Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 20

June 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 20, 2016.

Star fox wii[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 retarget to Star Fox Zero#Development. --BDD (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Star fox wii → Star Fox (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There was apparently not a Star Fox game released for the Wii, making this redirect somewhat misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://starfox.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Fox_(Wii) and other sources discuss it so it's a viable search term even though it never saw the light of day. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That actually seems like rationale to delete the redirect per WP:REDLINK, unless it is mentioned and identified in an article, then the redirect could be retargeted there so that readers can find the information they are looking for rather than no information about the subject. Steel1943 (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you know redirected, with a mention, to the correct source, ref included. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Star Fox Zero#Development, where I've added a sentence about how assets for the never-released Star Fox Wii game were the basis of the new Wii U game. (see: [1]). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Star Fox Zero At this point, the searcher is looking for any kind of Star Fox Wii related game, so the Wii U version would suffice. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Patar knight. This could've/should've been deleted as WP:CRYSTAL back in the day, but now that Star Fox Zero has information about the failed Wii game, there's a good landing point for this redirect now. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 1 July 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.

کریولیس[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.'---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

کریولیس → Coriolis force (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Originally an article in Persian about the Coriolis force uploaded by a one-edit account more than six years ago, this foreign-language redirect serves no purpose and should be deleted. — Gorthian (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Persian Wikipedia already has an article on this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AngusWOOF. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AngusWOOF. Isn't even the right term for the target, it just says "Coriolis" not "Coriolis force", and anyway nothing at Coriolis has any connection to the Persian language. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AngusWOOF. No affinity or history with the Persian people or language --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:39, 22 June 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.

Dry wash[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 move Dry wash (disambiguation) over redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dry wash → Car wash (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Re-targeting to Dry wash (disambiguation). The target article doesn't use the phrase "dry wash", and the disambiguation page offers the term "waterless car wash", which itself redirects to car wash. Alternately, re-target to arroyo (creek) which does use the term "dry wash" and add an Other Uses there. Morfusmax (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Morfusmax, I assume you meant to nominate Dry wash instead of Dry Wash, and have adjusted the nomination accordingly, but please correct me if I'm wrong here. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You were right. Thanks for the assist. Morfusmax (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the record, I support retargetting this to Dry wash (disambiguation). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC) Addendum: I also like Lenticel's idea of moving Dry wash (disambiguation) to Dry wash. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Dry wash (disambiguation). I'm also okay with moving the dab to this page instead --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move dry wash (disambiguation) to the base title. There does not appear to be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by usage; in Google News and Books searches I see both the "waterless car wash" and "dry waterway" meanings fairly frequently. Per WP:MALPLACED, don't retarget a base title to the same title with a parenthetical disambiguator. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This works for me. Morfusmax (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to base title per IP. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move disambiguation per 210.6.254.106. PaleAqua (talk) 17:39, 25 June 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.

Wavedashing[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 keep. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wavedashing → Bunny hopping#Wave (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 30 § Wavedashing – delete

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article. A redirect at this title was nominated at RfD in the past and deleted, but before, it targeted a different subject. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep as a likely search term. It doesn't seem to matter if there's anything about a subject in an article if someone, sometime, somewhere might look for a term, even if the article doesn't contain one iota of information about the subject as can be seen by the closing of the redirects to songs below. The precedent has been set. Live with it. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer and/or administrator: Per this edit by the same IP towards me on SSTflyer's talk page, this comment seems more like a WP:GOODFAITH-lacking comment that does not assist with forming consensus for this specific redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that you are not following WP:AGF. It was made in good faith. It is a likely search term. Cheers. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to respectfully disagree with your first part of your statement, given the tone of the comment on SSTflyer's talk page, as well as the tone in the comment above (specifically the sentence Live with it.). Either way, "likely" search terms are only helpful if the term is either identified and defined at the target page, or if the search term is a likely alternative name or spelling variation for the alternative name (and the alternative name is mentioned on the target page.) This redirect currently meets neither of these criteria. In fact, the section which the redirect targets, Bunny hopping#Wave, currently doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That, and "wavedashing" and "bunny hopping" (as defined in the article) are not the same thing. "bunny hopping" involves jumping; "wavedashing" involves somersaults or "somersault-like" movements. Steel1943 (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. Wavedashing is the most famous move in Super Smash Bros., a major e-sport, so article creation with proper sources should be encouraged, instead of hindered by a useless redirect. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now that the information has been restored to the article. Moving out if it becomes too large is not for RfD to decide. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created this redirect 3 April 2015 at the same day I put in the anchor it pointed to: special:diff/654728147

The anchor was removed at some point during the last 14 months. Not sure exactly when or by whom. I would like to keep the redirect up and restore the information.

Patar knight the redirect was and.can be useful again. It is more useful to build a section on a bigger concept page and later split it off. Expecting a perfect article out of scratch on such an obscure topic is not realistic. I will take it was a redirect with possibilities. I will restore the lost section and feel.free to nominate it via the split section temate if you think it grows large enough to merit it's own page. Ranze (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Glossary of video game terms and create entry. It depends on whether it's slang or common jargon. [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's still rather confusing and unsourced, but at least it's there for someone to expand. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ranze since the section has been restored. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:27, 1 July 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.

Menu 1[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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Menu 1 → Super Smash Bros. Melee (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is a name of a song used in multiple Super Smash Bros. series games. However, the subject of the redirect is not mentioned in the target article or the aforementioned series article. If there is a retargeting option, it would probably be Super Smash Bros.#Music, but the subject of the redirect is not mentioned there either. Without a specific mention, the title of this redirect makes it a vague search term. Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, seems as though I nominated this about a year and a half ago, but then changed my mind. Interesting how time helps form different opinions. Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep as a likely search term. It doesn't seem to matter if there's anything about a subject in an article if someone, sometime, somewhere might look for a term, even if the article doesn't contain one iota of information about the subject as can be seen by the closing of the redirects to songs below. The precedent has been set. Live with it. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer and/or administrator: Per this edit by the same IP towards me on SSTflyer's talk page, this comment seems more like a WP:GOODFAITH-lacking comment that does not assist with forming consensus for this specific redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDLINK. Iconic music from a major gaming franchise. Article creation with sources should be encouraged. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:XY, I know this song but its not even what I first thought of when I saw this RfD.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to encourage article creation --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable single. Not even mentioned by name on the article. What makes it notable? Did it chart on Oricon? Did it win some music award? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:50, 22 June 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.

Stages in Super Smash Bros. Melee[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 5#Stages in Super Smash Bros. Melee

Blast-Line[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 1#Blast-Line

Super Smash Bros. Melee's Debug Menu[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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros. Melee's Debug Menu → Super Smash Bros. Melee (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The subject of the redirect is not mentioned or identified in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep as a likely search term. It doesn't seem to matter if there's anything about a subject in an article if someone, sometime, somewhere might look for a term, even if the article doesn't contain one iota of information about the subject as can be seen by the closing of the redirects to songs below. The precedent has been set. Live with it. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer and/or administrator: Per this edit by the same IP towards me on SSTflyer's talk page, this comment seems more like a WP:GOODFAITH-lacking comment that does not assist with forming consensus for this specific redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a game guide or an article full of Easter eggs to try for each game. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not mentioned in target, implausible search. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:44, 28 June 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.

Pokémon Appearances in Super Smash Bros.[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 2#Pokémon Appearances in Super Smash Bros.

L-canceling[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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

L-canceling → Super Smash Bros. (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I believe this redirect refers to cancelling performing a move in the game by blocking. Anyways, WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep as a likely search term. It doesn't seem to matter if there's anything about a subject in an article if someone, sometime, somewhere might look for a term, even if the article doesn't contain one iota of information about the subject as can be seen by the closing of the redirects to songs below. The precedent has been set. Live with it. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer and/or administrator: Per this edit by the same IP towards me on SSTflyer's talk page, this comment seems more like a WP:GOODFAITH-lacking comment that does not assist with forming consensus for this specific redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. A famous move from a major fighting e-sport. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Add to Glossary of video game terms if the term is notable and covers multiple games or create article if it is highly notable like Grinding (video gaming) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:17, 22 June 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.

Ridley is too big[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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ridley is too big → Super Smash Bros. (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Does this qualify for a WP:CSD? The redirect refers to Ridley (Metroid), but the redirect is an obvious WP:NPOV issue. Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep as a likely search term. It doesn't seem to matter if there's anything about a subject in an article if someone, sometime, somewhere might look for a term, even if the article doesn't contain one iota of information about the subject as can be seen by the closing of the redirects to songs below. The precedent has been set. Live with it. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer and/or administrator: Per this edit by the same IP towards me on SSTflyer's talk page, this comment seems more like a WP:GOODFAITH-lacking comment that does not assist with forming consensus for this specific redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Ridley_(Metroid)#In_other_media, where I've added a sentence about Ridley's size-based exclusion from the series as a fighter. This specific phrase was used as shorthand for the debate (see: Know Your Meme page), so is a plausible search term. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meme isn't notable in news coverage or books. Only appears on know your meme. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a meme that refers to an common issue among fants that IGN saw fit to conduct an interview the creative director of the series with. This is definitely a plausible redirect and it should go to Ridley_(Metroid)#In_other_media, where this information is discussed and sourced. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of dank memes --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:31, 24 June 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.

Smash bros hd[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. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smash bros hd → Super Smash Bros. (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Smash hd → Super Smash Bros. (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These terms seem to not refer to any specific game in the Super Smash Bros. series. The only game in the series that is compatible with HD is Super Smash Bros. for Wii U, but the redirects were never an official name for the subject. Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep as a likely search term. It doesn't seem to matter if there's anything about a subject in an article if someone, sometime, somewhere might look for a term, even if the article doesn't contain one iota of information about the subject as can be seen by the closing of the redirects to songs below. The precedent has been set. Live with it. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer and/or administrator: Per this edit by the same IP towards me on SSTflyer's talk page, this comment seems more like a WP:GOODFAITH-lacking comment that does not assist with forming consensus for this specific redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't exist or its at least WP:CRYSTALBALL. Many fans of Melee want to see an HD remake of that game, but there hasn't been any sort of announcement from Nintendo at all.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt no such title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could plausibly be used to refer to HD trailers and media associated with the game series [3]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, then any video game could be HD by that definition. Wait until there's something that has the title and HD before associating this, as with Final Fantasy Type-0 HD AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could be. I wouldn't object to keeping them as long as they're not outright mistargeted (e.g. "GAME HD" exists as an article but a variant of it points to "GAME (series)"). it seems that if readers are looking for an HD version, by going to the series page, they can see that no such game exists, or click through to individual game articles and look at development/sequel/remake sections. Since what readers are looking for is clear, we should direct them to the place with that information. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:39, 4 July 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.

Paternity (Biology and 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 delete both.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paternity (Biology and Medicine) → Father (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Paternity (biology and medicine) → Father (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This seems like an implausible search term, and I'm also afraid it could be misleading as well. The article discusses paternity in biology, but I'm not so sure about the "medicine" part; the word is only mentioned once in the article, and for an unrelated reason. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no such medical or biological term that is distinguishable from the common dictionary definition. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an implausible search term. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:11, 22 June 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.

SSBW[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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SSBW → Super Smash Bros. Brawl (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Apparently, this acronym is supposed to stand for "Super Smash Bros: War", but what that subject is itself is unclear and unreferenced. Most searches on search engines for "Super Smash Bros: War" return results for a fan-made game that is not the redirect's target (WP:NOTWIKIA), and most searches for "SSBW" return Twitter hashtag results hinting that this acronym has some sort of similar meaning to BBW, specifically Big Beautiful Woman. Also, the following redirects do not exist: Super Smash Bros: War, Super Smash Bros War, SSB:W, etc. Steel1943 (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the redirect stands for "Super Smash Bros. Wii".--Prisencolin (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep as a likely search term. It doesn't seem to matter if there's anything about a subject in an article if someone, sometime, somewhere might look for a term, even if the article doesn't contain one iota of information about the subject as can be seen by the closing of the redirects to songs below. The precedent has been set. Live with it. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer and/or administrator: Per this edit by the same IP towards me on SSTflyer's talk page, this comment seems more like a WP:GOODFAITH-lacking comment that does not assist with forming consensus for this specific redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notable primary topic with this acronym. news searches point to random groups and products: some dog sled team, surface skimming bulk wave, some kind of mixing bowl, stainless steel butt weld, spirit soul body workshop. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as confusing per User:AngusWOOF --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:50, 25 June 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.

Super smash division[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. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Super smash division → Super Smash Bros. Brawl (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The target page doesn't identify what a "division" is, and neither does Super Smash Bros., the series article. Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep as a likely search term. It doesn't seem to matter if there's anything about a subject in an article if someone, sometime, somewhere might look for a term, even if the article doesn't contain one iota of information about the subject as can be seen by the closing of the redirects to songs below. The precedent has been set. Live with it. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer and/or administrator: Per this edit by the same IP towards me on SSTflyer's talk page, this comment seems more like a WP:GOODFAITH-lacking comment that does not assist with forming consensus for this specific redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as with stages. Not mentioned in News or Books sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Retarget to Super Smash Bros.. Change to retarget given it's not game specific.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC) Can be used to refer to events or groups related to the game. [4], [5] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a likely search term; it only received one hit in the 90 days before this nomination. Furthermore, I'm afraid this might be confusing since both the current target and suggested retarget don't mention anything about "division(s)" within Super Smash. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:17, 1 July 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.

Super Smash Bros. Brawl secrets[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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros. Brawl secrets → Super Smash Bros. Brawl (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Such a list of "secrets" does not exist at the target article. And if it did, the list would probably fail WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Steel1943 (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep as a likely search term. It doesn't seem to matter if there's anything about a subject in an article if someone, sometime, somewhere might look for a term, even if the article doesn't contain one iota of information about the subject as can be seen by the closing of the redirects to songs below. The precedent has been set. Live with it. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer and/or administrator: Per this edit by the same IP towards me on SSTflyer's talk page, this comment seems more like a WP:GOODFAITH-lacking comment that does not assist with forming consensus for this specific redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a game guide. A spoilers book that might have this title isn't notable either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the wiki is not a game guide --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:52, 25 June 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.

Cook Kirby[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 1#Cook Kirby

San Angelo[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 keep. Interesting that it took so long to get that hatnote up. Sant' and Santo Ângelo lead towards the big side of small details, I suppose. Though there was another hatnote there for a long time:
For the fortress in Rome, Italy, see Castel Sant'Angelo. wbm1058 (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

San Angelo → San Angelo, Texas (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Since this redirect has existed since 2004, the current situation may be correct, but I'm not completely sure. I recently discovered the disambiguation page Sant'Angelo, and it seems that several of the subjects listed on this disambiguation page could be referred to as "San Angelo" as an English transliteration. With that being said, the current situation makes me wonder if it is actually not a WP:WORLDWIDE view and needs to be "fixed" to remove any possible systemic bias. So, is the current situation correct (which means that the target page may need to be moved over the redirect as a primary topic and essentially the only topic spelled like this), should the redirect be retargeted to Sant'Angelo or is there another option that may be more plausible? Steel1943 (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to the Sant'Angelo dab. It's hard to pin a good primary topic for this term given that this can pertain to both the angel Michael and St. Angelus. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add hatnote to the dab as with San Francisco which has See also to the other spelling variants AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Angelo (disambiguation), which also lists Santo Ângelo, a Brazilian city. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with this proposal too --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and hatnote per AngusWOOF. Small differences matter. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SMALLDETAILS. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added a hatnote to the redirect target. SST flyer 15:58, 1 July 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.

3 CD Collector's Set (Rihanna album[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.'---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3 CD Collector's Set (Rihanna album → Rihanna discography (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This would have been a reasonable {{R to list entry}}. Note the lack of a closing parenthesis. SST flyer 16:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete technical. The one with the closed parenthesis already exists. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:09, 25 June 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.

Drug house[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 move target as proposed by Tavix. (closed by a page mover) SST flyer 08:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drug house → Crack house (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Meth house → Crack house (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not all drug houses are crack houses. Is there a better target out there in the world? I think this could potentially be a viable topic for an article too. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not all drug houses are crack houses — is there some other use of the term "drug house" I'm missing (aside from the unintentionally hilarious WP:PTM Drug Houses of Australia)? As far as I can see, "drug house" isn't a supertopic of "crack house" but simply an alternative, less common name; crack house itself notes that the term isn't literally limited to crack ("illegal drugs, including crack cocaine"). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's accurate to use the term "crack house" as a metonymous definition for any house at which any drug is bought, sold, consumed, or produced. The term "crack house" has a rather complex history in the United States, and it is often used pejoratively (often with racist connotations). Another option would be to move the current article at crack house to drug house (over the redirect) and make the article about drug houses in general. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on what the most notable term is. If that's crack house then use that and alias the others to this one, listing and bolding them in the lead. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term "crack house" is ubiquitous, but it is not the preferred term when referring to locations that involve drugs other than crack. Indeed, "drug house" is the preferred term for the BBC, New York Times, U.S. Supreme Court, state supreme courts, and state narcotics agencies. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move target to drug house per NCFF's sources and because "crack house" would be a sub-set of "drug house." I think the article should have a broad scope that would encompass all of these terms. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support move renaming crack house to drug house and making it the primary topic, with crack house and meth house being the new redirects. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support move per above. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:13, 24 June 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.

Assault weapons legislation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 6#Assault weapons legislation

Everybody Dies Young[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 keep. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody Dies Young → American Love (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, the album That's Why God Made the Radio's first song is Think About the Days. No redirect. The next two songs have articles while Spring Vacation , or more correctly spring vacation, is a redirect, but to spring break. Other Bach Boys' songs are redirects but only because editors created articles for them and they were not sufficiently notable. I have never seen this sort of behaviour before and would not like it to continue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap. What's the issue? VQuakr (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the face of it, there's no issue with keeping the redirects. But what happens if at some point in the future an artist releases another song titled "Everybody Dies Young" and it becomes a huge global hit, and becomes the unambiguous primary topic on Wikipedia? Do we then need to create a disambiguation for the redirect, when almost certainly everybody will be searching for the big hit by the same name? Richard3120 (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we then need to create a disambiguation for the redirect Nope, per WP:TWODABS you wouldn't need a disambiguation page in that case. You'd just overwrite the redirect with an article about the notable song, with a {{for}} hatnote to the non-notable song. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet PC78 (talk · contribs) is making that exact argument at Talk:Where the Light Gets In (album)#Requested move 18 June 2016

And redirects are costly. And so the issue is that we do not create articles for every song name. There is no policy to do so. There is no guideline to do so. Just because an editor has done so for a while doe not mean it should continue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irresponsible? Oy... --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite irresponsible! As I stated, if this had been an empty article stating

"Everybody Dies Young" is a song off ...

and that went to a speedy, no redirect would have been left.

If that speedy was contested and it went to a PROD, no redirect would have been left.

If that PROD was contested and it went to an AfD, no redirect would have been left.

Why? Because it's not a likely search term. So why is it responsible to circumvent that and simply create redirects for unlikely search terms? If the song had charted, it might be a likely search term, but this is not a responsible action. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are very worked up about these redirects, which are harmless and helpful to the project. I'm going to move on to other tasks now, so we'll see how this plays out. But I see no harm in creating these redirects and wish you would stop calling me irresponsible. Take care. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are neither helpful nor harmless. I would call any editor who created a redirect for an unlikely search terms irresponsible. Don't take it personally. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you may not search for the term does not mean someone else won't. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you think that someone else will use it as a search term doesn't mean that they will. Could you please provide metrics to support that previously created redirects have been used at least once a month? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am moving on to other tasks. I've spent too much time on this already. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I didn't mean to task you with something like this. It was simply a request to show that people are using your redirects as a search terms. Without empirical proof to support your claim, they should be deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer, I'm not sure it is helpful to the project: they seem to be creating a solution for a demand that doesn't exist. It's very unlikely anybody is looking for a non-notable album track on Wikipedia, and they are even less likely to try several possible spellings or disambiguators to find it, especially if the first one they try redirects to the album they are looking for. You're also implying that the song passes WP:NSONGS because it's worthy of keeping as a redirect. Why not simply delete the article? Richard3120 (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other artists have produced songs by the same name. See, e.g., this song by an artist named "Sakro". -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only notable song on this album is "American Country Love Song". The album hasn't even been released (July 29, 2016). If others get released as singles and garner significant airplay and reviews then you can add back. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I note the creator also created a redirect for Everybody Dies Young (Jake Owen song), so we have two redirects for the same song. At this stage it is no longer an editor considering what redirects are necessary (i.e. a WP function), but somebody title grabbing for an artist (a marketing function). As song titles are used over and over again, as noted by Notecardforfree this means redirects are not as cheap as we think, nor does primarytopic or concise work as well and clearly as some would have us beleive- after all this redirect might actually be PT, but we have no information whatsoever other than a track listing. Again hard for some to comprehend, but we do song articles, not articles about recordings of songs. Walter Görlitz makes an argument that redirects should only be created via AfD/Prod process, but there are problems with that because it is patently clear we should have a redirect at William Clinton.

It becomes clear that mere existence is not worthy of a redirect, otherwise we can create redirects for all our friends, neighbours, family, or every song in our record collection and that creates a problem that needs addressing.

In the meantime all the redirects below should also be deleted, unless somebody can prove that one or two have some kind of separate notability yet still fails WP:NSONGS. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my argument. There are many valid reasons to create redirects or to turn articles into redirects that do not require a discussion. I don't believe that all songs on an album need to have redirects, only those that are likely to be search terms. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Walter Görlitz I interpreted your words above, "Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching..." as meaning don't create redirects. My point is not to object to you, but to find a way forward to stop wholesale creation of redirects, without affecting the day to day necessity for redirects. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Yes. It should probably have read "when redirects are created as part of an AfD or similar deletion process" as it's reasonable to create redirects without a deletion process. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No other topics named "Everybody Dies Young" meet MOS:DABMENTION. SST flyer 15:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As far as I can see, no other topic called this, so this is the correct redirect. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SSTflyer + Patar knight. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If other notable albums use the same song title we can convert it into a dab, but currently it appears to be the only one, and redirects are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:04, 5 July 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.

American Love (song)[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 retarget to American Love (disambiguation).---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Love (song) → American Love (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that Another Believer has recently created redirects for all the tracks on American Love and other albums. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or disambiguate.~~ A song by the same name appears on Lovetap (album) by Smallpools. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Addendum: I support retargetting this to the DAB page per SSTflyer. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ neither song is even partly notable on its own to carry a DAB page or the redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to the DAB page now that it is there and covers multiple songs with the same title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to American Love (disambiguation), which I just created. SST flyer 12:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to American Love (disambiguation). Redirecting songs to the album is common practice. older ≠ wiser 12:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bkonrad: It may be common practice, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. If you look at the other song-related discussions on this page, you will see that there is a high likelihood that there already exists a song by the same name. At the very least, editors should do due diligence to see if other songs already use that same title. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't agree. Redirects are cheap. If there is more than one song with the same title then there is more than a high likelihood that there already exists a song by the same name, there is certainty and disambiguation is needed. What form that disambiguation takes can vary according to circumstances, but there is no harm in having a redirect from a song to the album. older ≠ wiser 13:30, 23 June 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.

After Midnight (Jake Owen song)[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 keep.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After Midnight (Jake Owen song) → American Love (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The redirect is a valid {{R from song}} and unambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable single. After Midnight (song) goes to the dab page, where an entry can be made for Jake Owen's album. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I am not a fan of redirects for non-notable songs like this, and I think this is a borderline unlikely search term, but in the event that someone does want to learn more about the Jake Owen song with this title then the current target is the best place to take them. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:19, 22 June 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.

A Burning Soul (song)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 5#A Burning Soul (song)

Bad Talkers (song)[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 keep. (non-admin closure)

Bad Talkers (song) → Lady in Gold (album) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As far as I can tell, this is the only song by this name. If we discover other songs by this name, then we should create a DAB page. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lady in Gold". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: August 5, 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Notecardforfree. If this is unique, then it is likely fine. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Notecardforfree. Steel1943 (talk) 15:30, 29 June 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.

An Island (song)[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 retarget to Island (disambiguation)#Music. Note that I've merged An Island there, as it only had two entries, one of which was already at the larger dab. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An Island (song) → The King of Whys (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Set-indexify. There are a ton of songs with very similar names and if we leave this redirect in place, it is likely to lead to confusion. See, e.g., "On an Island," "No Man Is an Island" on No Man Is an Island (album), and "In the Middle of an Island." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lost". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: July 29, 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Set-indexify per Notecardforfree. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is the only song entitled "An Island." WP:SMALLDETAILS are enough to distinguish between distinct topics and we don't disambiguate/set-index-ify unless there's genuine potential for confusion, which I'm not seeing here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: Looking at this again, Chevelle (band) released a song called "An Island" [6], so a making a DAB ^{at Tavix's suggested location ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)}page might be best here. Others songs mentioned by Notecardforfree above can be added to the page in a see also section if people want. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for double checking, Patar knight. Changing my !vote accordingly. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to An Island, and create the disambiguation there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've created the disambiguation page, although now I'm wondering if it should be merged to Island (disambiguation). I was wondering if I could find an island called "An", but was unsuccessful. In any case, the relevant information is there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would work as well, as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}, I guess. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:51, 3 July 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.

Bad Talkers[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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Talkers → Lady in Gold (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this redirect is likely to WP:ASTONISH readers who use the term "bad talk" to refer to the act of "bad mouthing" or "speaking ill of others" (see this dictionary definition). We don't have redirects for bad mouth, speaking ill, etc. and I think this should remain a redlink as well. If readers genuinely want to learn about the song, the search function will help them find information about it. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Superfluous in the extreme. There is also another redirect, Bad Talkers (song). I did a WP search for "Bad Talkers" and there are 3 entries, 2 redirects and the album the song comes from, so no redirect necessary, is there? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lady in Gold". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: August 5, 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:30, 23 June 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.

Burned Out (song)[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 retarget to Burned Out---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burned Out (song) → Lady in Gold (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or disambiguate.~~ A song by the same name appears on Seasons (Sevendust album). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Addendum: I support retargetting this to the DAB page per Steel1943. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Burned Out (a disambiguation page) as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Steel1943 already created and multiple songs of the same name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:32, 23 June 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.

Good Company (Jake Owen song)[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 keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 13:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good Company (Jake Owen song) → American Love (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a valid {{R from song}} and unambiguous due to its precise disambiguator. Steel1943 (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only notable song on this album is "American Country Love Song". The album hasn't even been released (July 29, 2016). If others get released as singles and garner significant airplay and reviews then you can add back. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unambiguous disambiguator. Non-notable songs being redirected to their albums is fine, especially in cases like this where they cannot be confused with other songs because of the specific disambiguator used. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:18, 27 June 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.

Empty Bottle (song)[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 retarget to Empty Bottle (disambiguation).---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Bottle (song) → The King of Whys (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or disambiguate.~~ Ingrid Michaelson has a song by the same name on her album Slow the Rain. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Addendum: I support retargetting this to the DAB page per Steel1943. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Empty Bottle (disambiguation) as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. (I created the page after reading Notecardforfree's comment.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to dab as there are two songs. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 23 June 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.

Elements and Things (song)[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 disambiguate by retargeting to Elements and Things. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 13:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elements and Things (song) → ...Continued (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or disambiguate. Apparently, the song will also appear in an album called Lady in Gold. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Notecardforfree. I changed the target from Lady in Gold because this one is already out. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:20, 28 June 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.

Elements and Things[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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 13:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elements and Things → ...Continued (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or disambiguate. Apparently, the song will also appear in an album called Lady in Gold. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Notecardforfree. I changed the target from Lady in Gold because this one is already out. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:20, 28 June 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.

You Gotta Try[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 no consensus, default to keep. SST flyer 08:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

You Gotta Try → Lady in Gold (album) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or disambiguate. A song by the same name appears on The Great American Songbook: Live at Michael's Pub. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per some research, I found that the "You Gotta Try" song (which seems to be the correct spelling of the song) in The Great American Songbook: Live at Michael's Pub is a version of the song by Sammy Nestico titled "Ya Gotta Try". (There seems to be either a necessary article [WP:REDLINK] or a disambiguation page here somewhere.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lady in Gold". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: August 5, 2016. Neither song has notability to require DAB listing. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If Steel1943 and Notecardforfree's research is good, this would be unique. However, without the (song) to narrow it down, this just doesn't feel unique and it may be better to let users search. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Steel1943's comment and becuase this phrase is unambiguous on Wikipedia, keeping WP:SMALLDETAILS in mind. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:13, 2 July 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.

You Ain't Going Nowhere (Jake Owen song)[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 keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 14:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You Ain't Going Nowhere (Jake Owen song) → American Love (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unambiguous disambiguator. Non-notable songs being redirected to their albums is fine, especially in cases like this where they cannot be confused with other songs because of the specific disambiguator used. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Patar knight. Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 27 June 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.

Won't Go Back (song)[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 retarget to Won't Go Back. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 14:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Won't Go Back (song) → Lady in Gold (album) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or disambiguate. Steve Martin released a song by the same name on the album So Familiar. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lady in Gold". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: August 5, 2016. Neither song has enough notablity to maintain a DAB page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Create a disambiguation page at Won't Go Back and retarget there per Notecardforfree. Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Notecardforfree and Steel1943.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:21, 28 June 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.

Won't Go Back[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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 14:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Won't Go Back → Lady in Gold (album) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or disambiguate. Steve Martin released a song by the same name on the album So Familiar. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Notecardforfree. Steel1943 (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Notecardforfree and Steel1943.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:21, 28 June 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.

Where I Am (song)[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 retarget to Where I Am (disambiguation).---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where I Am (song) → American Love (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or disambiguate.~~ A band called the Funkoars released a song by the same name on their album The Quickening. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Addendum: I support retargetting this to the DAB page per Steel1943. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Where I Am (disambiguation) as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. The disambiguation page currently contains three "song" entries. Steel1943 (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to dab per Steel1943 AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:59, 23 June 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.

Where I Am[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 move DAB over redirect as Where I Am (disambiguation) shows that there is no primary topic for Where I Am. These two RfDs should have been bundled together. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where I Am → American Love (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or disambiguate.~~ A band called the Funkoars released a song by the same name on their album The Quickening. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Addendum: I support moving Where I Am (disambiguation) over the redirect per Steel1943. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move Where I Am (disambiguation) over the redirect. (Per WP:DABNAME.) I created this page in response to Notecardforfree's findings. (Also, in the process, I found that Tammy Cochran released an album by the redirect's name, as well as a song by that name, both of which currently meet MOS:DABMENTION on the disambiguation page.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move DAB per Steel1943. The Jake Owen song is not the primary topic. It is on an album that hasn't even been released yet. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:58, 23 June 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.

Where I Am (Jake Owen song)[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 keep. SST flyer 13:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Where I Am (Jake Owen song) → American Love (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a valid {{R from song}} and unambiguous due to its precise disambiguator. Steel1943 (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only notable song on this album is "American Country Love Song". The album hasn't even been released (July 29, 2016). If others get released as singles and garner significant airplay and reviews then you can add back. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unambiguous disambiguator. Non-notable songs being redirected to their albums is fine, especially in cases like this where they cannot be confused with other songs because of the specific disambiguator used. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:19, 27 June 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 Desperate[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 retarget to Desperate. DAB page added to page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Desperate → The King of Whys (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Desperate, which is a DAB page with a number of plausible targets. The song by this name (the current target) can be added to the DAB page. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Notecardforfree where other not-so-notable songs are residing. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Desperate per Notecardforfree --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Desperate per Notecardforfree. Steel1943 (talk) 18:48, 27 June 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.

Sleep Is a Myth (song)[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 no consensus, default to keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 13:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep Is a Myth (song) → The King of Whys (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lost". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: July 29, 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, no such general term to have to throw in a (song) disambiguator. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with AngusWOOF that in the absence of another article or redirect names "Sleep is a Myth," there is no need for the (song) disambiguator. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a {{R from song}} (and maybe also a {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} since the ambiguous title currently targets the same page) and since the redirect's possible ambiguity with mentions or subjects on Wikipedia has not yet been established. Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Steel1943.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:06, 28 June 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.

Sleep Is a Myth[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 keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 13:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep Is a Myth → The King of Whys (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lost". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: July 29, 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a {{R from song}} and since the redirect's possible ambiguity with mentions or subjects on Wikipedia has not yet been established. Steel1943 (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Steel1943.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:18, 28 June 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.

Settled Down (song)[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 retarget to Settled Down, a disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 14:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Settled Down (song) → The King of Whys (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or disambiguate. An artist named Hyukoh has apparently released a song by the same name. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lost". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: July 29, 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Notecardforfree since both subjects seem to meet MOS:DABMENTION. Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Notecardfree, Steel1943. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:03, 28 June 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.

Settled Down[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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 14:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Settled Down → The King of Whys (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or disambiguate. An artist named Hyukoh has apparently released a song by the same name. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Notecardforfree since both subjects seem to meet MOS:DABMENTION. Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Notecardfree, Steel1943. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:05, 28 June 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.

Lovers Come and Go[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 keep. SST flyer 13:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Lovers Come and Go → The King of Whys (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lost". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: July 29, 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a {{R from song}} and since the redirect's possible ambiguity with mentions or subjects on Wikipedia has not yet been established. Steel1943 (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Steel1943.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:18, 28 June 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.

Little Boy Preacher[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 keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 15:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Little Boy Preacher → Lady in Gold (album) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lady in Gold". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: August 5, 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a {{R from song}} and since the redirect's possible ambiguity with mentions or subjects on Wikipedia has not yet been established. Steel1943 (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Steel1943.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:18, 28 June 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.

LAX (song)[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 retarget to LAX (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) SST flyer 14:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LAX (song) → American Love (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to LAX (disambiguation) where there are other LAX songs. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to LAX (disambiguation) per AngusWOOF. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per above as the best target. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:22, 28 June 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.

LAX (Jake Owen song)[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 keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 14:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LAX (Jake Owen song) → American Love (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable single, can be covered by LAX disambiguation page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The album isn't even released yet, and there is only one notable single. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unambiguous disambiguator. Non-notable songs being redirected to their albums is fine, especially in cases like this where they cannot be confused with other songs because of the specific disambiguator used. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Patar knight. Steel1943 (talk) 18:45, 27 June 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.

Lady in Gold (song)[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 keep, noting that the redirect has been retargeted during this discussion. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 14:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lady in Gold (song) → Lady in Gold (album) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The song referenced is essentially the title song of the eponymous album, which currently seems to be the primary topic ~~since it is the only notable topic.~~ (See next comment for information.) (Notability for the song has yet to be proven since the album has yet to be released.) Unless the situation changes in a way other than I just described, the current situation makes complete sense. Steel1943 (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually after reviewing this, I wonder if Lady in Gold should be moved to Lady in Gold (album) and redirect the ambiguous title to Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I or make it a disambiguation page. Either way, my opinion of "keep"-in the redirect (or retargeting it to Lady in Gold (album) if the article is moved) hasn't changed. Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support for moving Lady in Gold to Lady in Gold (album) and redirect Lady in Gold to Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I. The portrait is, without question, the primary topic (per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), both in terms of usage and long term significance. Lady in Gold (song) can then be retargetted to Lady in Gold (album). As far as I can tell, it is the only song by that name, though we will need to create a DAB page if we discover other songs with the same name. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lady in Gold should refer to the portrait / primary topic. Add hatnote to album. Retarget song to album. Redirect for (song) should be kept as it is the only promoted single from the album which will be released in August 5, 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At this point, the target article has been moved to Lady in Gold (album) and Lady in Gold is now a redirect to Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I. For this reason, the nominated redirect has been updated to target Lady in Gold (album) (which has been reflected in the nomination.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's the title track of the album, and so has the strongest case for a redirect to the album. Thanks Steel1943 for making the move; I conservatively only added a hatnote before any of these discussions occurred and I fully agree with the move. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe consensus has been reached with Steel1943's recent moves. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:31, 28 June 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.

L.A.X. (song)[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 retarget to LAX (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) SST flyer 14:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

L.A.X. (song) → American Love (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The single's title is "LAX" not "L.A.X." per https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/american-love/id1122107779 No notable songs with this title so best to not set this expectation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to DAB per Notecardforfree. Good find! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to LAX (disambiguation). The Xzibit song is apparently spelled "L.A.X." (see Weapons of Mass Destruction (album)). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Notecardforfree. Many songs/works by this name. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:12, 28 June 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.

L.A.X. (Jake Owen song)[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 keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 14:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

L.A.X. (Jake Owen song) → American Love (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Song title does not have periods. No other songs with this title. Also the song itself is not notable, as it is on an album that is upcoming and will be released in July 29. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unambiguous disambiguator. Non-notable songs being redirected to their albums is fine, especially in cases like this where they cannot be confused with other songs because of the specific disambiguator used. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Patar knight. Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 27 June 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.

If He Ain't Gonna Love You[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 keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 14:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If He Ain't Gonna Love You → American Love (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment redirect creator has been making redirects for every single on this album. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only notable song on this album is "American Country Love Song". The album hasn't even been released (July 29, 2016). If others get released as singles and garner significant airplay and reviews then you can add back. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a {{R from song}} and since the redirect's possible ambiguity with mentions or subjects on Wikipedia has not yet been established. Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Steel1943.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:11, 28 June 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.

I Felt a Change (song)[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 keep. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Felt a Change (song) → Lady in Gold (album) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or disambiguate. The Williams Brothers (Gospel group) released a song by the same name on their album Still Here. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lady in Gold". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: August 5, 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as unambiguous due to there being no evidence yet provided during the course of this discussion regarding other songs on Wikipedia that could be used to create a disambiguation page where the songs would meet MOS:DABMENTION. Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Steel1943 or weak disambiguate per Notecardforfree, since The Williams Brothers's albums don't have articles.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Steel. The other song fails MOS:DABMENTION. SST flyer 15:02, 1 July 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.

I Felt a Change[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 keep. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Felt a Change → Lady in Gold (album) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or disambiguate. The Williams Brothers (Gospel group) released a song by the same name on their album Still Here. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lady in Gold". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: August 5, 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as unambiguous due to there being no evidence yet provided during the course of this discussion regarding other subjects on Wikipedia that could be used to create a disambiguation page where the subject(s) would meet MOS:DABMENTION. Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Steel1943 or weak disambiguate per Notecardforfree, since The Williams Brothers album has a song of this name, but no article.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Steel. The other song fails MOS:DABMENTION. SST flyer 15:03, 1 July 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.

Everybody Dies Young (song)[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 keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 15:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody Dies Young (song) → American Love (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only notable song on this album is "American Country Love Song". The album hasn't even been released (July 29, 2016). If others get released as singles and garner significant airplay and reviews then you can add back. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as unambiguous due to there being no evidence yet provided during the course of this discussion regarding other songs on Wikipedia that could be used to create a disambiguation page where the song(s) would meet MOS:DABMENTION. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Steel1943.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:07, 28 June 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.

You Gotta Try (song)[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 no consensus, default to keep. SST flyer 08:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

You Gotta Try (song) → Lady in Gold (album) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or disambiguate. A song by the same name appears on The Great American Songbook: Live at Michael's Pub. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per some research, I found that the "You Gotta Try" song (which seems to be the correct spelling of the song) in The Great American Songbook: Live at Michael's Pub is a version of the song by Sammy Nestico titled "Ya Gotta Try". (There seems to be either a necessary article [WP:REDLINK] or a disambiguation page here somewhere.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lady in Gold". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: August 5, 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Assuming Steel and Notecardforfree's research is correct, this would be a unique disambiguator and can stay. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Patar knight. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:07, 2 July 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.

Sleep Is a Myth[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 withdrawn. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep Is a Myth → The King of Whys (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Is it usual to redirect a track name to an upcoming album? dstone66^(talk) 04:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I redirect song titles to album articles all the time. This is the first time I've been called out for doing so. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only just discovered the other (old, unrelated) issue with an admin making hundreds of spurious redirects, thought maybe this was similar at first. I'm happy to withdraw this; what's the most efficient way? --dstone66^(talk) 04:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to do is say you're withdrawing. I'll handle the rest by closing the discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:56, 20 June 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.

Suprahuman[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 retarget all to Superhuman. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 15:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suprahuman → Metaphysics (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Suprahumans → Metaphysics (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Suprahumanity → Metaphysics (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Would it make sense to target to Übermensch? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wiktionary it or Redirect to Superhuman as the terms are closely related. [7] Also not mentioned in the target article at all. The first two choices could also foster creation of an article proper that can explain how it is slightly different from the superhuman. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Superhuman. I'm not familiar with its usage in a philosophical context. Google attributes the term to writings about Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, both of whom likely refer to very different things with similar terms. BabyJonas (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to superhuman per AngusWOOF. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to superhuman as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:28, 29 June 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.

Song of God[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 keep without prejudice against conversion to disambiguation page. Deryck C. 12:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Song of God → Bhagavad Gita (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Song of God can refer to a whole lot of things. Is disambiguation a plausible alternative here? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What else is known as "Song of God"? older ≠ wiser 17:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The name "Sune" apparently also means "Song of God". There may be some recorded tracks by this name, though I've not come across them. I'm not sure if a disambiguation page is needed, though, since the connection of the term to the Gita text is by far the primary usage around the world. At least, I think... some more international perspectives here are needed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and hatnote if required to other uses. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My search shows plenty of use in English for this. I mainly see it as a subtitle (eg: "Bhagavad Gita: The Song of God"). [8]. I don't think a hatnote to Sune is necessary—we don't disambiguate translations unless they're used in English. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:10, 1 July 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.