compound (linguistics) (in English) for the Pasodoble, and if so would see it as being more likely than an obscure (to an English audience) Spanish song, so perhaps WP:RFD#D1 hinders search. Si Trew ( talk) 11:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Hang on, I have hit on a can of worms since I misspelled the dance but Passo Doble and Passo doble (Italin I imagine) redirect to Pas în doi (Romanian) which seems all mightily confusing to me for the three English terms to refer to two different articles. May list. Si Trew ( talk) 11:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• I did indeed. Listed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 26#Paso doble and two others (combined) at the next day's listing. Have xrefge'd this one. The question is as someone who speaks french well enough to translate at WP, Spanish a bit, Romanian not so well but encounters it in daily life, and Italian a little, if it is not confusing to me who daily deals in Latinate languages who as an monoglot English speaker would these not be confusing to? Si Trew ( talk) 12:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Redenção (album) per Peter James. The word passado in Portuguese is the same as the Spanish word pasado, which might be confusing, but we needn't have a multi-foreign-language dab for two targets which are not ambiguous unless translated, and we wouldn't redirect past to either of them. The concept of things happening prior to now is not particular to either of these languages, either. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 16:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Soft retarget to the Wiktionary entry per CoffeeWithMarkets. -- Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:49, 29 April 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 retarget to The Complete Works, which looks as close as we'll get to consensus. However, I strongly encourage expansion of that article, because right now, this will be an {{ R without mention}}. A rename might address this as well. -- BDD ( talk) 19:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Body of work → Work of art  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Body of Work → Work of art  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

A work of art, as EN:WP has it, is a single work and not a collection of work. I suggest that these be retargeted to collection (artwork). Apologies to the creator of both, Widefox, who asked at the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_7#Oeuvre "don't ping me", but Twinkle does that automatically; I've removed the notification at the user's page. Si Trew ( talk) 10:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC) reply

The previous discussion concentrated on Oeuvre and Body of work was mentioned only incidentally, so I think it is fair to nominate it here considering that discussion closed. The caps variant Body of Work was not listed or discussed there, but I'm not quite that pedantic to suggest they go to different places. Si Trew ( talk) 14:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete "Body of work" is a very general phrase that I don't even imagine someone looking up in an encyclopedia. A body of work is generally not a museum's art collection; the term generally refers to the work produced by an individual or group over time. Its use isn't confined to the arts: A scholar or a journalist or even an athlete can have a body of work just as much as an artist, an author, a choreographer, a musician, or a film director can have.
  • "Detroit Lions GM Bob Quinn will judge Jim Caldwell on his body of work." [1]
  • "Ravens guard Kelechi Osemele feels good about his body of work entering contract year." [2]
  • "Hearst took Pulitzer’s body of work and pushed its limits, just as Thompson pushed the limits of Hearst’s body of work." [3]

There is no one appropriate place to redirect this. It's pretty much a WP:DICDEF. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 15:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC) reply

In which case, Body of Work (album) (but not Body of work (album) can be moved over the redirect as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As it stands, it is a kinda {{ R from unnecessary disambiguation}} were it not for the redirect, and articles beat redirects ten a penny. We'd still have to redirect one to the other as {{ R from incorrect capitalization}}, and mark that one as {{ R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, but that is just procedural stuff. Si Trew ( talk) 16:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment 1. Body of work and Oeuvre have their fates somewhat entwined (as synonyms) at the ongoing RM at Talk:Oeuvre (disambiguation). 2. Body of Work (album) has been marked for notability and now PRODded. While this RfD is underway, a speedy claiming consensus here is a bit presumptive, so I've contested that on procedural and other grounds so that this discussion isn't predetermined. Widefox; talk 11:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC) reply

1. The very point is whether they are synonyms, and that is what we are discussing.
2. Irrelevant what Body of Work (album) has to this, nobody claimed it was speedily done anything with. I remind you of

WP:RFD first sentence: "Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted."

That does not suggest that we act on anything particularly speedily at RfD. The only thing I did almost nearly speedily was list these two here because they were not in any way synonymous with the redirect titles. Whether they are synonyms of their current or any other targets is exactly what we are discussing.

The title of this page is Redirects for Discussion. It is fair to mention that their are similar pages that could hold claim to being WP:PRIMARYTOPIC so that contributors to that article, or other discussions, can find this one. For example that we could find the PROD that was so helpfully linked by the contributor above. (Somewhere it is, I guess, but I don't see any helpful link to it.) Si Trew ( talk) 21:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Editor Widefox proposed the deletion of the album article with this edit of 16 April after I listed this here on 15 April. Make of that what you will. Widefox moved the album at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC from Body of Work to its current title Body of Work (album) on 19 July 2015 with this edit and edit comment "WP:DABSONG may way for much more likely titles" (Widefox' typo not mine). Nobody seems to have imagined any more likely title, so it could quite possibly be moved back. There was no WP:RM, it was boldly moved, which is fine, but then it can be boldly reverted, just as fine, after that we discuss. (We can't boldly revert because now it has history, so we must discuss.) I contested the PROD at Talk:Body of Work (album). So that's not a procedural close of that PROD, sorry. I've referred back to here and over to Talk:Oeuvre (disambiguation) in a vague attempt to inform anyone who is interested in any of them to link them together; I have informed Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. Si Trew ( talk) 22:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment it's possible we could move back the album from Body of Work (album) to Body of Work; and have Body of work goes elsewhere, but I wouldn't recommend it ( WP:DIFFCAPS). Si Trew ( talk) 22:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Oeuvre (disambiguation) as a synonym. Skimming the last discussion, I think that a single/multiple works → work of art, but works together as a body → oeuvre (disambiguation) (though that page should have a link back to work of art).   czar 14:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to The Complete Works. It's the only thing on that disambiguation page that "Body of Work" could refer to. Peter James ( talk) 22:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • • Yep, that's better. Retarget per User:Peter James. WP:NOTPERFECT, but better. Si Trew ( talk) 13:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to The Complete Works per Peter James. -- Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• I would move The Complete Works to Body of work and make it a subsection of a larger article on the metatopic. A collection of complete works is always the body of work of the artist, but the body of work is not always released in such a collection. We should have an article on the concept of a body of work. bd2412 T 11:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

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 Johannes Schlaf, {{ R from surname}}. Consider this withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 22:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Schlaf → Sleep  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Sleep is a worldwide topic and has no special connection with the German language. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 15:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• This can be redirected to Johannes Schlaf. Peter James ( talk) 22:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Right you are! I must have missed that between all the Schlafly's. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 22:45, 25 April 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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 15:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Jonathan Kent (fictional character) → Jonathan and Martha Kent  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This currently redirects to Jonathan and Martha Kent, Superman's adoptive father and mother. "Johathan Kent (fictional character)" is not a plausible misspelling of the intended search term, and " Jonathan Kent (comics)" already redirects there. Unless it is as reasonable to also have redirects such as "Jonathan Kent (Superman's adoptive father)" and "Jonathan Kent (adoptive father of Superman)", I'd like to suggest we lose this particular redirect and retain only one redirect from an entry that clearly suggests his fictional nature ("Jonathan Kent (comics)"). Or delete that one and keep this one. Either way seems fine to me. But not both. KDS4444 ^Talk 07:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This redirect violates none of the reasons for deleting a redirect listed above. Furthermore, it explicitly meets Keep criterion 4 (history of the pagemoves). Rossami (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Rossami and in general as a valid {{ R from subtopic}}. Also there's nothing wrong with having both this and Jonathan Kent (comics); see {{ R from alternative disambiguation}}. 210.6.254.106 ( talk) 05:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Rossami. -- Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:53, 29 April 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. -- BDD ( talk) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Taxation in Singapore → Economy of Singapore#Taxation  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The section does not exist; the topic is notable and should be red linked, see box in Taxation in North Korea for example for other existing articles of that level. PS. Category:Taxation in Singapore exists but has no parent article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep as is for now. At first blush, it does seem plausible that the topic should be independently notable. What-links-here looked especially promising until I realized that they all derive from this template. (And now that the state of the redirect has been exposed, I suspect that the Singapore entry on that template will be removed soon.) If we red-link the title, no one will ever know that we want such an article. I also note that the tax-specific discussion at the Economy of ... article is scattered and diffuse, suggesting that it may be difficult to find sourcable content that is more than a recitation of those same scattered facts. I have no objection if someone want to boldly overwrite the redirect with article content. Even a stub would do. But until someone does so, this redirect at least points to a page where they can find a little relevant content. Rossami (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• The section was renamed to "Public finance" as it was not only about taxation. Peter James ( talk) 22:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I went ahead and at least fixed the redirect. I'd prefer the redirect over the red link, but it's own article would be great. Morphh ^(talk) 22:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as appears useful in its current state as an {{r to section}}. -- Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as useful, noting that the exact section target is now Economy_of_Singapore#Public_finance CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 08:23, 4 May 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 procedural close. This has been converted to an article, so it's up to AfD at this point, if anyone wants to take it (back) there. In accordance with an existing CSD tag, I'll be moving this to Girls' Invasion. -- BDD ( talk) 19:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Girls' Invasion (Studio Album) → Lovelyz  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Girls' Invasion is already a redirect to Lovelyz, so I'm not sure this is needed. Random86 ( talk) 00:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. While it is a duplicative article, it was created by in apparent good faith by a relatively new user who seems to know about our naming conventions (which often include parentheticals after the name). Redirects such as this point new editors to the page where their contributions will be more appreciated and inhibit the future creation of duplicate articles (keep reason 2 above). It shows no potential for confusion of our readers and does no apparent harm. Rossami (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as just about plausible. -- Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete No other titles of this kind to disambiguate. Also it shouldn't have Studio Album in caps. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete "Creation in good faith" is not a reason for retention; neither is "doing no harm by existing." ("Duplicative" not a word.) See WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. KDS4444 ( talk) 01:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • "Creation in good faith" is not a reason to keep all by itself but it can be (and in my comment was intended to be) a rebuttal of any assertion of bad faith. "Does no harm" also is a rebuttal to arguments to delete. In an RfD discussion, "harmless" is shorthand for "none of the enumerated reasons at RFD:DELETE apply" (and presumably that at least one of the KEEP reasons applies, though that should be spelled out separately). Redirects are deliberately held to a lower bar than article content. Redirects really do have to be harmful in some way before we are supposed to delete them.
    Finally, re: "duplicative", Merriam Webster begs to differ. Rossami (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I don't see why this wouldn't be helpful for people just getting the hang of the Wikipedia naming processes and who think that searching has to be specifically detailed into "X (live album)", "X (studio album)", "X (single)", etc. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 08:26, 4 May 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.