Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion)

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Skip to current discussions

Administrator instructions Purge the cache to refresh this page

Shortcut: WP:RFD

Deletion discussions

Deletion today Deletion yesterday Articles (by category) Templates Images & media Categories (active) User categories Stub types Redirects Miscellany Deletion review
Deletion policy
Process – log – tools Guide – Images – Admins

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic redirects. Items sent here usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted by an administrator, kept, or retargeted.

Note: If all you want to do is replace a currently existing, unprotected redirect with an actual article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold.

Note: Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as a reason to delete a redirect. Redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted as well, so it's not a necessary condition either. See When should we delete a redirect?

Old discussions are archived at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log.

[edit] Before you list a redirect for deletion...

...please familiarize yourself with the following:

Wikipedia:Redirect — our general policy on what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion — our policy on which pages can be deleted without discussion. The "General" and "Redirects" section apply here.
Wikipedia:Deletion policy — our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion — whose guidelines on discussion format and shorthands also apply here

[edit] The guiding principles of RfD

The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things much if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is cheap since the deletion coding takes up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. In general, there is no harm in deleting problematic redirects that do not contribute to improving the encyclopedia.
The default result of any RFD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Thus, a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination.
Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article. However, for more difficult cases, this page can be a centralized discussion place for resolving tough debates about where redirects point.
Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another page's talk page don't need to be listed here, as anyone can simply remove the redirect by blanking the page.

[edit] When should we delete a redirect?

Shortcut: WP:RFD#HARMFUL

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
if a redirect is reasonably old, then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles — such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.

Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.

Shortcut: WP:RFD#DELETE

[edit] Reasons for deleting

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.
The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so it should be deleted.
The redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article.
The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Google to love.
It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule is the "CAT:" shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space but in practice form their own "pseudo-namespaces".
If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist or itself, it can be deleted immediately, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created.

Shortcut: WP:RFD#KEEP

[edit] Reasons for not deleting

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

They have a potentially useful page history. If the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
They aid searches on certain terms.
You risk breaking external or internal links by deleting the redirect. Old CamelCase links and old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing external links pointing to them.
Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.
The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form.

[edit] Neutrality of redirects

Note that redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This covers only article titles, which are required to be neutral (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article naming). Perceived lack of neutrality in redirects is therefore not a valid reason for deletion. Non-neutral redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Dalmatian Kristallnacht → Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991).
Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and redirected to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008).
The subject matter of articles may be commonly represented outside Wikipedia by non-neutral terms. Such terms cannot be used as Wikipedia article title, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance, the widely used but non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it.

If a redirect is not an established term and is unlikely to be used by searchers, it is unlikely to be useful and may reasonably be nominated for deletion. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources), it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

See also: Policy on which redirects can be deleted immediately.

[edit] Closing notes

Details at: Wikipedia:Deletion process#Redirects for discussion page

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

[edit] How to list a redirect for deletion

To list a redirect for deletion, follow this two-step process:

I.

Flag the redirect.

Enter {{rfd}} above the #REDIRECT on the redirect page you are listing for deletion. Example:

{{rfd}}

#REDIRECT [[Foo]]

If the redirect is to a category or image, make sure there is a colon ( : ) before "Category:" or "Image:".
Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]
You can check the "Watch this page" box to follow the page in your watchlist. This allows you to notice if the RfD tag is removed by a vandal.
Save the page.

II.

List the entry on RfD.

Click on THIS LINK to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

Enter this text below the date heading:

{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=Reason the redirect should be deleted}} ~~~~

Put the redirect's name in place of "RedirectName", put the target article's name in place of "TargetArticle", and include a reason after text=.
If the redirect or its target is a category or an image, make sure there is a colon ( : ) before "Category:" or "Image:".
Please use an edit summary such as:
Nominating [[PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the redirect you are nominating.
To list multiple related redirects for deletion, provide a separate link for each listing under a single heading and detail your listing reasons below the last redirect (example).

Please consider using WhatLinksHere to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.
It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the redirect that you are nominating the redirect. To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect. For convenience, the template

{{subst:RFDNote|PAGENAME}}

may be placed on the creator/main contributors user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace PAGENAME with the name of the redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

[edit] Current list

[edit] October 29

[edit] Wikipedia almanac → Wikipedia:Almanac

Inappropriate CNR to a wikipedia space page. Does not link to encyclopedic content. MBisanz ^talk 02:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians → Wikipedia:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians

Inappropriate CNR to a wikiproject, non-notable and not content, readers would not be interested in it. MBisanz ^talk 02:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep but Redirect to Meta:Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians instead. I found this on a simple use of the Search Box for "Association of Inclusionist", so why make things difficult for others? —— Shakescene (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prominent marxists → Category:Marxist theorists

Non-NPOV redirect to a category, not all marxist theorists are "prominent" and we shouldn't have this confusing CNR that says they are. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Retarget to Marxism. --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Language icons → Category:Language icons

CNR shortcut, that well isn't really a shortcut, and its in the article space, so it should be deleted. MBisanz ^talk 02:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Not really sure what my thinking was here, to be honest - Can't imagine it's a high-traffic page to warrant a shortcut, especially one that isn't much of a shortcut. No objection to deletion. I was under the impression that CAT: links were parsed as CATEGORY:, in much the same way that WP:ANI, for example, is parsed as Wikipedia:ANI, which redirects properly to ANI. Like I said, no problem with deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] October 28

[edit] Category:WikiProject Black Metal Members → Category:WikiProject Black Metal members

Also nominating:

Unnecessary capitialization redirects. The way the search function works, typing in the capitalized version would already automatically bring you to the correctly capitalized version (or vice versa), making these completely useless. VegaDark (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brilliant prose → Wikipedia:Featured articles

Inappropriate CNR to a Wikipedia process, does not link to content, but to the backroom of the project. MBisanz ^talk 01:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. No real good target for this redirect. --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Note, "Brilliant Prose" was the original name of the FA process. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC).
Keep again. As Lankveil notes, this is where the concept first existed, before the creation of the independent namespaces and long before our software was changed to automatically record pagemoves in the edit history. There are literally thousands of internal links still buried in various pagehistories throughout the project and likely to be some external links. No good alternate target has ever been found for this redirect but it is highly unlikely that a reader would expect to find anything other than the Wikipedia project page.
As a side note, this pointless crusade against cross-namespace redirects is getting tiresome. The argument that our new readers are smart enough to navigate our archane namespaces but too stupid to recognize where a redirect has taken them strikes me as inconsistent. Unless the redirect is actively harmful or confusing, please leave them alone. Rossami (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- If all of these nominations were coming back "Keep", I'd agree this was a pointless debate, but as a good number are coming back delete and very few are coming back as unanimous keep, I'm not seeing the issue with nominating a reasonable number of them. Also, of the 45 CNR RFDs I've started that have closed as of today, 27 were delete, 12 were retargeted, and 6 were kept, I do believe that is a fairly acceptable ratio of Deletes/Keeps. MBisanz ^talk 17:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  - I believe the discussion should be had, at least. Cross-namespace redirects, in general, are a Bad Thing, and it's not unreasonable that they be looked at to determine if they should be kept, deleted, or pointed someplace in the mainspace. For the record, I'm aware "Brilliant prose" is the old name for "Featured articles", but I don't buy the argument that someone searching for the term on Wikipedia is probably looking for a 3-year old name for a current process...and if they are, maybe it's time they updated their links. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    - If you really believe that cross-namespace redirects are in and of themselves a "bad thing", then we should be seeking some centralized answer confirming that principle. This ad-hoc approach to evaluating them one-by-one is leading to inconsistent and unhelpful answers. The decision to keep or delete seems more based on the random effects of who happens to drop in on the RfD page than on any core principle or clear community consensus.
      Personally, I believe that link rot is a worse thing. More importantly however, there is no documented consensus that CNRs are inherently bad. The last time someone tried to make that as a global proposal, it failed rather miserably. However, consensus can change. So let's please stop these one-off nominations where we're all repeating the same arguments endlessly and hold a single comprehensive discussion on the general principle. Rossami (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
      - Rossami, I'm sure for you and me it seems like we're always repeating each other, but I imagine that the ever rotating cast of other voters sees each of our comments and thinks "The two of them are the most brilliant commentors I've ever read". On the other point though, I'm not sure what forum would be appropriate to discuss CNRs centrally, since the results show there is no uniform answer to all 2900 CNRs, but that statistically, most should be re-targeted or deleted. And that's pretty much what RFD was invented for, to discuss and decide how to handle redirects. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
keep piece of history to preserve. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Move if it was WP history, move the redirect to WP:Brilliant prose. . DGG (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 800 years → Category:Irish rebellions

In appropriate CNR to a category, too vague of a topic to be linked only to this topic. MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Target doesn't even make sense. No real good target for the redirect either. --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. not sensible it could be an alias for Octocentennial, but that itself is a redirect to Anniversary. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Album project → Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums

In appropriate CNR to a wikiproject group, does not link to content. MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assyro-Chaldeans/miniproject → Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Syriac Christianity work group

In appropriate CNR to a wikiproject working group, does not link to content. MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] October 27

[edit] List of ABC shows (disambiguation) → List of ABC shows

unlikely search term (with "disambiguation" in parentheses) Bwrs (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete as redundant to actual dab page - not disambiguation is needed here. B.Wind (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep redirect surely serves a purpose. While not a possible search term, I have just added List of ABC shows (disambiguation) instead of List of ABC shows per WP:DISAMBIG#Links to disambiguation pages to the ABC dab. The guidelines encourage these types of redirects, so I don't see why this one should be erased. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Documents a very recent pagemove, and it's not that unlikely of a target (at least as likely as any other page ending in "(disambiguation)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by UsaSatsui (talk • contribs)
Speedy-keep because it helps document a very recent pagemove. (I argue for speedy keep because this pattern of attempting to hide the evidence of a pagemove by immediately deleting the automatically-created redirects has exhausted my ability to assume good faith. These nominations have become borderline disruptive.) Rossami (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Calm down, man. Not everyone understands that documenting a page's move history can be important. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heliogabalus (God) → Elagabalus (deity)

unlikely search term (with capital "G") (Note: this deletion was proposed before and kept, but consensus can change.) Bwrs (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Is your argument seriously that "God" is an unlikely typo for "god"? --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep as a routine capitalization variant. The original RfD is here. While consensus can change, there is no evidence that it has in this case. No new issues or evidence has been presented since the last time the user made this nomination. Rossami (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep I think this is about the first letter, not the G/g. And I'dstill say keep, because its a reasonable spelling variation. 00:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sentouryoku → Dragon Ball

Nonsensical redirect. It has nothing to do with Dragon Ball, and I fail to see how this is a helpful search term. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak retarget to Choujin Kyoudo#Power Levels in other works - it is mentioned in this section as "first mentioned in [Dragon Ball Z]", but it's the only mention - not in the Dragon Ball article at all. B.Wind (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Walker Methodist Health Center → Minneapolis

Not a useful redirect; on the off chance someone looks this up, they'll be confused at why they're at the Minneapolis article. If an article on this hospital is warranted, someone can create it later. (n.b. This page pointed to Minneapolis, Minnesota until recently, but I changed the redirect target when the Minneapolis article was moved.) szyslak (t) 21:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Walker Methodist Health Center is one of the five hospitals in Minneapolis (and one of two not mentioned in the target article, an oversight that should be rectified as the hospital has recently been in the news regarding union activities). Both the WMHC and the fifth Minneapolis hospital. Fine tuning the targeting to Minneapolis#Health and utilities would probably be quite helpful, too. B.Wind (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Plainly, the WMHC and Minneapolis aren't the same thing - clicking on one shouldn't lead to the article about the other. Alternatively, if you can find some reliable sources to use as references, write the article. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep (section-retargeted as B.Wind suggests) until and unless someone writes an article that clearly demonstrates that this institution meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria. If a stand-alone article can someday be written, it can be done by overwriting the existing redirect. There is no need to delete the pagehistory first. Until someone does, the redirect is marginally more useful than a redlink. Rossami (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Murderapolis → Minneapolis

This insulting nickname for Minneapolis is a very unlikely search term, and carries the implied POV that Minneapolis is a dangerous place, while in reality the city has good and bad areas like anywhere else. (n.b.: The page redirected to Minneapolis, Minnesota until very recently, but I changed the target to avoid a double redirect.) szyslak (t) 21:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Bwrs (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. It does seem to be used more for Minneapolis than any other place. Otherwise it should be replaced by a dictionary entry to explain the term. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- By "a dictionary entry to explain the term", you do mean on Wiktionary, right? Also, why are you making an argument based on how often this term is used for Minneapolis in comparison to other places? I was not arguing that "Murderapolis" is an ambiguous term. Redirects don't have to be ambiguous to get deleted. szyslak (t) 05:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  - yes something like wiktionary, looking at how it is used it may have also referred to New York as that seems to be its first use. If there is enough subject matter then there should be an article for Murderapolis, but if Minneapolis does not mention it then it should not point there as a redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't seem to be a common (nor flattering) nickname for the city. --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Google shows results for plenty of cities, not just Minneapolis. Seems just to be an insult. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as a non-specific pejorative. No alternative target presents itself. (No objection to a soft-redirect to Wiktionary if someone creates the appropriate page.) Rossami (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Coot Northern Shoveler → Northern Shoveler

The American Coot and the Northern Shoveler are two different birds, related only insofar as they are both waterfowl. As such, this redirect is incorrect and potentially confusing. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - title combining the names of two different species of birds is a most unlikely search term indeed. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The result of the debate was speedy deleted AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Little Town in France → Indianapolis

There are six irrelevant ghits for "'a little town in france' indianapolis". I could not verify the existence of this slang term, and even if it's in widespread use as a nickname for Indianapolis, it's highly unlikely someone would type this in if they want the city in Indiana. szyslak (t) 19:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It was a joke. Just delete it. ^---SilentRAGE! 19:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete - while the phrase has nothing to do with Indianapolis, the Billy Jack Haynes article is about a wrestler who was frequently billed as from "a little town in France" (he actually hailed from Portland, Oregon). The problem with retargeting the redirect to this article is that there are literally thousands of little towns in France, thus making this a confusing redirect. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Given the creator's opinion (first bullet above), speedy-delete under criterion G7. Rossami (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Wikipedia:CANDISH CANTTAKE → Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars

Redirect makes no sense. Grsz ^Review! 19:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's an internet meme based on Engrish subtitles in a bootleg copy. It is discussed in that section (right at the end), so I suppose it's sort of relevant. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming this was meant to go under the Star Wars section. Grsz ^Review! 19:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Title appears to be a compression of "Can dish, can't take" - but is it an appropriate search item? Looking at the history, it is too old to be speedied as a test (the first version could have been if someone noticed it in time and used an actual WP:CSD). It appears to have been created after the origination of WP:Don't template the regulars by someone who strongly disagrees with the message. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. This is a very honest way to label the message. The user who created it is being honest about the fact that he can dish out templates but he can't take them. ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Not useful, and, having read the anonymous user's comment above, has clearly been added just to make a point. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. First of all, let's be clear that the redirect was created by User:Anton Mravcek and not by the anonymous user 147.70.242.x. Second of all, the redirect makes perfect sense as a mnemonic, which is what the purpose of these kinds of redirects are supposed to be. Someone searching for "DTTR" could be looking for an acronym disambiguation policy rather than an essay explaining how some regular users can dish out templates but can't take them. As ShutterBug has already said, it is much more honest than either WP:DTTR or WP:TEMPLAR. A regular who chooses to use this redirect is being very honest about where the link leads. A lot more so, than say, linking the words "makes no sense" to "Deletion policy." PrimeFan (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That was a mistake, from a copy-paste. I meant to link to the applicable deletion category. Grsz ^Review! 00:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] nonsensal → nonsense

We delete quote redirects to protect people from being exposed for something ridiculous, right? So why can't we do the same here? I made this redirect, but I did not make the word. It's not even a real word, it's only a misspelling I made. I know that this will only be removed when I get lucky, but the word isn't even in any dictionary, aren't we supposed to eliminate all redirects made of something fictional? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Note if you created it, you can ask for speedy deletion - just tag it with {{db-author}}. If you wish not to do so, it might be kept as a plausible typo simply because you created it as an inadvertent typo. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but wait I did that already. No, it won't work. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment:This has been debated several times before with keep as the result: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_24#Nonsensal_.E2.86.92_Nonsense Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_3#nonsensal_.E2.86.92_nonsense_.282nd_nomination.29
- I don't wanna be the inventor of a ridiculous word. There is no way I would want a Wikipedia article telling people that I invented the word nonsensal, please stop it from happening!!!! TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Harmless. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please explain how it's harmless because it COULD do painful harm to my career. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment I have my rights. I don't want the future to look back at me as the guy that invented the word nonsensal. It's bad enough that my life is full of Pokémon, I don't wanna be remembered as a childish movie director. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do not want → Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith#Releases

This redirect Makes no sense. Mjf3719 (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite its history (or because of it? I'm not sure), Speedy delete as nonsense (since an admin had once deleted it as vandalism before reverting himself/herself). Both this version and the all-caps variety have undergone repeated deletions, including at least one non-vandalism (apparently) blanking. 147.70.242.41 (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep It's a fairly popular meme (from a badly-translated Star Wars bootleg); popularity may be borderline by Wikipedia standards. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Fairly popular meme. I could see this being searched for. Redirect is better than an article on the meme. Chuthya (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep per Ohnoitsjamie above. This isn't patent nonsense, though it is nonsensical. Protection might be the answer to the vandalism. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Alternative would be Better I think this would be better suited with it's own article, rather than a redirect to a single sentence imbedded in the middle of another article. I do not see anyone wiki-searching for DO NOT WANT who doesn't already have an idea where the phrase came from. However, I do realize that the DNW article would likely just contain the same material that's already in SW3:RotS. Mjf3719 (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Delete People can do this to any place they find crappy, any school, government office, and stuff like that. So this will serve no purpose other than making the phrase more serious. And this clearly needs more deletion support. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete you can point "Do not want" to homosexuality if you are looking for popular memes. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep and protect As the most recent page creator, I'm inclined to agree with Gavia Immer that protection, not deletion, is Wikipedia's solution to vandalism. The redirect points to an article that cites a source. And attributable nonsense isn't automatically grounds for deletion; if it were, deletionists would have a field day with articles about Dada works. If we delete this redirect for non-notability, then we might as well delete the entire paragraph about the Shanghai bootleg because it cites only one source that is not mainstream or scholarly media. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 10:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep and protect. Damian Yerrick has the right idea here: The meme is discussed in the article (and sourced), keep/protecting discourages recreation while letting others know we do know about it, and there's not really a better target for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UsaSatsui (talk • contribs) 11:22, 28 October 2008
Delete. The internet meme definitly exists, but it's used all over the place, not just for Star Wars 3. It may have originated in the chinese retranslation of the film, but the only source Wikipedia has to back that up is someone's blog, not a reliable source. Perhaps the redirect could be replaced with an article about the internet meme, if sources can be found to support it. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Maybe it doesn't qualify as nonsense, but the assertion that every mistake that gets quoted on the internet is automatically a notable meme is ridiculous. The connection between this phrase and this one movie (and specifically, to the one translation of this movie) strikes even me as too tenuous to support a redirect. Rossami (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Lee (guitarist) → Th' Legendary Shack Shakers

Its page history includes the original version of DavidLee which I moved but was re-created and then deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DavidLee (2nd nomination). This should now likewise be deleted as non-notable. Fayenatic (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete:I can not not add more than was already discussed at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DavidLee (2nd nomination) discussion. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - appears in target article listed in the Infobox as a former member of the group. Should the band not be notable enough for its own article, the redirect would fit CSD R2 after an AfD of Th' Legendary Shack Shakers resulting in deletion. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. The AFD was right, the article should be deleted. but (obviously) redirects have different criteria to articles. It clearly makes sense to redirect the band's guitarist to the band's article. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Redirects from a non-notable person to a notable group with which they are associated is an accepted solution. It inhibits the inevitable recreation of the deleted content. Redirects are cheap. Rossami (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ballet redirects

I'm afraid this is a bit confusing, so I'm going to have to explain a bit. {{catmore}} is a quick-header for categories that adds a link to a main page for the category, by default a page with the same name as the category.

Unfortunately, the ballet-related categories have used this, and created whatever pages result.

This leads to some frankly insane redirects:

Redirects of Ballet (revised to include all obviously bad redirects for this article)

Remember, every single one of those links to Ballet, which neither lists nor discusses ballet by year, nor David Hays, nor Ballet redirects.

Likewise, Ballets by Arthur Sullivan links to Arthur Sullivan - but Sullivan only wrote two ballets of relatively low importance compared to the rest of his work, so his article only rather briefly discusses them. Also, none of the Ballets by XXXX redirects seem to make any attempt to link to an appropriate section of the composer's article, even when one exists (though I may well be wrong there).

Some, but not all, I'm afraid, of the problematic redirects can be found at Category:Ballet redirects (which created the Ballet redirects redirect to Ballet).

I don't know what to do about it, and I'm afraid that I cannot tag every one of the pages in question, nor can I even identify them all - doing so requires clicking on every redirect and seeing if it goes somewhere sensible, and, in addition, not every ballet redirect is actually listed in Category:Ballet redirects. For instance, Ballets by composer, Ballets by librettist and 1876 ballet premieres - all further redirects to Ballet - aren't listed there, nor, I'm sure, are many others. Being listed in that category is also not a good sign the redirect should be deleted - Useful, perfecty sensible redirects like NYCB repertory->List of New York City Ballet repertory are in there as well.

The main problem is usually the surprise of these redirects. For instance: {{catmore|ballet}} which gives:

The main article for this category is ballet.

would cause no easter-eggy surprise if at the top of Category:Ballets by composer, whereas what is actually seen:

The main article for this category is Ballets by composer.

...causes one to expect detailed discussion of composers at the link. Worse, these redirects are usually added to the categories they belong to - someone browsing Category:Ballets by Arthur Sullivan is going to be disappointed if they click on the first choice in that category: Ballets by Arthur Sullivan: It redirects to the composer page, which, as I mentioned before, has only a little discussion of Sullivan's ballets, and a lot of discussion of his operas.

I have notified WP:BALLET in lieu of MFD notices on the redirects, as there is no way to tag all pages affected. --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I'd suggest that the following are reasonable search terms, and should not be deleted.

Ballet teachers and Ballet schools might also just scrape by, but everything else on [1] should be deleted. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Close this discussion and copy it over to WP:MFD. I agree with your overall point, but these are redirects and need to be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion instead of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. If it helps, this link should find you every page that redirects to Ballet. I would also recommend that the documentation at Template:Catmore be edited to indicate that the template should not be used if the main article does not match the category name. Also, I don't understand why we even need a Category:Ballet redirects. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, you can use {{catmore}}, you just have to use it as {{catmore|proper article to direct to}}. Like I was using it above. I'll just do a pagemove on this. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment - This discussion has been moved here from WP:MFD.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete all and change the catmore to {{catmore|Ballet}} on all the similarly-named category pages. I've seen these before, and am pretty sure they only exist for the purpose of the Catmore template on the category pages. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What's in the edit history and deletion logs of these pages? Knowing how AFD and CSD work, I have my suspicions! --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(On checking a random sample): A lot of redirects created by User:Robertgreer? Perhaps they should have been left as redlinks? Has anyone talked with Robert and asked what's up?

In the case of Ballet dance, the page has been (merged and(?)) redirected, afaict, so deleting the redir might not be appropriate for GFDL reasons. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I checked 2001 ballet premieres and there was no deletion log entry for it. It was created by RobertGreer one minute after he put the Catmore template on the category of the same name, which he had also just created. The categories are fine but they do not need these redirects. Shoemaker has left him a note to explain how to use Catmore. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That's about where I was starting to go too, yup. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I changed Catmore on some of the categories and left a note for RobertGreer on where I had got to. Some of the gaps above between the nominated redirects are because in some cases he has created a list, which of course makes a better candidate for Catmore. There is not much point keeping 2003 ballet premieres which RobertGreer has already redirected to List of 2003 ballet premieres, but it does no harm. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- 2003 ballet premieres is a reasonable redirect to List of 2003 ballet premieres, and may help later if the list develops into a full-fledged article. I only have a problem with actively misleading redirects. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bodymore, Murderland → Baltimore

This extremely unlikely search term carries the implied POV that Baltimore is a dangerous, crime-ridden city. Per NPOV, Wikipedia should let the murder statistics speak for themselves. (n.b.: I changed this redirect's target from Baltimore, Maryland to Baltimore because the city page moved, making this a double redirect.) szyslak (t) 06:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose if someone wanted to know what Bodymore, Murderland referred to, this redirect would let them find out. Someone from, say, Australia, probably wouldn't know American cities well enough to guess what was meant, and might check Wikipedia to find out.
~~I'd probably be inclined to keep it for that reason, of course presuming the description is in use by a reasonable number of the city's critics. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)~~
.1% of the ghits compared to Baltimore, Maryland + offensive + noone notable in the first couple pages = delete. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - from the same blogosphere that produced Obamessiah. Nothing from outside of chats and blogs here - a few years ago, "Murderland" would apply to Detroit - it's all a matter of perspective. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep I've never heard the term, but it does get quite a few hits and could be a reasonable search term for someone wondering what this refers to. The fact that it's POV doesn't matter for redirects, nor that it's not that notable. If it were notable enough, it would have its own article on the use of the term and presumably critics addressing Baltimore's murder rate. Chats and blogs aren't generally notable, but redirects are different than articles, and a term showing up on lots of blogs means that people are more likely to search for it. And the term as used here can't apply to Detroit, since it's a pun on "Maryland". PaulGS (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as a non-notable pejorative. The standard for redirects is deliberately low but even I don't believe it's this low. Reviewing the google hits for "bodymore", most appear to be about topics other than the city (though the record label, for example, does appear to be based in the city). The google search itself returned only 424 non-duplicative hits, suggesting that the nickname is not particularly common. Rossami (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baltimorons → Baltimore

This redirect serves no purpose other than to disparage people from the city of Baltimore. Unlikely slang terms are fine for Urban Dictionary but not appropriate for the Wikipedia namespace. (n.b. This page pointed to Baltimore, Maryland until very recently, but since the article was moved to Baltimore I fixed what had been a double redirect.) szyslak (t) 06:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless some pretty good evidence showed this was in wide use, delete it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - from the same blogosphere that produced Obamessiah. No acceptance from anything close to a reliable source. No need for anything this inflammatory. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep It does serve a purpose other than offend people from Baltimore - to redirect people who search for it to the article rather than dumping them to the search page. The redirect doesn't go to Baltimore because people from that city are in fact morons, but because that's the most appropriate page to go to since the term refers to the city. Plausible search term. PaulGS (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment reliable source:[2] but unless it is mentioned in the Baltimore article it will not be helpful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as a self-evident pejorative. While a few reputable sources use the word in passing (primarily when discussing sports teams from what I can tell), I have found exactly zero reliable sources about the word. That sourcing of usage can support a dictionary definition but not an encyclopedia article - not even a redirect. Note: I have no objection to a soft-redirect to the appropriate Wiktionary page if someone ever creates it. Rossami (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing Template:User Maryland Import/animated → Template:User Maryland Import/animated

Confusing redirect - title appears when editing the current target of this redirect. Malformed CNR as a result. B.Wind (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

delete sounds like a mistake to me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drug test/Temp → Drug test

Was a sandbox in article namespace, but now appears unnecessary, having been turned into a redirect, and I assert that no one will link to this page off-wiki. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - clearly was intended to be a temporary page, not a permanent one. The article has been moved, and the history moved with it. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete redundant. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete not needed, what links here shows that it's got hardly any links to it, and per the name, it's obviously not meant to be permanent. :) The Helpful One ^Review 21:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CT:INV → Category talk:Articles with invalid ISBNs

Inappropriate pseudo-namespace, does not redirect to a heavily used page and does not point at content. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. This shortcut points to the *Talk* page of CAT:INVALID. The latter is Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs. This is empty at the moment, but will be repopulated whenever Rich Farmbrough does another run to collect ISBNs with invalid checksums. At the time this mini-project was active, there were seven people who needed to compare notes on correcting these ISBNs. It was convenient to use CT:INV as a central place to have the discussion. Including the Talk archives there were 110 Kb of discussion reached through this redirect. Over 2,000 ISBNs were corrected altogether. Does anyone have an idea for a different pseudo-namespace in which to create shortcuts for Category Talk? If that particular shortcut is needed for another purpose, we might be willing to give it up. CAT:CSD and CAT:RFU are two other shortcuts that do not point at content, so I'm not clear on the principle being mentioned. (This is a maintenance shortcut, not one intended for our readers to use). EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it appears in the mainspace and would show up in searches of articles and the like. CAT:CSD is in the same situation, and I'm trying to find a way to fix that, but there about about 20 CAT: prefixes and only 2 CT: prefixes, so I was trying to eliminate this smaller exception. MBisanz ^talk 02:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, is there a namespace it could be moved to? A Wikipedia search for 'invalid ISBNs' brings up not only this Category talk page but also some individual user sub-pages. Not sure that eliminating this redirect would make any difference to what appears in the Wikipedia search results. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CT:Tasmania → Category talk:Tasmania Portal

Inappropriate pseudo-namespace, does not redirect to a heavily used page and does not point at content. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's assume that "CT:Tasmania" was initially a short cut for a talk page for [[Category:Tasmania]]. Clearly the talk page exists, and the category exists, but I'd like to hear from the appropriate Wikiproject (Australia, I believe) before any action. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
As an Australian volunteer, I'd go for deletion actually. We don't really use talk pages on categories much and most people would be able to find Category talk:Tasmania, which would be the most intuitively logical target were it to be fixed. Orderinchaos 20:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I created the redirect during as a part of a project when the syntax of shortcut template was changed. If you delete the redirect make sure to edit the project talk page as well so there is no dead link. This should be considered a db-author. DRoll (talk)

[edit] 0.7 FILMS → Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Wikipedia 0.7

The result of the debate was Already deleted. (Non-admin closure.) Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate CNR to a Wikiproject, does not link to content. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I'd suggest speedying it, but R2 doesn't include the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces in the criterion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead and speedy - I merely forgot to include the WP: on the front of the shortcut. This has since been amended on the redirect target page, so 0.7 FILMS and FILMS 0.7 may be deleted at will. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] WM:TEMP → Help:Template

Inappropriate CNR to Help space, Wikipedia does not use the WM: pseudo-namespace MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Not useful because of the nonstandard pseudo-namespace prefix. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - not only for the badly-formed name, but also for something that is clearly temporary in design and nature. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete: We don't use the WM: user space, it's all WP: namespace. The Helpful One ^Review 21:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pokemom → Pokemon

A articctle made by a ip that was turned into a redirect. Not really needed. Raggon ix

Hmm... maybe someone might miss-hear "Pokemon" as "Pokemom" so I'm not sure about deleting that one. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

97,000 ghits for Pokemom, 68 million for Pokemon. That's about .1% of ghits, which may be just about enough to justify a redirect as a common typo. But it's certainly pushing it a bit, and, of course, I haven't checked what proportion of that .1 percent are making bad Yo momma-style jokes. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep as "m" sits to the immediate right of "n" on a standard English keyboard, this making this a highly likely typo. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep as a highly plausible misspelling. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep easy to enter as a typo as well as by ignorance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] October 26

[edit] Nuclear cannibalsim → Energy cannibalism

Implausible typo PhageRules1 (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Transposing "ism" to "sim" seems pretty plausible to me. The redirector's creator did it (and looking at the editor's other contributions, it does appear to be a good-faith mistake). Why should this be deleted? Rossami (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eddie Perez (criminal) → Eddie Pérez (politician)

3rd deletion criterion, it is offensive. Perez was never a notable criminal even in his youth, so this is not an expected search term. It was created when a vandal moved the article. Explodicle (T/C) 16:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Also nominating Eddie Pérez (criminal), see below. --Explodicle (T/C) 22:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The article says right in the lead that he was involved in organized crime, and it does have citations for this claim, though it needs more, better ones. It doesn't appear that the bare claim that he was a criminal is contentious. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as a BLP violation or vandalism. Even if we ignore the NPOV for redirects, he's not a "criminal"...he hasn't been convicted of a crime. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. The article is not sourced for any claims of criminal conviction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.107.151 (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Leaning toward keep. WP:BLP does not apply in this instance because the subject is a public person - as a politician, he no longer has a reasonable expectation of privacy over events in his life. The sources in at least one version of the article do substantiate that he is or at least was considered a criminal. That said, the redirect is clearly pejorative. In an election year, the creation of such a redirect must be viewed with a great deal of suspicion. However, I can find no evidence of other inappropriate editing in the contributor's history so I will assume good faith. Rossami (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- If he had been convicted of a crime, I might agree with you. But be hasn't been. Besides, he's a politician, some people consider -all- of them criminals. And I'm not even sure we have actual criminals under "(criminal)". Let me ask you something, if a news article referred to him as an "asshole", would you support a redirect from Eddie Perez (asshole)? --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  - I would not support a solely pejorative redirect like your example but this one is on the line - it's pejorative but maybe not solely pejorative. Conviction by a court would certainly be evidence of criminality but it is not necessarily the only allowable evidence. Is there any evidence that this redirect was created in bad-faith? Rossami (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
    - If this were created in bad faith, I'd be worried, because it means the bots are developing opinions. But I don't see why we need bad faith here...intent shouldn't matter when fixing something like this, only when dealing with the user who did it (and I don't think we need to spare Eubot's feelings). Quite simply, calling someone a criminal when they're not is not only incorrect, it's libel, and that's exactly the kind of thing WP:BLP is trying to prevent. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
    - Eubot created that redirect because of this one: Eddie Pérez (criminal) (note the accent). The current article was moved there by a vandal and then reverted back. Here is the vandal move, here is the reversion, and here is the warning. My apologies for not nominating both redirects, I didn't realize there were two until just now. --Explodicle (T/C) 21:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
      - Thank you for clarifying the article's history. The review of the original mover's contribution history is troubling but I'm not sure that it's sufficient to make a clear determination of vandalism. I'm going to change my opinion to abstain for now. Rossami (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Q (''James Bond'' character) → Q (James Bond)

Not needed, because of improper use of quotation marks. David Pro (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per the above. Doubled single quotes are unlikely to be typed or searched, and can cause technical problems. For example, I had to mangle the link above in order to make it work. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I've also nominated Q ("James Bond" character) per the same reason. David Pro (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep both because they help to document pagemoves made in good faith to the article. The fact that the pagemoves were later overturned (also in good faith) is part of the project's history. Leaving the redirect in place makes it easier for future editors to find the dispute and to avoid making the same mistake. The redirect itself is harmless. "Not needed" is not a reason to delete a redirect. Rossami (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] As of 1996 → 1996

Another "as of" redir. David Pro (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

comment Can't we keep all those as of redirects? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polymer Vision → Philips

Not clear why Polymer Vision should link to Philips as they don't seem to be related. The redirect was established by user Mac who later had his account suspended on grounds of abusive edits 85.24.120.207 (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Readius → Philips

Not clear why Readius should link to Philips as they don't seem to be related. The redirect was established by user Mac who later had his account suspended on grounds of abusive edits 85.24.120.207 (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manthey Racing → Porsche in motorsport

Manthey Racing is a German auto racing team who happens to compete with Porsches. Although they have worked with and been supported in various ways by Porsche over the years, including competing in brand new race cars, they are not Porsche. Manthey Racing has competed with other makes besides Porsche as well. Redirecting to Porsche in motorsport ignores the independence and previous history of the team. The359 (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This redirect is useful, as Manthey Racing actually enters many Porsche in motorsport. As pointed out on my talk, Manthey should be a disamb, and Manthey Racing is already mentioned in many articles [3]. Nobody claims that Manthey is a reincarnation of the factory, or a factory racing team. -- Matthead Discuß 15:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hundreds of teams enter Porsches in motorsport every year. The fact that we don't have articles on them doesn't mean we should create redirects for all of them simply because they are associated at one time during their existence with Porsche. The359 (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't know much about Manthey or European motorsport, but if they're a well-known team, then it's likely someone would search for them. If they also compete with other cars, then a more useful redirect might be to a well-known driver, a more general article like F1, or a page which mentions Manthey more heavily. If nobody has any better suggestions, then maybe Porsche in motorsports is the best place for it, since that article says they're factory-backed. PaulGS (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - racing team is discussed in the target article, making this a likely search term and a useful redirect. B.Wind (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment How about we turn this into a stub? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scuderia Filipinetti → List of Formula One constructors

Scuderia Filipinetti was a racing team which has competed in many disciplines and championships. Although they were indeed entered as a privateer in Formula One, they should not be redirected here as it ignores years of other competition. The359 (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ecurie/Scuderia Filipinetti was a quite famous Swiss team until the early 1970s. Recently, a book about them was published [4]. While the redirect is not perfect at all, having its existing Wikipedia entries linked is helpful for anyone interested in it. I might even write an article one day, but surely not if destructive deletionism succeeds again. -- Matthead Discuß 15:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A redirect to a page which merely mentions that it privately entered Formula One is not useful at all. Deleting an incorrectly placed redirect is not "Destructive deletionism", nor would it ever prevent anyone from actually writing an article. The359 (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we shortcut the discussion by just creating a (ref'd) stub? (would this do?) 4u1e (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It'd be more useful, yes. I suppose that would do, but I don't know much about the team other than that they're Swiss and mostly ran Ferraris in the WSC. The359 (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"Scuderia Filipinetti was a Swiss motor racing team that competed in Sports car racing and occasionally in Formula One between 1962 and 1973. It was founded by Georges Filipinetti to support Swiss driver Jo Siffert, but employed many other drivers including Jim Clark, Phil Hill and Ronnie Peterson. The team ran its cars in a red and white livery and most often used Ferrari cars, although it also employed cars from other manufacturers." How about that (it is only supposed to be a stub!), with the Amazon 'see inside' as a reference? To be expanded when someone has the time. 4u1e (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I would not object. The359 (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia administrator → Wikipedia:Administrators

Improper CNR to policy page, does not link to content MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Few people know about admins off-wiki and honestly I think we have enough redirects for it already - WP:ADMIN, MOP, SYSOP, ADMINISTRATOR, and probably more. This is an unnecessary redirect in my opinion. —Ceran♦^(Sing) 23:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Striking vote, Rossami's points are vital. I change my !vote. —Ceran♦^(Sing) 21:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. What possible page could a reader be looking for except the Wikipedia policy page? The omission of the colon is a very plausible typo, especially for a new reader who doesn't yet know about the different namespaces, certainly doesn't know about all our complicated shortcuts and is looking to learn about or to contact an admin. There is no reasonable possibility of confusion with an article at that title and this redirect does no harm. Don't make it any harder on our new readers than it already is. Rossami (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Accuracy → Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute

Improper CNR to policy page, should link to some sort of article on accuracy. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The result of the debate was speedy delete under R3 as implausible typo, as well as a CNR. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikpedia:Abuse reports → Wikipedia:Abuse reports

Unlikely misspelling of a CNR to the Wikipedia space. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Requests for assessment → Wikipedia:Article assessment

Redirect to inactive Wikipedia page, does not link to content. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi-keep - The redirect can be changed to a soft redirect if needed, or the title could be changed to 'Requests for article assessment'. WinterSpw (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] October 25

[edit] Squashed bugs → Wikipedia:Squashed bugs

Inappropriate CNR to an inactive wikipedia page, does not link to content. MBisanz ^talk 20:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - this is the reason I'm still hanging around this place whenever I have writer's block... a six-year-old redirect with virtually no history (it just sat there for almost six years with no change and no incoming links - before edited by a bot). I generally don't like to get rid of very old redirects, but this is a CNR that was created with the comment "Just to make watchlist work." Time to dust off a corner of Wikipedia here. B.Wind (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Retarget to...I don't know. Bug squashing party targets Hackathon, but I'm not sure I like it. Maybe to Software bug...and I could have sworn I heard about some sort of insect squashing fetish someplace...Delete if a good target can't be found.--UsaSatsui (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep as is. This page was created in 2002 long before the different namespaces worked the way they do today. Even though it is currently orphaned, links to it will exist throughout the project history. If someone ever wants to write actual encyclopedic content at this title, they can overwrite the redirect without needed to delete the pagehistory. In the meantime, none of UsaSatsui's proposed retargets seem appropriate. Rossami (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Meh. I had to try. --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I created this, but that doesn't matter; I haven't needed it for years. (All the same, MBisanz, thanks for the courtesy notification.) That said, Rossami is right; we don't know whether any links from outside Wikipedia exist, and there's just no need to break them. —Toby Bartels (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spoken articles → Category:Spoken articles

Improper CNR to a wikiproject tracking category. MBisanz ^talk 20:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The best option is to write a standalone Spoken article article, but there is a viable option other than deletion: redirect to Article (publishing), in which a discussion of spoken articles can be added, and - more importantly - Wikipedia uses can be placed in a "see also" section. This should address all issues regarding the history (which here is not that much) and the CNR (which would be gone). B.Wind (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. If someone wants to rewrite or retarget, that's fine. But redirects to categories are both common and accepted for any number of reasons. Rossami (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish European Commissioner → Category:Spanish European Commissioners

Inappropriate CNR, not notable on its own for an article. All categories don't need corresponding articles. MBisanz ^talk 20:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Retarget to List of European Commissioners by nationality#Spanish Commissioners. B.Wind (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] South Pacific ocean Tropical Cyclone Intensity Scale → Template:South Pacific ocean Tropical Cyclone Intensity Scale

The result of the debate was Close, retargeted by User:B.Wind. GlassCobra 11:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate CNR, already covered by template functionality. MBisanz ^talk 20:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Jason Rees (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have boldly retargeted it to Tropical cyclone scale#South Pacific. B.Wind (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] El-Manial → Cairo

Diaa abdelmoneim (talk · contribs) blanked the redirect El-Manial writing, "removed redirect (this is not el manial, please leave it as a red link untill filled.)" El-Tagamu El Khames, Garden City (Cairo), Haram (Cairo), and Kerdasa were also blanked because "removed redirect (this is not Cairo, please leave it as a red link untill filled)". The same reason probably holds for El-Marg. I have no opinion on the deletion of the redirects. Cunard (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have notified the user in question about this RFD (probably a good idea to do in the future), and they can explain their reasoning behind it. I'd like to know the connection between Cairo and these links. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

All these links are names of districts in Cairo. El-Manial --> المنيل, El-Tagamu El Khames --> التجمع الخامس, Garden City --> جاردن سيتي, Haram --> الهرم, Kerdasa --> كرداسة, El-Marg --> المرج. --Meno25 (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As said by Meno25 these are districts in Cairo and aren't Cairo itself. The Pages have been filed as requested in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Egypt. The Article Cairo doesn't have anything about these districts that's way there shouldn't be a redirect to there. These Districts aren't even only in Cairo but also in Giza. The Districts are in Greater Cairo which includes Giza and Cairo. So for these reasons I removed these redirects. Sorry for the former short explanation. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Keepthe ones that are in Cairo, Retarget the ones that are in Giza to Giza, and Delete the two that have "(Cairo)" in them. That's a bit complicated. But someone may be wondering about the district and it should take them to a reasonable place to help them find something about it. If an article is written about them, then it can be done. The ones with "(Cairo)" in them, though, are implausible search terms...people who search for that term already know they're in Cairo. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Fartman → Phil Hartman

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Rmhermen (talk · contribs) as an attack redirect. Cunard (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect serves no point whatsoever. "Phil Fartman" has not been used anywhere to describe Phil Hartman as far as I can tell, and even if it had, it is inherently not-notable. It can be considered personally offensive to Phil Hartman. Gran² 16:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. There are very few Google hits for Phil Fartman. This redirect is useless and offensive. Cunard (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete under G10 criteria as an attack page. Tagged as such. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Cake number → Fair division

Please delete. The cake numbers (plural) are the integer sequence A000125 and if an article is ever set up about them they'd be plural. They have nothing to do with Fair division commonly called cake cutting. Dmcq (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete - "cake number" (and "cake numbers") appears in the version of the article that appeared in the first position of a Google search of "cake number" just before this post, but not in the current version. If the term (singular or plural) is pertinent to the topic of fair division, it should be kept (unless a standalone article is written, a superior option); if not, it should be deleted. A general reminder: per WP:RfD#KEEP "cake number" would indeed be a valid redirect to Cake numbers as singular-to-plural redirects are considered valid in Wikipedia, regardless of actual meaning of the terms. B.Wind (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:NGC 92 → Template:Robert's Quartet

This is misleading and factually incorrect, as the template is about Robert's Quartet, and not just NGC 92 70.55.86.100 (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Documents a recent page move. Maintaining history is important. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep as NGC 92 is part of Robert's Quartet; thus this is a useful redirect. B.Wind (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to rename a page → Help:Moving a page

Cross-namespace. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 07:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete In appropriate CNR. MBisanz ^talk 20:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep this old redirect. Any reader typing this into the search engine will clearly expect to find our help page. There is no reasonable possibility of confusion with an encyclopedia topic. (The general concept of renaming pages without regard to context is too vague to ever support an article.) This redirect does no harm and has clearly been helpful to some. Rossami (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep it is good to keep cross namespace redirects like this. For most people they will have no idea of the title for this page, and I always find it helpful when you can type the name of the concept and the wikipedia help page is highlighted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] October 24

[edit] Wikiproject Metal → Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal

The result of the debate was Delete. GlassCobra 11:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirect. David Pro (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Inappropriate CNR. MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Wikiproject cpp → Wikipedia:WikiProject Cal Poly Pomona

The result of the debate was Delete. GlassCobra 11:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely cross-namespace redirect. David Pro (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete: or, should redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject C++ instead. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Inappropriate CNR. MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Change from Wikipedia:WikiProject Cal Poly Pomona to Wikipedia:WikiProject C++.--Dabackgammonator (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That would create a new CNR, which we generally try to avoid here. B.Wind (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Kannadasan spirit → Eraaa 2008 Film

Irrelevant redirect, again, does not refer to anything on the page to be redirected. Anti venin 15:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete This redirect is not irrelevant. A Google search shows that the spirit of Kannadasan is related to this film. But is this redirect plausible? Probably not. Cunard (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: original target was renamed Eraaa. Retargeting to fix double redirect. B.Wind (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dhigil → Eraaa 2008 Film

Irrelevant redirect. Also, refer to the other redirects made by user Hareesh_narayan. Anti venin 15:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: original target was renamed Eraaa. Retargeting to fix double redirect. B.Wind (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spirit lyrics → Eraaa 2008 Film

Irrelevant redirect. Probably intended as promotion for the film page. Anti venin 15:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: original target was renamed Eraaa. Retargeting to fix double redirect. B.Wind (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Member page → Help:Logging in

Unlikely CNR to a help page, maybe pointing at a web-hosting/personal ad article, but not this. MBisanz ^talk 02:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - improper CNR. Mainspace is for mainspace content. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete probably won't be an issue with being recreated/confused by new users. Looks like it was just a one-time mistake back in 2003. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - what a history for something that could have been speedily deleted in the first seven minutes of its existence (as a redirect from article space to a userpage). This is a classic case of a redirect in search of a valid target, and none has been found so far. It's a very unlikely search term and a CNR to boot. B.Wind (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. The most likely reason that it was a one-time mistake in 2003 is because the redirect preempted other new users from making the same mistake. It's doing no harm and has been somewhat helpful. If someone someday wants to write encyclopedic content at this title, they can do so without needing to delete the pagehistory first. Rossami (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mangal font → Wikipedia:Sandbox/Mangal Font

The result of the debate was Delete. GlassCobra 11:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely CNR to a sandbox. MBisanz ^talk 02:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - improper CNR, unlikely. Mainspace is for mainspace content. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not very used to en wikipedia policies, as such I copy pasted content to my talk page for my future reference. Deonagari is a Majior world script,and Managal Font is most important font for the given script, not having article is not some thing good for en wikipedia. so As far as importnace article is un-deniable. You are learned people you can take better decesions thank you.

Mahitgar (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it to your own user space, as it looks like a draft to me. That's what I've seen before, and I think this is the best solution. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete per criterion R2 (redirect from article space to user space). Granted, this is currently a double redirect to user space, but the same principle applies. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, CSD R2 wouldn't apply to either part of the double redirect as it is right now: there is no mention about redirects to or from project (Wikipedia:) pages. Ironically, if the double redirect were resolved, it would be subject to CSD R2. B.Wind (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete per Gavia immer. David Pro (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Loyola Educational Institutes → Category:Educational institutions named for Saint Ignatius Loyola

The result of the debate was Retarget to List of Jesuit institutions. GlassCobra 11:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely, CNR to a category, not a probable search term, could at best be pointed at a random Loyola themed article. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It does have some content in the history; does any of it need to be preserved? If not, deletion is fine with me. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Retarget to List of Jesuit institutions. B.Wind (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Make a page → Wikipedia:Sandbox

Unlikely, improper CNR, no history to preserve. MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep Unlikely? This page was already deleted five times after being recreated by newbies. The CNR lets them go to the sandbox to practice instead. If deleting, this should be salted to prevent recreation, but I think that would disenfranchises new editors. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
~~Keep~~. As Xaosflux notes, this redirect is the easiest and least bitey way to point new users to the sandbox. It preempts the need to continue to monitor and delete the user test pages that seem to naturally pop up at this title. Salting the page is theoretically possible but by policy, not to be encouraged except to stop persistent vandalism. Rossami (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Retarget. Xenocidic suggestion below is a better target. Rossami (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - improper CNR, unlikely. Mainspace is for mainspace content. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Most of these should be speedied, but in cases like this where there's a lot of recreation/possible confusion, a redirect like this makes sense. -- Ned Scott 05:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Retarget to Wikipedia:Your first article –xeno (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Wikipedia:Your first article per Xeno. — neuro^(talk) 16:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Repoint to Wikipedia:Your first article per Xeno. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] October 23

[edit] Keiko armor → Bōgu

The result of the debate was Speedy delete - requested by creator (WP:CSD#G7). So Why 21:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This must be a mistake. There's no such Kendo armor. See User talk:LordAmeth#Keiko. Oda Mari (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. As per nom. There is no such thing as "keiko armor" as a distinct type of armor, nor as a synonym for bôgu. Assuming that the reference to "keiko armor" refers to 稽古, meaning practice or training, it is still an incorrect description, as the same armor used for practice is used for competition as well. Also, I created the redirect originally, though under what logic I cannot remember; does it count more strongly if the article's creator calls for its deletion? LordAmeth (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

- Since you're the only major contributor (the other one corrected a double-redirect), it can be speedily deleted under G7 criteria. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Support: Harmful Rdr. I know nothing abt the subject matter, but i can vividly foresee some ignoramus working on the Keiko Dab, finding the Rdr, adding it to the text of Bōgu, and making an entry for it on the Dab. Because i'm the ignoramus who misled our readers by doing all those things.
--Jerzy•t 17:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per above. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Tagged with {{db-author}}. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Sorry i failed to suggest G7; i remembered "only" rather than "only major".
--Jerzy•t 02:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Layer (electronics) → Polymer

The result of the debate was Close, no longer a redirect. GlassCobra 11:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A layer and a polymer aren't the same thing. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, there is not a stub about what is a layer in electronics. I try to create it. You can also improve and expand it. The idea was to call attention about the need of the article. --Mac (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That isn't how wikipedia works. If you want to create a stub, create a stub. Alternatively, you could request the article. I'm not sure that the idea of using layers in electronics needs its own article - would it be better to expand the relevant section of Printed circuit board? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Project namespace → Wikipedia:Project namespace

The result of the debate was Delete. GlassCobra 11:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Awkward CNR that does not link to content, no historical links to preserve. MBisanz ^talk 02:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Anyone who knows that there's a project namespace can find it, and anyone who doesn't shouldn't be getting this result back in a search of the article space. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 20:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - improper redirect: mainspace is for mainspace content. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Problem users → Wikipedia:Requests for comment

The result of the debate was Delete. GlassCobra 11:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Rather pointy CNR that does not link to content and is not needed for historical purposes. MBisanz ^talk 02:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Inappropriate. Not even the best potential target. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep has a long history from 2003. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. It's inappropriate, and it has a tiny number of incoming links. I don't see the relevance of its history - we're here to help decide how wikipedia should be now. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 20:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - improper redirect: mainspace is for mainspace content. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Point of view forking → Wikipedia:Content forking

CNR to the projectspace, does not link to content, not needed for historical purposes. MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I made the redirect because I attempted to search for content forking with "point of view forking". I simply thought it would be helpful to people who had difficulty finding that page. I understand that cross-namespace linking is discouraged, but since wikipedia's searching facilities are piss-poor, I figure any redirect helps. I'm not emotionally attached to the redirect. Fresheneesz (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh I might also add that since content forking redirects to the same place, maybe if this one goes, that one should go with it...? Fresheneesz (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  - POV fork too. Fresheneesz (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    - I'd say all should be deleted personally. Yes, I'm conflicted as to how to handle these things with our poor search engine. MBisanz ^talk 13:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. It was clearly created in good faith and is not in the way of any actual article content. I don't see potential for confusion here. The demonstrated benefit to editors outweighs the theoretical costs of being a CNR. Make sure the redirect is tagged appropriately, though. Rossami (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Readers searching the article space should get this in the results. Anyone who knows what a POV fork is knows how to find the WP: namespace. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 20:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: You have way too much confidence in the functioning of our search engine. Granted, it's better than it used to be but that's not saying much. Rossami (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  - The quality of the search engine isn't relevant. Whatever pros and cons the search system has, it's helpful to let people choose whether or not they want results from the WP: namespace. CNRs stop that. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: "Anyone who knows what a POV fork is knows how to find the WP: namespace" - the whole point of the redirect is so that people that *don't* know what a POV fork is can find it. Your argument is not in your favor. Fresheneesz (talk) 08:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - improper redirect: mainspace is for mainspace content. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep as acceptable cross-namespace redirect: the vast majority of uses will be Wikipedia-related, so it's unlikely to cause confusion with article content. Terraxos (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture tutorial → Wikipedia:Picture tutorial

The result of the debate was Delete. GlassCobra 11:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely CNR, could better be directed to an article on tutorials and there is no history to preserve MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - cross namespace, and not helpful. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 20:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - improper redirect: mainspace is for mainspace content. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Diabeetus → Diabetes mellitus

The result of the debate was Keep I have a hard time buying that this meme is a useful redirect, but meh. I'll withdraw. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

At first, I was willing to let this one slide since it's been deleted so many times and it was finally recreated by an admin. However, I should note that there are no reliable sources that use this spelling; it's nowhere near as famous as, say, nucular, so it's not a likely search term. Furthermore, the first hit on Google for "Diabeetus" is Encyclopedia Dramatica, so I doubt the usefulness of this redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources aren't needed for a redirect. It's a roughly phonetic spelling of the way Wilford Brimley pronounced "diabetes" in a commercial. It has become an internet meme, as evidenced by the ED page. The redirect used to point to Brimley's page, but this redirect is less likely to have BLP implications, and is more appropriate. I've added the {{rfd}} template to the page, since it's protected. seresin ( ¡? ) 02:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Seems like keeping the redirect is a good idea as it will deter creation of the meme. ^{XF Law} _{talk at me} 02:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It's an Internet meme; see for example http://images.google.com/images?q=Diabeetus. It should stay as a redirect to the actual disease as there really isn't a more appropriate place to point it to. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Even without the meme implications, it's a plausible misspelling. And the comparison to nucular doesn't quite hold up to me...Nucular is an article. Redirects have different standards. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep, redirects are cheap, and this one could help if someone genuinely doesn't know what it means (having discovered it due to the internet meme) and doesn't know the correct spelling. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] October 22

[edit] Britsol_and_West → Bristol_&_West

The result of the debate was Keep, redirects are cheap. GlassCobra 11:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No reason to provide redirects for every possible random typo - Britsol is not a likely typo for Bristol; conversely it has sat there for 3 years as a redirect MarkyMarkD (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep. "Keep" because this redirect is the result of a pagemove. The page was originally created at this title and the pagemove process automatically creates redirects for several very good reasons. "Weak" because it was moved very early in the article's history. On balance, keep because the costs of deleting it are very small but non-zero while the benefits of deleting are exactly zero. Rossami (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- It was "page moved" 3 minutes after creation. There are no links to its original name. The redirect serves no good purpose and is just clutter.MarkyMarkD (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  - So? What benefit does the project gain by deleting it? The "clutter" will still be in the database. The project gets no server space back when a page is deleted. On the contrary, the act of deletion actually adds a few records to the database. You may think the redirect is useless and I may even agree. So what? Unless it's actively confusing or harmful, redirects really are that cheap. Rossami (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    - The same argument would apply to keeping every possible typo for every possible subject on Wikipedia. Just because someone made a mistake once - but it happened to be when they were creating a Wikipedia page - is no basis for keeping a redirect, surely. MarkyMarkD (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
      - Your first sentence is exactly right - and we do keep them. We don't encourage the preemptive creation of redirects for typos but once they have been created, Wikipedia policy and precedent say leave them alone - deleting is more trouble than it's worth. Rossami (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. While some people might think this is an implausible typo, it took me several different looks at this RFD to realize it was for "Britsol" and not "Bristol. I'd certainly call that a plausible typo. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - will show up in a google search for Britsol & West (google is "and sign" intelligent). Possible typo. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- No. Google knows that someone typing "Britsol" probably means "Bristol" and in fact shows the correct "Bristol & West" wikipedia page. The redirect doesn't help. MarkyMarkD (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  - Yes, it does. So why shouldn't Wikipedia know too? --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    - For the same reason as I've detailed above. Google might think it worthwhile to build a database of all possible typos. I don't think that Wikipedia redirects should exist for them all - and of course they don't. They only exist in those rare cases where someone who created a page created it with a typo in the subject. I don't understand why that makes such redirects worth keeping - they exist only due to random error and aren't inherently valuable. MarkyMarkD (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
      - You are incorrect. Redirects exist to assist navigation, and that certainly includes typos...and there are several of them on Wikipedia. You haven't shown how this redirect is harmful or misleading - read the reasons to delete a redirect at the top of the page. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Marginally useful, but harmless. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. OK - I appreciate all of your comments and it has been an instructive discussion. I still don't quite buy the argument that a redirect should continue to exist, just because it was serendipitiously created by an editor's original typo, but I understand the arguments that leaving it to exist costs little and it might help those rare people who exactly repeat the original editor's typo. MarkyMarkD (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Plausible search item. Redirect necessary. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Ignorant → Steve Ignorant

The result of the debate was Retarget to Ignorance. Relevant hatnotes and dab pages updated. GlassCobra 11:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been a recent change, is this allowed? Ryan4314 (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's allowed. The question is, though, whether it's a good target. Since there's a hatnote linking to Ignorance at the top of the page, I'm gonna say Keep. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Good point. Retarget to Ignorance again, and disambig or hatnote to the person. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep as Ignorant is Steve Ignorant's last name. The hatnote is entirely appropriate as clarification. The alternative would be to create a dab page at Ignorant, but I see no real point of doing that at this time. B.Wind (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Ignorance and add any surnames to that page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Retarget to Ignorance and add a link to Steve Ignorant as a hatnote. I think the general term is the most useful target here. Terraxos (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to ignorance with a note saying they may be looking for Steve Ignorant, or a disambig page if there's more than just that. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Unreferenced → Template:Unreferenced

The result of the debate was Retarget to Reference. GlassCobra 11:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Cross namespace redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Unnecessary. MBisanz ^talk 19:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

~~Delete~~. It's a cross-namespace redirect. No-one looking for the Unreferenced template will be searching in the mainspace, and anyone searching the mainspace doesn't want maintenance templates. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 20:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

UsaSatsui (below) is right - retarget to Reference. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 09:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete it before it ripens. CNR is a mere four months old. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Retarget to Reference, perhaps? --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong retarget to reference. Likely mainspace redirects should absolutely not point to Wikipedia space stuff. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Retarget to reference I came to support deletion, but redirecting to reference sounds like a better idea. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Lessons Learned (album) → Still Standing (Monica album)

The result of the debate was Retarget to Lessons Learned. GlassCobra 11:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No indication that this album was ever titled Lessons Learned. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep to preserve history. Target was moved to current title after a histmerge under original (redirect) name. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a confusing redirect, though, since Tracy Lawrence also has an album by this name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, it seems that dabification would be in order, although some explanation would be needed to ensure that the connection from title to current target is readily apparent. B.Wind (talk) 06:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that would be needed, seeing as the Tracy Lawrence album is at Lessons Learned. Why not just retarget Lessons Learned (album) to Tracy Lawrence's album and have a hatnote pointing to Monica's? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Userboxtop → Template:Userboxtop

The result of the debate was Delete. GlassCobra 11:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Template function eliminates the need for CNRs from article to templates, does not link to encyclopedic content. MBisanz ^talk 13:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete two month old CNR with very little history. The template (of the same name) should be sufficient. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - mainspace is for mainspace content. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] TTU quality → Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Texas Tech University articles by quality statistics

The result of the debate was G7 by TexasAndroid , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Localized tracking CNR, does not link to encyclopedic content. MBisanz ^talk 13:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Top 1000 Most Active Wikipedians → Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits

The result of the debate was Delete. GlassCobra 11:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Vanity CNR, does not link to encyclopedic content MBisanz ^talk 13:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete before it ripens - three-month-old CNR with trivial history. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - cross-namespace redirect of no use to the actual encyclopedia. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete - mainspace is for mainspace content. If they really want to put top 1000 most active Wikipedians, let them put a Wikipedia: in front of it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Template messages → Wikipedia:Template messages

Pseudo-template, points at the project space, does not contribute encyclopedic content MBisanz ^talk 13:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete two-month-old CNR with trivial history. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep and restore history. This is substantially older than 2 months and has significant history, though that history is currently clouded. This redirect has been created and inappropriately deleted multiple times. The only deletion that I can find which followed due process was the one in response to this old RfD discussion. However, I think the repeated good-faith recreation of the redirect is evidence that we got the decision wrong back in 2006. Rossami (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, for all the usual cross-namespace redirect reasons. Readers searching the article namespace shouldn't end up at a list of maintenance templates, anyone who knows that there is such a thing as a maintenance template knows that there's a WP: namespace. There are a tiny number of links to this page, and I can't see how the history or previous creation and deletion are relevant. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - mainspace is for mainspace content. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - while I usually agree with Rossami's reasoning, I am struck by this redirect's being deleted multiple times (three times over a span of two years by three different admins after the initial deletion of a duplicate of a major Wikipedia: namespace page). This is the second RfD for redirects of this name, and I cannot deny the implication of the repeated deletions that this should be gone and salted against further recreation. B.Wind (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Blake (pornographer) → Andrew Blake (director)

Per this discussion at The BLP Noticeboard, this page was moved to Andrew Blake (director). I've declined the R3 on the basis that it didn't strictly meet the criteria. Listing here for consensus to delete. Protonk (talk) 05:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete I was the editor who renamed the article. Director is a neutral term, pornographer is not. I was unable to find any other instance of "(pornographer)" used as a disambiguation term. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, the new name is more neutral and the redirect unnecessary since no one is likely to search for "Andrew Blake (pornographer)" and "Andrew Blake" is a dab, which means anyone searching for the guy will find him.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment: On 22 Oct, this redirect was speedy-deleted as alleged vandalism and this discussion prematurely closed. Subsequent investigation showed the speedy-deletion to have been in error since the redirect was created as the result of a pagemove and the article had been edited for a significant period of time by multiple editors at the old name. The discussion has been reopened.
Keep. While this was pretty clearly a pejorative article title and the pagemove was appropriate, deletion of the redirect is not. This page existed at the prior title and was moderately-heavily edited for three years in apparent good-faith. Redirects are automatically created by the pagemove process for several very good reasons, among them the need to point the prior editors and readers to the new, corrected title. Redirects are not held to the same standards of NPOV as article titles. Rossami (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. It either is or isn't appropriate to describe him as a pornographer in the article title. If it is, we shouldn't have moved the page. If it isn't, the redirect has to go, and the links will need fixing. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - pornographer is a term that people will search for, even if it's not neutral. It need not be neutral, and it is not so urgently imperative it be deleted. It is my opinion (and only my opinion) that BLP, a policy created to address libel, means that creating a non-neutral redirect calling "adult film director" a "pornographer" is an illegal move. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- WP:BLP isn't what you say it is, and, yes, a redirect does have to be neutral, per policy WP:NPOV. I don't mean this in a condescending way, but I suggest you re-read both policies. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - documents a pagemove, and was the title of the article for some time, so might have incoming links. I don't accept the BLP argument for deletion here - 'pornographer' is an accurate description of this man's career, and while it may not be the most appropriate title, it's acceptable as a redirect. Terraxos (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blackhawk country music trio → BlackHawk

Unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - it is actually a foreseeable search term, for BlackHawk is officially a trio (as the target article states, the backing musicians are not officially part of BlackHawk) and they do play country music. The long name may not be regularly used, but I can see someone thinking that it is the official name (or something close to it). B.Wind (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete not a likely search term as it lacks parentheses. JuJube (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Many users aren't likely to use parentheses, particularly those who are new to Wikipedia, and may use the search box more as a search engine rather than looking for a specific article title. As the user above pointed out, BlackHawk are indeed a trio who play country music. PaulGS (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peacock words → Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms

Cross-namespace redirect. I see no reason why this particular guideline should have a cross-namespace redirect when such redirects are generally frowned upon. "Peacock words" should instead contain or point to an article about the linguistic phenomenon of peacock words. Is he back? (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Improper CNR. MBisanz ^talk 16:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete recreated CNR. In addition, I offer the similar (but slightly older) Peacock words → Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms for consideration (if MBisanz and Is he back? do not object). 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep this deletion will create a bunch of red links. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Normally I'd agree with Tohd8, but the only redlink in article space that would be created with a deletion would be on Weasel words. All others are either Talk pages, User pages, or Wikipedia: pages. "Weasel words" and the appropriate Wikipedia: pages can be relinked; the user and talk pages can survive having a redlink... at least until someone decides to do a little repointing of the Wikilink(s?). Delete both. B.Wind (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. This was created in good faith and the volume of links on Talk and User pages indicates that we need it. Until and unless someone has encyclopedic content to put here instead, this redirect is useful to the project. That demonstrated utility outweighs the theoretical downsides of being a CNR. Incidentally, even if you orphan every current usage of the redirect, it will still sit in the history of many pages. There's no good reason to make it harder than it already is for people who are trying to dig through page history to figure out what was really intended. Rossami (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - mainspace is for mainspace content. Otherwise it could be confusing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Takes readers into the project space. I undertake to fix all the redlinks. Why are redlinks in historical versions a problem? The encyclopedia is always changing, redirects are being re-targetted, articles split, merged, etc - I'm sure most old versions of articles are riddled with redlinks and links to the wrong places. That's why we update them. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] October 21

[edit] Vikram Vaz of Golf → Tiger Woods

The result of the debate was Delete. GlassCobra 11:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I cannot believe this has existed for two years. As far as I am aware no one has ever referred to Tiger Woods with this phrase, so what possible use is this redirect serving. bigissue (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - obscure reference to the nth degree. Vikram Vaz was a Harvard student who won three days on the game show Jeopardy!. B.Wind (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - we need not indulge redirects created under such superfluous circumstances. This redirect is far more likely to cause confusion than help. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] User:Urban Rose/ED → Encyclopedia Dramatica

Redirect from userspace. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep unless originator wishes it deleted (in which case CSD G7 would apply once he/she asks for it). Redirects from userspace often occur as an article is moved into article space. In this case, the redirect was formed when the originator changed username (and the subsequent double redirect was fixed). I hesitate to recommend the deletion of something in someone's namespace without very good reason, and I see none here. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Redirects to articles from user space are fine, unless they are causing some specific problem. I don't see the redirects causing any specific problem, so there's no reason to delete them. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy keep per above. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Running/Encyclopedia Dramatica → Encyclopedia Dramatica

Redirect from userspace. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep unless originator wishes it deleted (in which case CSD G7 would apply once he/she asks for it). Redirects from userspace often occur as an article is moved into article space. In this case, however, the redirect was formed when the originator decided to abandon his/her rewriting of the deleted Encyclopedia Dramatica article and redirected to another, perhaps more complete version (see below). I hesitate to recommend the deletion of something in someone's namespace without very good reason, and I see none here. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Redirects to articles from user space are fine, unless they are causing some specific problem. I don't see the redirects causing any specific problem, so there's no reason to delete them. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy keep per above. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Running/Encyclopedia Dramatica/Draft → Encyclopedia Dramatica

Redirect from userspace. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep unless originator wishes it deleted (in which case CSD G7 would apply once he/she asks for it). Redirects from userspace often occur as an article is moved into article space. In this case, the redirect was formed when the originator rewrote a deleted Encyclopedia Dramatica article following deletion review and then moved it into article space. I hesitate to recommend the deletion of something in someone's namespace without very good reason, and I see none here. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Redirects to articles from user space are fine, unless they are causing some specific problem. I don't see the redirects causing any specific problem, so there's no reason to delete them. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy keep per above. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:ParisianBlade/ED → Encyclopedia Dramatica

Redirect from userspace. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep unless originator wishes it deleted (in which case CSD G7 would apply once he/she asks for it). Redirects from userspace often occur as an article is moved into article space. In this case, the redirect was formed when the originator attempted to recreate a deleted article from scratch, but redirected the rewrite to a "draft" article that another editor subsequently moved into article space (after that, there was an attempt to fix a double redirect, followed by a move caused by the originator changing usernames). I hesitate to recommend the deletion of something in someone's namespace without very good reason, and I see none here. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Redirects to articles from user space are fine, unless they are causing some specific problem. I don't see the redirects causing any specific problem, so there's no reason to delete them. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy keep per above. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Text move → Help:Merging and moving pages

The result of the debate was Retargeted by User:B.Wind. GlassCobra 11:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Help space CNR, does not have page move history to preserve, does not link to content. MBisanz ^talk 14:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Retarget to Cut, copy, and paste, maybe? It's a weak one, though. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Retarget to Cut, copy, and paste#Cut and paste per UsaSatsui. The suggestion is not as weak as he/she has indicated: it is a much more appropriate target for the redirect. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Retarget to Cut, copy and paste#Cut and paste per 147.70.242.40 (talk · contribs). Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Retarget to Cut, copy and paste#Cut and paste per 147.70.242.40 - improper cross-namespace redirect. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've boldly retargeted it per the discussion above. B.Wind (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Template Retired CF → Template:User Retired CF

The result of the debate was Delete. GlassCobra 11:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Pseudo-template redirect for userboxen, is not content. MBisanz ^talk 14:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

- I would like to keep this template but since I created it in April no one else seems to use it. Instead of deletion maybe it just needs to be put in a category where others can find it. Any suggestions? CubBC (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  - The template isn't under consideration here (whether to delete it would be more properly done at WP:TfD, far beyond the purview of WP:RfD); the redirect is. The lack of a colon in the name makes it a redirect out of article space, resulting in a cross-namespace redirect (which is usually frowned upon in Wikipedia, with certain selected, historical exceptions). If the originator of the redirect wishes it deleted, he/she may arrange for a speedy deletion by tagging with {{db-author}}; if it cannot be speedied, I'd recommend that it be deleted after the close of this discussion. B.Wind (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
    - Wow, I never thought my simple request was going to get disected like that!! It's like I had made request for water and got an answer about how water is clear, sometimes salty (which is usually frowned upon in Wikipedia), and may come from the sky or the ground or the sky then the ground (a puddle). No one has told me how to kept the template so if follows wiki guidelines. I guess what I'm saying is "Can you give me a glass?" CubBC (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
      - You have the glass already, but you need to realize that this is the place where deletions of redirects are proposed, discussed, and (sometimes) carried out. Your "request for water", as I understand it, is not whether or not the redirect Template Retired CF should be deleted (within the purview of the redirect) but what category (or categories) should include the template that you created and moved to a new name (not a purview of WP:RfD). The new name is fine; the old one has its problems and should be dealt with. However, may I suggest asking WP:WikiProject Canada for suggestions for new categories - I'm sure that someone there can think of a couple. Good luck. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - in appropriate cross-namespace redirect. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - malformed title created a cross-namespace redirect. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Tachyon Flyer → Category:Star Wars vehicles

Unlikely CNR to a category redirect, maybe point at a more general star wars article. MBisanz ^talk 14:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless a better target can be found, keep. This page had history which was subsequently merged into a list page, then the list page converted into a category. Redirects of specific minor instances to a category covering the general topic are an appropriate compromise in many situations - including this one in my opinion. Rossami (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - not a useful redirect, as the target is not mentioned in any of the articles in this category, as far as I can tell, so this is entirely unhelpful to someone searching for this term. Terraxos (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talkheader → Template:Talkheader

The result of the debate was Deleted by User:Elonka. GlassCobra 11:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely, CNR to a template, duplicated by template function MBisanz ^talk 14:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete I was under the impression we never redirected article space to other namespaces...--Crossmr (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - cross namespace redirect is inappropriate. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Obamessiah → Barack Obama

Non-notable right wing neologism –– Lid^(Talk) 11:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Created today - Speedy delete as an attack page. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep I created this redirect and I believe it is quite notable. Google finds over a hundred thousand mentions of "Obamessiah", including websites of influential people like Michelle Malkin and news sources such as Newsbusters. -Lapinmies 18:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- The bulk of the blogosphere is not compliant with WP:RS. This protologism was created in the blogosphere and has not been reliably reported per WP:V and WP:RS. Both "sources" stated above are repeating it as an attack term without attribution or citation. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep Redirects don't have to be meet all the policies for articles. If there are 100,000 hits for "Obamessiah", it's likely someone would come to Wikipedia to search on the term, and since it doesn't warrant its own article, the most useful thing is to redirect to the Barack Obama article instead of the search page. PaulGS (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:Redirects for discussion#Neutrality of redirects confirms that WP:NPOV does not apply for redirects, but suggests that WP:V and WP:RS still apply - but this word coined as an attack has not yet made it to multiple mainstream reliable sources as mentioned above. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
::A Google search returned 157,000 pages; a Yahoo search gave me 808,000. Both included a couple articles by Michelle Malkin, who's mainstream media, and with that many Internet hits, even if much is blogs and forums, many people might search Wikipedia for it. The policy you linked to ("If a redirect is not an established term and is unlikely to be used by searchers, it is unlikely to be useful and may reasonably be nominated for deletion. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources), it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms.") seems to me to be less about reliable sources themselves as usefulness as a search term, and there can certainly be cases where a slang term isn't reported in mainstream sources but still widespread on the Internet and useful as a redirect. PaulGS (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - policy states Non-neutral redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term.Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:... The subject matter of articles may be commonly represented outside Wikipedia by non-neutral terms. It is a very notable term in print media. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as inherently POV term; POV redirects should be avoided if possible, and only used when they are clearly helpful. That is not the case here: anyone who knows this term would know to search for Obama instead. Keeping this redirect adds no value for users, and makes us look bad. Terraxos (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say POV redirects should be avoided? The policy says "Note that redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This covers only article titles, which are required to be neutral (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article naming). Perceived lack of neutrality in redirects is therefore not a valid reason for deletion. Non-neutral redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term." PaulGS (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I admit I wasn't aware of that policy; all I can say is that I disagree with it. I don't think we should allow POV redirects except when they're very widely used to refer to the subject (and thus a likely search term). If POV redirects are OK, does that mean Bush crime family (a 3-times-deleted redirect to Bush family) should be recreated? Terraxos (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Both "Obamessiah" and "Bush crime family" get several hundred thousand hits on Yahoo, and the latter appears to be part of some book titles, so I'd be fine with "Bush crime family" being a redirect somewhere, whether to the George W. Bush article or some sub-article about criticism of the current president or some such page, or to whoever came up with the phrase (assuming it's some notable figure who has his own article). PaulGS (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eurovison → Eurovision Song Contest

The result of the debate was Keep as plausible typo. GlassCobra 11:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Badly spelled redirect --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep "Eurovison" seems like a plausible mistyping for "Eurovision", especially if someone is typing quickly, and as the policy says, better to have a redirect than the search screen.
Keep Very likely misspelling. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Common typo. Lugnuts (talk) 07:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] argument by analogy → false analogy

The result of the debate was Keep. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This redirect seems to be a response to "argument by analogy" being added to a list of "requested articles." However, since the article makes no distinction between these two concepts, the redirect is both misleading (implying that the two concepts are one and the same -- which they are not) and useless (since a reader looking for information about a debate strategy would instead learn only about when that strategy is used incorrectly -- but not about legitimate uses) Minaker (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep until/unless nom's concerns are addressed in a standalone article. The fact remains that most arguments by analogy are false analogies, and the target article does discuss - at least partially - the fallacy of the argument by analogy form. The alternative, retargeting to analogy is a weak one, because the lede states that analogy is an argument. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- The above contributor's reasoning is based entirely on two highly questionable premises, 1) "that most arguments by analogy are false analogies" (really? according to whom?) and 2) that the only alternative is to retarget to analogy, which ignores the requested alternative that was brought up in the first place before the redirect even existed, which is to give "argument by analogy" its own article. The point of a redirect should be to help a reader find information about the topic they're looking up. The bottom line is that "false analogy" provides insufficient information on the subject because the article is related but tangential and that, as I have stated above, the link is misleading in its implication that the two concepts are the same. Minaker (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  - Then all that's needed is to add the information that you deem is lacking, whether it be in a standalone article or in the target. Absent that, "incomplete information" is not a reason for deletion of a redirect (see WP:RFD#KEEP and WP:RFD#DELETE). Regarding the "implication" - there is no implication in the redirect: it merely points to an article that mentions the terms (note that redirects often are used to point individuals to sets containing them or narrow issues to broader categories containing them). A "see also" type link (which a redirect is) gives no information by itself: to think otherwise is to misunderstand the purpose of the redirect in the first place. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    - Regarding your comment that "all that's needed is . . . the information": I know! That's why I requested an article on the subject in the first place! Don't tell me to write the article -- the whole point is that I'm the one who wanted to learn more about the subject!
      I see your point about the "see also" purpose of redirects, but I must disagree that a redirect has no implication, since, regardless of its intended purpose, it actually acts as a "see instead" rather than a "see also." If I look up "emotion" and see an article, and at the bottom, in a list of "see also"s, there is a link to fear, that's fine. But if I look up "emotion" and I am automatically taken to an article on fear merely because the article mentions the word "emotion" -- that's not fine. There is a definite implication regardless of whether such an implication was intended that the two are one and the same. At the absolute least, the potential for misunderstanding is there, because now, for all I know, the novel that says "he showed emotion" means "he showed fear." Likewise, when someone looks up "argument by analogy" and they are redirected -- or, in other words, told to "see instead" -- "false analogy," there is indeed an implication, or at the absolute least, the potential for misunderstanding, that the two terms are the same.
      Maybe you're right that I'm misapplying the letter of the law regarding the rules of redirect, but if the point of Wikipedia is to get information, this redirect is potentially destructive (for the reasons mentioned above) yet still unhelpful. If I want to use Wikipedia to find out about argument by analogy, how do I go about this? Right now, there is no way to do so because when I search for that term, I instead get an article on a related topic. Minaker (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep as the target mentions the term, albeit not overtly. Since the article that Minaker is wanting does not yet exist, we are left with two options: either deletion or keeping the redirect. Clearly the latter is the better option (with the hope that someone is knowledgeable and ambitious enough to overwrite it with a standalone article). As it is, there is no valid reason to delete the redirect right now. B.Wind (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep the pagehistory intact. No opinion about whether there is a better target or whether the redirect could/should be overwritten with content. Either can be done without deleting the pagehistory. Be bold! In the meantime, the redirect is more helpful to our readers than a redlink. Rossami (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] What Color is Your Parachute? → Richard Nelson Bolles

The result of the debate was Keep. Conversion to article is encouraged. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The book is culturally significant enough to require an article of its own, especially since a search for the book by title redirects to an article on the author -- an article which provides zero information on the content or purpose of the book. Minaker (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - title is mentioned in target; thus a valid redirect until someone overwrites it with an article about the book. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that the "title is mentioned in target" seems a low standard to use as a criteria, and the fact remains that the target fails to provide any information on the content or purpose of the book. The above user has a good point that the redirect is better than providing no information at all until someone writes an article about the book. My concern is that when looking at the "requested articles" list, the link to that title might mislead people into thinking such an article already exists, since links to original articles (for lack of a better term) and links to redirects look identical. Minaker (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  - The above reply completely misses the point of having redirects. Please see WP:R, WP:RFD#KEEP, and WP:RFD#DELETE. If you're proposing to add a title to WP:Requested articles that happens to be a redirect, put a statement such as "currently a redirect" on the same line as the listing. 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep If the book deserves its own article and you have sources as to why it's notable, go ahead and create one, even if it's just a stub for now. Otherwise, someone searching for the title should be redirected to the article about the author. PaulGS (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The "completely misses the point" remarks above are much more contentious than constructive. My reply does not miss the point of redirects, and I even concede that, in light of the very rules this user refers me to, it's better to keep the redirect for now rather than delete it entirely. It's worth repeating, I actually agreed with your basic standpoint, but you still respond this way because I'm expressing a concern about the consequences of the redirect? Just because I'm discussing the redirect -- the very point of this page -- doesn't mean I don't understand it. As for me creating my own article on the book -- I came to Wikipedia to learn about the book, how am I the best person to create the article? My whole point is that I want to learn about the book and Wikipedia is not helping me to do so. Above user: Please actually take the time to read comments and consider what they're saying before jumping to the accusatory and dismissive stance. I am familiar with the rules and I'm trying to discuss their application here, which is the point of the page. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I or my comments "completely miss the point." Minaker (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - book is mentioned in target article. This is consistent with Wikipedia precedent for books from notable authors when the book itself doesn't have a standalone article. Granted an article discussing the book is far more preferable, but until someone writes it (or at least a stub), this will have to do. B.Wind (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. First, I'm not convinced that this book really deserves an independent page. This is an encyclopedia, not a book review site. But whether the book deserves an independent page or not, that page can be created by any editor merely be overwriting the redirect contents. There is no need or reason to delete the pagehistory first. Rossami (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Villans (Dragon Ball) → Category:Dragon Ball characters

The parade of Dragon Ball cross-namespace redirects coming to RfD continues. This one has the added "benefit" of a typo. Other entrants in this parade (also nominated):

B.Wind (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep Article to category namespace redirects are in a gray area. I've seen them kept in the past as long as the category being targeted was for readers (not a maintenance category, etc). -- Ned Scott 04:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'd also be fine with restoring these links to their original article space targets. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Retarget per Ned Scott. Those that do not have appropriate article space targets should be deleted. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Applying both of the above would mean...

Deleting (no valid target): Villans, List of Dragon Ball villans (this one was formed by a currently banned user, too), Villains, List of Dragon Ball GT characters, List of Robots in Dragon Ball (note: if an earlier version of List of Androids in Dragon Ball is restored, it would be a valid target for this redirect: a copy of the text appears in this redirect's history), List of Villains in Dragon Ball (formed by currently banned user)

Restoring an earlier version (and likely take to AfD): List of Androids in Dragon Ball[5], List of Majins in Dragon Ball[6]

Looking at the histories, I reiterate that deletion seems to only viable option. With three exceptions (noted above), the histories seem to indicate targeting after targeting, all to redirects or the category (two of the three originated as standalone articles, the third had a brief "interlude" as a copy of another article). I have no objection to restoring the older versions of the latter two, but I would also then urge strongly that these be taken directly to WP:AfD upon restoration. B.Wind (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User Page → Wikipedia:User page

The result of the debate was speedily delete and a slap on the wrists for Gb. _Gb^T/c 06:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirect. Created in last 24 hours, so no meaningful history to preserve. --Allen3 ^talk 01:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Since this is a recently created cross-namespace redirect, I think this could even be speedy deleted. C Teng ^[talk] 02:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete - recreation of a deleted redirect. ~~{{editprotect}} request for a speedy tag left on talk page.~~ Request for speedy deletion left on talk page of admin who protected the redirect. B.Wind (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to speedily delete it if consensus appears to go that way, but not under G4, as there's been no prior deletion discussion that I can see. That said, though, I think that it's a cross-namespace that serves a useful purpose. New users wanting to go to their user page may, in all probability, simply type in User Page at the top - the last entry prior to the redirect being created was the userfication of a page where a user had done just that, and then proceeded to create their userpage just there. Having the redirect to take them to the userpage not only tells them (a) that User Page isn't the right place for them to be doing that, but also (b) points them in the direction of the actual place they should be doing it...(v. hasty answer as am in a bit of a hurry). _Gb^T/c 08:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete twice deleted, twice recreated CNR. Pointing this to a userpage instead of WP:User page simply adds to the confusion. Either way, it's a CNR out of article space. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of confusion, it does point to WP:User page, not any particular userpage or Special:Mypage. _Gb^T/c 15:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep: What else would Wikipedia editors be looking for when searching "User Page" in the search box? Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This CNR can appear in any search containing the word "user" and/or "page", not only the phrase "user page", so it can cause confusion for legitimate searches, and having WP:User Page come up as a potential result when people search for (say) memory management terms doesn't make sense. As an aside, this is why the longer the CNR the more harm it does. MartinRe (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per above comment and while having a cnr may be temporarily useful to a small number of new editors, it permanently limits the rest of the editors by reducing their ability to filter search results for just encyclopaedic content as search results specifying only article space will still return project space results due to CNR's. Also, CNR's may appear to help new users, but I believe they actually confuse in the long term by blurring the line between wikipedia and the project it creates, which is an important, if subtle, distinction to be aware of. Regards, MartinRe (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
delete as there are userpages on other wesites.--Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 00:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Poor CNR. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 22 October 2008

(UTC)

Ok, well, per my original comment, I'll speedily delete the page and close the discussion now in a snow-like manner, since it was me what started this whole mess in the first place... _Gb^T/c 06:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] October 20

[edit] Polish National Top 50 → Polish Music Charts

Per this discussion, the Polish Music Charts and Polish National Top 50 are not the same chart. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Stubify. Is that even a word? --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The Polish National Top 50 was deleted per afd as being non-notable, so 'stubify' is probably not a good idea. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete: They don't refer to the same chart. The main page is a legitimate, national, "official" chart. The redirect refers to a non-notable, questionable, WP:HOAX-seeming OR chart. (I said this in the original discussion that TenPoundHammer listed earlier.) SKS2K6 (talk) 04:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Snagkeouss Defense → Corn Stalk Defense

The result of the debate was Keep as plausible search term. GlassCobra 11:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Same as Snagkeouss Defence, see below. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Snagkeouss Defence → Corn Stalk Defense

The result of the debate was Keep as plausible search term. GlassCobra 11:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The Corn Stalk Defense is a chess opening so obscure and so lacking in reliable coverage that I merged it into King's Pawn Game. "Snagkeouss Defence" is supposedly a variation of this line. A Google check found no reliable source that this is actually a real variation, and given the obscurity of 1.e4 a5, I doubt any analysis exists, even in the plethora of chess literature available. I think this name is unverifiable, and have therefore not merged in any mention of "Snagkeouss". These links are therefore not pointing at anything. If kept (and I am advising very strongly against keeping), it should be retargeted to King's Pawn Game, but there is no mention of the title there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I have no opinion on a keep or delete, but the redirect should now target King's Pawn Game regardless to get rid of the double redirect. I've done so with both redirects. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete both - only sources that mention the defense by this name are blogs and forums, not reliable sources. Thus falling short of the bar of WP:V. B.Wind (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Verifiability isn't necessarily the criteria for a redirect, but rather "would someone search for this term"? Since it's referred to by this name, someone might search for it using "Snagkeouss", and while blogs and forums aren't usually reliable sources, they're certainly reliable to say that some people refer to the defense by this name. PaulGS (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. PaulGS is correct about the appropriate standard for redirects. Rossami (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Per PaulGS. Insisting on WP:V is another example of criteria creep. JASpencer (talk) 08:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment I am a bit unsure if people are under the impression that "Snagkeouss Defense" is an alternate name for "Corn Stalk Defense". If that were the case, I would agree with keeping this. These are the only redirects I sent to RFD during the merge process, all the others I simply re-targeted as plausible alternate names. "Snagkeouss Defense" is not an alternate name, according to these blogs and forums it is a variation of 1.e4 a5, one which is not mentioned at all in King's Pawn Game (due to WP:V). By placing a redirect, aren't we in a way fooling the reader into thinking the topic (Snagkeouss) is covered in the target article when it isn't? Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] AvoidBiasDebate → Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

Awkward policy redirect, does not point at encyclopedic content, not hist-attribution issues, should be deleted. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

History merge to preserve pagemove history. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep and tag with {{R with old history}}. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep as is. This is where the page first existed, long before the creation of the separate namespaces and even before the change that let us get away from CamelCase naming. Old policy pages like this have hundreds of links scattered throughout the old pagehistories of the project and an unknown number of external links. There is absolutely no reason that we should contribute to the link rot problem by deleting a page that has no possibility of confusion with anything other than the Wikipedia policy page. Rossami (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Androids in Dragon Ball → Category:Dragon Ball characters

The result of the debate was Retarget to List of Dragon Ball characters. GlassCobra 11:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Odd Category CNR, should probably be deleted or pointed at a DBZ-themed article. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep or retarget CNR for categories tend to be in a gray area. We generally disallow CNRs because other namespaces are normally not considered encyclopedic content. -- Ned Scott 04:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Retarget to List of Dragon Ball characters, which contains several androids by both name and numeric designation. B.Wind (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Airline destinations → Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Airline destination lists

Wikiproject CNR, does not link to encyclopedic content. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Discuss with the Wikiproject in question. The target page does, despite it's location in projectspace, appear to have some use to it. If someone were looking for info on airline destinations in general, this would be a perfectly good place to send them. I would say try and work it out with them, see what they think (I'm dropping them a line). --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment. As I recall, the data was moved into the project space since many editors considered it to not be encyclopedic. The project uses this as standard list for names of airports and destinations to help keep uniformity in the related articles. However this is material that is of value to many readers. So I guess by definition this redirect is can be deleted. The question is, is there an exception reason that could apply and should it be used in this case? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep because it helps to document a series of pagemoves of the content in question. I can't think of any better destination for a link of this title. The fact that it points to a wikiproject does not seem inherently bad to me. Rossami (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - the move to the project space was a compromise with editors who didn't believe the material to be encyclopedic. Since Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Airline destination lists is not exactly an intuitive title, this allows anyone to easily search for the page. DB (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 earthquake → Category:2008 earthquakes

The result of the debate was Retarget to List of earthquakes#2008. GlassCobra 11:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Dubious CNR, should either have its own list or not be an article, halfway with a category link isn't good enough. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - too general to be useful as a redirect, and CNR is definitely not a good idea. A "stretch" would be a retargeting to a List of major 2008 earthquakes article... if one existed. B.Wind (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Changing to dabify per IP below. It makes more sense to convert this into a disambiguation page than deleting or keeping a CNR. B.Wind (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep or retarget CNR for categories tend to be in a gray area. We generally disallow CNRs because other namespaces are normally not considered encyclopedic content. -- Ned Scott 04:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep or retarget to a list. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Dabify - the current target provides a ready list of potential terms dealing with earthquakes that occurred in 2008. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] October 19

[edit] Edward Poynings → Edward Poyning

The result of the debate was Speedy close, wrong venue. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Main article should be called this instead. I can't move the main article so I think the redirect needs to be deleted. Can someone help me out!? Sebrofs (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to list this at Requested Moves. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Clyde May → Theodore "T-Bag" Bagwell

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 02:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

How are these things connected? Magioladitis (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Appears to be a an unrelated redirect, perhaps an attempt at humour. Knippschild (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Very weak delete - "Clyde May" was an alias for Bagwell in one episode of the television series Prison Break, one of several that the character has used in the three seasons of the series so far. B.Wind (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Someone unfamiliar with the show (or not) might search for information on the character using the alias, and better to redirect to the character than the search page. PaulGS (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] He Secret of the Red Orchid → The Puzzle of the Red Orchid

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Non-admin closure. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely Redirect. Any user would notice a typo like this a fix it immediately. Though the target seems to change words and the original 'Secret' looks randomly inserted. Knippschild (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Apologies, I created it in error. It should be The Secret..., as this is an alternative title for this film. I've created the correct spelling re-direct. Feel free to delete this one. Lugnuts (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Tagged for G7. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] MWCD → Category:Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District

The result of the debate was Expand to dab page, more than one plausible term. GlassCobra 11:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely acronym redirect, I'm sure there is something better that the terms MWCD can point to than a category MBisanz ^talk 02:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The MWCD acronym is pretty well known within the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District's service territory, which covers about 1/5 of Ohio. The original intent was to create an article about the district but I never got to that previously. Brian Powell (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I did create a basic article now at Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District and changed the redirect to point to that. Brian Powell (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Go with the retarget. JASpencer (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree with retarget, unless a more suitable target is found. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Dabify. MWCD also is the official abbreviation for Metropolitan Cebu Water District[7], India's Ministry of Women and Child Development,[8] and the Montague Water Conservation District (California),[9] and a commonly-used abbreviation for the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.B.Wind (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Musical markup → Wikipedia:WikiProject Music

The result of the debate was Retarget to Musical notation. GlassCobra 10:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject CNR, not encyclopedic content. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Retarget to Musical notation. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Retarget to Musical notation as much more relevant than a WikiProject. matt br 10:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Most edits → Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 02:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Navel gazing, inappropriate CNR, not a real topic MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete as unencyclopaedic; the target page is hardly important enough to justify a cross-namespace redirect. Terraxos (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
keep. It is convenient. Kingturtle (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I don't see any reasonable possibility of confusion with an actual encyclopedia target. It was created in good faith and at least one user finds it useful. The theoretical downsides of CNRs should not get in the way of actual needs of Wikipedia editors and readers. Rossami (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete - mainspace is for mainspace content. Navel-gazing is a perfect term for it. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia about the world, not an encyclopedia about Wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete; Wikipedia:Most edits exists (it's not so inconvenient to prefix WP:Most edits). I agree with the above; the article space is for articles. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Most vandalized articles → Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 02:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Navel-gazing, WP:DENY, inappropriate CNR. MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:DENY and the lack of usefulness as an encyclopedic topic. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete relatively new (less than one year) with virtually trivial history. No need for this CNR. B.Wind (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, diaster waiting to happen (WP:DENY). Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. As long as you're going to maintain Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages, WP:DENY doesn't matter. Deleting the redirect will neither deny nor support recognition of the vandalism. The redirect appears to have been created in good faith back in 2005 (3 years, not 1) and does not appear to have led to any problems in that time. Rossami (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete - mainspace is for mainspace content. Navel-gazing is a perfect term for it. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia about the world, not an encyclopedia about Wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] October 16

The result of the debate was Keep all. I didn't realize these all documented page move histories. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Smith (Canadian-born ice hockey player) → Steve Smith (ice hockey)

Is anyone really going to type this in? The only purpose this seems to serve is an example of how NOT to do an aticle name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap which is why they were never deleted when they were moved. And with the new auto populating in the search box they do become even more usefull. -Djsasso (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Smith (ice hockey defenceman b. 1963 in Ontario) → Steve Smith (ice hockey)

Is anyone really going to type this in? The only purpose this seems to serve is an example of how NOT to do an aticle name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap which is why they were never deleted when they were moved. And with the new auto populating in the search box they do become even more usefull. -Djsasso (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Smith (Philadelphia Flyers/Buffalo Sabres defenseman) → Steve Smith (ice hockey)

Is anyone really going to type this in? The only purpose this seems to serve is an example of how NOT to do an aticle name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap which is why they were never deleted when they were moved. And with the new auto populating in the search box they do become even more usefull. -Djsasso (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Smith (British-born ice hockey player) → James Stephen Smith

Is anyone really going to type this in? The only purpose this seems to serve is an example of how NOT to do an aticle name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap which is why they were never deleted when they were moved. And with the new auto populating in the search box they do become even more usefull. -Djsasso (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Smith (ice hockey defenceman b. 1963 in Scotland) → James Stephen Smith

Is anyone really going to type this in? The only purpose this seems to serve is an example of how NOT to do an aticle name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap which is why they were never deleted when they were moved. And with the new auto populating in the search box they do become even more usefull. -Djsasso (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Smith (Edmonton Oilers, Chicago Blackhawks) → James Stephen Smith

Is anyone really going to type this in? The only purpose this seems to serve is an example of how NOT to do an aticle name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap which is why they were never deleted when they were moved. And with the new auto populating in the search box they do become even more usefull. -Djsasso (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep this and the related redirects above. They all document page moves. I'll admit they're all ugly, though. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Munter (Outrageous Fortune) → List of characters in Outrageous Fortune

The result of the debate was keep. Wizardman 02:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphan. Target is now also redirected. McWomble (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep as retargeted - "Munter" appears no fewer than 13 times in new target. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per IP above. I can't see why it should be deleted in this case. B.Wind (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Outrageous Fortune/Van West → List of characters in Outrageous Fortune

Orphan referenced only in AfDs. Target is now also redirected. McWomble (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Redirect has significant history covering its year in existence, but name is defective as indicating a subpage. Merge history to original target, then delete. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Very weak keep as an old article like this could have inbound links from outside Wikipedia. JASpencer (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete one-year-old article with obsolete name after a history merge to Van West, a redirect to the same target. There is significant history (duplicated in the other Outrageous Fortune redirects below); a histmerge should take care of GFDL issues. B.Wind (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outrageous Fortune/Jethro West → List of characters in Outrageous Fortune

Orphan referenced only in AfDs. Target is now also redirected. McWomble (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Redirect has significant history covering its year in existence, but name is defective as indicating a subpage. Merge history to original target, then delete. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Very weak keep as an old article like this could have inbound links from outside Wikipedia. JASpencer (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete one-year-old article with obsolete name after a history merge to Jethro West, a redirect to the same target. There is significant history (duplicated in the other Outrageous Fortune redirects); a histmerge should take care of GFDL issues. B.Wind (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outrageous Fortune/Ted West → List of characters in Outrageous Fortune

Orphan referenced only in AfDs. Target is now also redirected. McWomble (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Redirect has significant history covering its year in existence, but name is defective as indicating a subpage. Merge history to original target, then delete. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete one-year-old article with obsolete name after a history merge to Ted West, a redirect to the same target. There is significant history (duplicated in the other Outrageous Fortune redirects); a histmerge should take care of GFDL issues. B.Wind (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outrageous Fortune/Pascalle West → List of characters in Outrageous Fortune

Orphan referenced only in AfDs. Target is now also redirected. McWomble (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Redirect has significant history covering its year in existence, but name is defective as indicating a subpage. Merge history to original target, then delete. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Very weak keep as an old article like this could have inbound links from outside Wikipedia. JASpencer (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete one-year-old article with obsolete name after a history merge to Pascalle West, a redirect to the same target. There is significant history (duplicated in the other Outrageous Fortune redirects); a histmerge should take care of GFDL issues. B.Wind (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outrageous Fortune/Wolfgang West → List of characters in Outrageous Fortune

Orphan referenced only in AfDs. Target is now also redirected. McWomble (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Redirect has significant history covering its year in existence, but name is defective as indicating a subpage. Merge history to original target, then delete. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Very weak keep as an old article like this could have inbound links from outside Wikipedia. JASpencer (talk) 08:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete one-year-old article with obsolete name after a history merge to Wolfgang West, a newly-created redirect to the same target. There is significant history (duplicated in the other Outrageous Fortune redirects); a histmerge should take care of GFDL issues. B.Wind (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outrageous Fortune/Jared Mason → List of characters in Outrageous Fortune

Orphan referenced only in AfDs. Target is now also redirected. McWomble (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Redirect has significant history covering its year in existence, but name is defective as indicating a subpage. Merge history to original target, then delete. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Very weak keep as an old article like this could have inbound links from outside Wikipedia. JASpencer (talk) 08:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete one-year-old article with obsolete name after a history merge to Jared Mason, a redirect to the same target. There is significant history (duplicated in the other Outrageous Fortune redirects above); a histmerge should take care of GFDL issues. B.Wind (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unit Core God Country → United States Marine Corps

The result of the debate was Delete.Tikiwont (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Originally created as a one-line stub reading "The order of command in the United States Marine Corps." Later redirected to current target. "Unit, Corps, God, Country" appears to originate from the film A Few Good Men as a fictional variant of the actual slogan "God, Country, Corps". Also, "corps" is misspelled as "core". Mike R (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. If it was spelled correctly, this might be an acceptable redirect to A Few Good Men... but as it is, I can't imagine it ever being useful. Terraxos (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom Knippschild (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Ancient Near East WikiProject → Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near East

The result of the debate was Delete. GlassCobra 10:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Improper cross-namespace redirect, redirected material not encyclopedic content. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] AHD system → Wikipedia:English Phonemic Representation

Improper cross-namespace redirect, redirected material not encyclopedic content. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Originally "English Phonemic Representation" (enPR) was an actual article on Wikipedia. It was moved because the term was coined on Wiktionary, and therefore was not particularly encyclopedic. However, the system of enPR is identical to that of the AHD system (the system of English phonemic representation utilized by the American Heritage Dictionary and many other English lexicons), which could, on its own, merit an article. In the event that no AHD system article is made, however, "AHD system" serves as a simple short cut (similar to the useful "otheruses" to the much longer "Wikipedia:Template messages/General") to "Wikipedia:English Phonemic Representation". Any browser of Wikipedia wishing to view the AHD system will find what they are seeking at the enPR page. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 03:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, then this really ought to point at Wiktionary with an interwiki redirect, no? MBisanz ^talk 15:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  - I don't believe so. If I'm sorting this history out correctly, "English Phonemic Representation" is the neologism. American Heritage System's use of the system (with no name that I can find) predated the neologism. So while the system might be encyclopedia-worthy, no one has yet figured out what the correct title should have been. In the meantime, the Wikipedia page is not bound by the rules against neologisms so that page has some value to the project. Wiktionary's adoption of the AHD notation system seems to be a sideline issue, irrelevant either to the naming question or the value of the redirect. Rossami (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep with reservations. I don't like the idea of the target article being hosted off main space but the history of this points to a legitmate use of a cross space redirect. JASpencer (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Banned users → Wikipedia:List of banned users

Improper cross-namespace redirect, redirected material not encyclopedic content. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Retarget to Ban (law) or Block (internet). --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither of these articles refrerences to the banned users policy or list. The most likely use for this redirect would be for banned users. I'd plump for a retarget to a mainspace article if banned users was mentioned there. JASpencer (talk) 08:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

They shouldn't. We should Avoid self-references if at all possible. Ban_(law)#Banning_in_games_and_Internet_Forums, however, does talk about "banned users" in a general context (and there is a hatnote linking the banning policy) --UsaSatsui (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Retarget to Ban (law)#Banning_in_games_and_Internet_Forums. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Retarget per UsaSatsui and Tohd8. It's the best of both words. B.Wind (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The section suggested as a destination above has now been removed as original research, so I say delete this instead - there's nowhere useful now for it to point to. Terraxos (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Block (internet) is still a valid target. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion. If Banned users is retargeted, Banned user should be pointed in the same direction. B.Wind (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2 letter abbreviation → Wikipedia:List of two-letter combinations

Improper cross-namespace redirect, redirected material not encyclopedic content. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding this related redirect: Two letter abbreviation → Wikipedia:List of two-letter combinations --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Another example of a redirect leftover from the pagemove of a page created before the separate namespaces existed. No reasonable possibility that any reader will be looking for anything other than the Wikipedia list page. No obvious harm to keeping this page. Rossami (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I would think a postal abbreviation article like List of U. S. postal abbreviations would be a ebtter redirect than our own internal matrix. Couldn't we just do a modern histmerge and delete it pending someone writing a postal article? MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete and disambiguate. I don't believe that this is a search term that only someone looking for Wikipedia-related info would be looking for. This page would be better off with a list of common 2-letter abbreviations, like postal codes and the like. And I added a similar redirect for discussion as well. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep but redirect to Acronym. Reyk _YO! 04:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- An abbreviation is not the same as an acronym. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] October 15

[edit] Rules to consier/Make only links relevant to the context debate → Wikipedia talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context

This redirect out of article space also appears to have one of the oldest typographical errors still existing in the project (from 2001!). Even if the spelling were correct, the title seems obsolete as it appears to be a subpage of Rules to consier (or even Rules to consider). 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. This is where the page originally existed before being moved. The page was created here long before the creation of the Wikipedia space. Pages this old, especially policy pages that were of interest to academics studying social software, are almost certainly externally linked. Even if you successfully orphan this redirect, it will exist all through history and in those external places. There is no good reason to delete it and several reasonable reasons to keep it. Rossami (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete I consider it highly unlikely that an external source would link to a misspelling like this and any attribution issues can be dealt with via hist merges. MBisanz ^talk 15:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify, external sources did (and presumably still do) link to pages like this. This is where the page existed before being moved. A researcher wanting to point to the page might deplore the misspelling but this is where the link pointed at the time. To your other point, please remember that history-merge only solves the attribution problem. It does not fix all the internal references to the title which remain scattered throughout the pagehistories of the project. Rossami (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Cross namespace redirect from a highly unlikely search term. As for the permanent maintenance of outmoded naming schemes to combat potential linkrot argument, the problem is better handled by solutions such as the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. --Allen3 ^talk 17:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep and tag with {{R with old history}}. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep for inbound links. JASpencer (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, useless cross-namespace redirect. Wizardman 02:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of insects → Category:Insects

The result of the debate was Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirect. Considering that (according to the article Insect, there are about one million described species of insects on our planet, clearly no "list of insects" article could stand on its own. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. It's harmless and it preempts the recreation of the pointless and unmaintainable "list of insects" that anonymous users seem to like to start. Redirects like this are a way to subtly point new users toward the category feature - something they probably didn't know about before. Rossami (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Hist merge will take care of the GFDL req. Categories are not lists and lists are not categories, if we have only one, we don't need to redirect to the other. MBisanz ^talk 15:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep, in that people might well search for this, and the redirect prevents someone trying to create an actual 'list of insects'. Redirects to categories aren't always a good idea, but this one looks fine to me. Terraxos (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Terraxos (talk · contribs). Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep CNR for categories tend to be in a gray area. We generally disallow CNRs because other namespaces are normally not considered encyclopedic content. -- Ned Scott 04:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Bushel and Peck → Category:Units of volume

The result of the debate was Retarget to A Bushel and a Peck. Tikiwont (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirect created four years ago. While this looks like the name of a law firm, it appears that the redirect was targeted this way because of two potential redirect targets (bushel, peck). Needless to say, this is a redirect in search of a valid target, but none is evident. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Errant redirect. MBisanz ^talk 15:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Retarget to A Bushel and a Peck. JASpencer (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Retarget per JASpencer above - the best destination available. Terraxos (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Retarget per JASpencer (talk · contribs). Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a viable option to me. I have no objection to retargeting. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Lists of pieces → Category:Lists of musical works

The result of the debate was keep. Wizardman 21:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Four-year old redirect with a confusing title ("piece" has several meanings in various contexts) - could refer to music, art, or... perhaps something else). It redirects from mainspace to a category. Originally this was a list article with the same confusing out-of-context title, but the sea of redlinks is nothing worth reverting to. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep to ensure compliance with the attribution requirements of GFDL. Looking at the history, the contents of this list were used in the creation of the category and/or the content of other articles. As with the "list of" redirect above, it's harmless and quietly points new users to the category function. Rossami (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Hist merge will take care of the GFDL req. Categories are not lists and lists are not categories, if we have only one, we don't need to redirect to the other. MBisanz ^talk 15:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe you can history-merge to a category. There's no actual page history to merge it with. Rossami (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  - You can histmerge, there is the category description part of the page, so it would function like any other hist merge. MBisanz ^talk 04:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep As well as Rossami's arguments the fact that this is four year old address could have inbound links. JASpencer (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per JASpencer (talk · contribs) above. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep CNR for categories tend to be in a gray area. We generally disallow CNRs because other namespaces are normally not considered encyclopedic content. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Because "piece" has numerous meanings in English (mostly not having anything to do with music), may I suggest a retargeting to Piece, a dab page, as an alternative? 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to piece. All the comments above seem valid to me. Because of the multiple meanings of the word "piece", simply restricting the redirect to one meaning of the word seems inappropriate (and aguably confusing to some, including this chess player who enjoys art while assembling pieces of jigsaw puzzles with my piece nearby). The retargeting will also preserve the history and eliminate the CNR. Now that I've given a piece of my mind... B.Wind (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Wikipolicy → Wikipedia:Five pillars

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 17:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely redirect, many wikis out there, our policies are not theirs. MBisanz ^talk 12:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Per nom. Knippschild (talk) 06:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Longest article → Wikipedia:Longest Wikipedia Article

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 01:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Navel-gazing cross-namespace redirect, unlikely to be content reader is searching for. MBisanz ^talk 12:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Soft redirect to Special:Longpages as current target is also a soft redirect to the same page. "Longest article" is an old redirect, and the special page does indeed present a list of long articles in order of decreasing size. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, this redirect appears to have been created in Feb 2008. (The previously deleted versions were all vandalism and properly deleted as such.) I'm not seeing any history that needs preservation on this page. Longest Wikipedia Article, on the other hand, does have good-faith history going back to 2005. Rossami (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Macquarie Southern Cross Media Radio Stations → Template:MSCMRadio

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, creator permission. MBisanz ^talk 12:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely cross-namespace redirect, unlikely to be content reader is searching for. MBisanz ^talk 12:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Something I forgot to do after renaming/moved it to a template was to delete the original. Bidgee (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Table of all possible TLAs from AAA to DZZ → Wikipedia:TLAs from AAA to DZZ

The result of the debate was delete. Cross-namespace redirects are discouraged by policy. Wizardman 01:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Improper cross-namespace redirect, unlikely to be content reader is searching for. MBisanz ^talk 12:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. My view is that the lists of TLAs should be in mainspace as a navigation tool. At the very least they should be accessible from mainspace. --Rumping (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Tag team editors → Wikipedia:Tag team

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 17:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Improper cross-namespace redirect, unlikely to be content reader is searching for. MBisanz ^talk 12:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - recently created CNR, no history worth preserving. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Celipa → Category:Dragon Ball characters#Doctor_Briefs

The result of the debate was Deleted with the exception of Kui. SkierRMH (talk) 06:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No article in the target category contains the name "Celipa"; otherwise I would have retargeted to such an article. Because of that, it's a confusing redirect and should be deleted. With similar justification, I also nominate:

B.Wind (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Note without recommendation (for now) - some of the above did not have their {{rfd}} tags when I checked. All do now. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think there is anything we can do for most of these redirects I do have a possibile suggestion for Kui (dragonball). Kui appears to be a mispelling of the character Cui and that character is listed on the character page. Also while I am unable to prove it from what I remember in the dub the C in Cui was prounced like a k as in the word cat. In short a retargeting to List of Dragon Ball characters#Cui may be the best option in this case as a plausiable typo. --76.69.171.206 (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete all, unless a justification or appropriate target can be provided for any of them. It's a bad idea in any case to have redirects to categories that refer to just one page in that category; they should just redirect to the page instead, if it exists, and if it doesn't, neither should they. Terraxos (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What about the suggestion for Kui listed above. --76.66.186.47 (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair point: that one can be redirected to List of Dragon Ball characters#Cui as suggested above. Terraxos (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems Kui has been retargeted and we have consensus on the rest. Closing admin, we're ready here! B.Wind (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] October 14

[edit] Bilderbeck's → Mercury poisoning

The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This redirect appears to be an error. I cannot find the name "Bilderbeck's" as a synonym for mercury poisoning in reliable sources. The Google Scholar query "Bilderbeck mercury" comes up empty. The only citations on the web are those derived from Wikipedia. Having this redirect is causing more confusion than it cures. Eubulides (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I did some research and I noticed that I originally had Bilderbeck's redirecting to Acrodynia but due to acrodynia being merged into mercury poisoning, the redirect of bilderbecks must have automatically been redirected to mercury poisoning. I am unsure where I found the source to say that acrodynia = bilderbeck (as it was over a year ago that I did the redirect) but I did a quick search now and managed to find these two sources:

And from a quick scim of those two sources I am unable to see acrodynia to = bilderbeck apart from the individual who perhaps discovered acrodynia to have that surname (but your right it doesn'y actually say bilderbeck as another name for it - it those list a list of other names though).

Good job on picking this up! Feel free to look at my many other redirects if you want (I have made quite a lot) in case I made any other mistakes such as the above. Cheers! Calaka (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete as confusing. Both link sources mentioned above don't have a mention of a "Bilderbeck," but a "Bilderback" instead. This is the crux of the confusion and the zero entries in the Google search. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] L.M. Barack M.O. → Barack Obama

The result of the debate was delete

Despite the indication by the creator of "believe it or not, i've heard him called this before" I am more inclined to find it a really really limited neologism. I can not even find any mention of it anywhere, nor what it could possible stand for. If nothing else it is so convoluted to be useless. –– Lid^(Talk) 06:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Term (in quotes, both with and without spaces between initials) earns the Golden Donut award in a Google search. Tagged as CSD G1. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Article speedily deleted under CSD R3 - implausible redirect Thingg^⊕^⊗ 16:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Toma (Dragon Ball) → Category:Dragon Ball characters

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 17:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Name appears nowhere in any article in the target category (there is a List of Dragon Ball Characters in the category, but there's no "Toma" inside). I could find no alternative as a target, so putting this wayward redirect out of it misery seems the most appropriate action. B.Wind (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete A confusing redirect. Midorihana みどりはな 03:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete unless someone suggests an appropriate target. Terraxos (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

DOn;t understand but http://www.mininova.org/tor/856243 Suggests that Dragon Ball: Sleeping Princess in Devil's Castle is a better target. Rich Farmbrough, 02:24 21 October 2008 (UTC).

No occurrence of Toma or Tora appearing in the character list in Dragon Ball: Sleeping Princess in Devil's Castle, however. B.Wind (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikia is your friend. http://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/Toma - there are two dubs of the films, the FUNnation one has Tora the other Toma. Rich Farmbrough, 02:27 21 October 2008 (UTC).

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Trade union/Summary → Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Summaries/Trade union/Summary

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 17:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirect created in 2007 as a result of a pagemove. Trivial history. Title does not comply with Wikipedia naming conventiion. Linked only to three User pages and a Wikiproject transclusion. In the context of the target, unlikely to be a search item (one can also make a similar argument on this last point for the target, but this would be outside RfD purview. B.Wind (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Bad CNR. MBisanz ^talk 19:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Wikimoney → Wikipedia:WikiMoney

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 17:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely crossnamespace redirect, historical page targeted. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep, in that this title is unlikely to be used for an article; whereas the wikipedia term is just about a plausible search term. Terraxos (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as a CNR to a historical non-policy page. matt br 10:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Wikipedia utilities/Pages to be rewritten or deleted → Wikipedia:Pages needing attention

The result of the debate was keep. Wizardman 21:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Malformed, unlikely cross-namespace redirect MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep to maintain significant history, which is the only reason to save this page whose name has become obsolete. B.Wind (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Couldn't this page be moved to Wikipedia:utilities/Pages to be rewritten or deleted and the resulting redirect deleted? This would preserve page history and get it in the right namespace. MBisanz ^talk 08:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  - That seems implausible for two reasons (besides the noncapitalized U). Wikipedia:Utilities is an inactive page and (according to the top of the page) itself undergoing a merge. In addition, it would be creating an active redirect with the name of a subpage of an inactive page. A histmerge to another redirect (similar to one recently done for a redirect to George W. Bush) might be a better way to go, but it also has its problems. B.Wind (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep to preserve the history of this very old page. It long predates the creation of the separate namespaces. There is a chance that links to the page still exist and no value to breaking them. Rossami (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Might be worth a history merge, as it seems that [10] turned into [11] --Rumping (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  - History-merge can ensure compliance with GFDL but does nothing to address the problem of link rot. Rossami (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] How does one edit a page/Redirect traffic from one page to another page → Wikipedia:Redirect

Unlikely improper cross-namespace redirect MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep per discussion in 2007 RfD. Rossami's argument for preserving the history is most persuasive. B.Wind (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep, per WP:RFD#HARMFUL. It documents the history of a page move, and is pretty old. Midorihana みどりはな 03:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- It could always be hist-merged with the current page, or page moved to a Wikipedia: title with the new redirect deleted for GFDL purposes. MBisanz ^talk 08:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep again. This old page still has links scattered all over the project's history and likely has external links. Hist-merging solves the problem of GFDL attribution history but not the problem of link rot. Rossami (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Cross-namespace. Try to hist-merge to save the history. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, not really useful for anything. Wizardman 21:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I looked through the discussion from 2007, but still don't see why to keep this. It's completely implausible both as a link and as a type location. There's no reason I can see to keep links working that only exist in page histories. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Luka Jacov → Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Luka Jačov

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely, improper cross-namespace redirect, possible BLP implications MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - there's a difference between Luka Jacov and User:Luka Jacov (the latter redirecting to User:Luka Jačov) for Wikipedia purposes. This redirect blurs the line between articles and user pages, and this should not be permitted to continue. B.Wind (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Pavilion Hotel → The Pavilion (Vermont)

The result of the debate was converted to dab. Anon's concern was addressed by the dab page. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Encountered this one while I was renaming the original target, The Pavilion (government building). The problem is that The Pavilion Hotel is a hotel in Nebraska (and this has a link from National Register of Historic Places listings in Nebraska). There seems no apparent alternative for redirection here. B.Wind (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - confusing redirect: is the hotel in Vermont or Nebraska? 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep I created a disambiguation page with the above information as it would have taken as long as a vote. JASpencer (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep as disambiguation page. Rossami (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Before you list a redirect for deletion...

[edit] The guiding principles of RfD

[edit] When should we delete a redirect?

[edit] Reasons for deleting

[edit] Reasons for not deleting

[edit] Neutrality of redirects

[edit] Closing notes

[edit] How to list a redirect for deletion

[edit] Current list

[edit] October 29

[edit] Wikipedia almanac → Wikipedia:Almanac

[edit] Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians → Wikipedia:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians

[edit] Prominent marxists → Category:Marxist theorists

[edit] Cat:Language icons → Category:Language icons

[edit] October 28

[edit] Category:WikiProject Black Metal Members → Category:WikiProject Black Metal members

[edit] Brilliant prose → Wikipedia:Featured articles

[edit] 800 years → Category:Irish rebellions

[edit] Album project → Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums

[edit] Assyro-Chaldeans/miniproject → Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Syriac Christianity work group

[edit] October 27

[edit] List of ABC shows (disambiguation) → List of ABC shows

[edit] Heliogabalus (God) → Elagabalus (deity)

[edit] Sentouryoku → Dragon Ball

[edit] Walker Methodist Health Center → Minneapolis

[edit] Murderapolis → Minneapolis

[edit] American Coot Northern Shoveler → Northern Shoveler

[edit] A Little Town in France → Indianapolis

[edit] Wikipedia:CANDISH CANTTAKE → Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars

[edit] nonsensal → nonsense

[edit] Do not want → Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith#Releases

[edit] David Lee (guitarist) → Th' Legendary Shack Shakers

[edit] Ballet redirects

[edit] Bodymore, Murderland → Baltimore

[edit] Baltimorons → Baltimore

[edit] Editing Template:User Maryland Import/animated → Template:User Maryland Import/animated

[edit] Drug test/Temp → Drug test

[edit] CT:INV → Category talk:Articles with invalid ISBNs

[edit] CT:Tasmania → Category talk:Tasmania Portal

[edit] 0.7 FILMS → Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Wikipedia 0.7

[edit] WM:TEMP → Help:Template

[edit] Pokemom → Pokemon

[edit] October 26

[edit] Nuclear cannibalsim → Energy cannibalism

[edit] Eddie Perez (criminal) → Eddie Pérez (politician)

[edit] Q (''James Bond'' character) → Q (James Bond)

[edit] As of 1996 → 1996

[edit] Polymer Vision → Philips

[edit] Readius → Philips

[edit] Manthey Racing → Porsche in motorsport

[edit] Scuderia Filipinetti → List of Formula One constructors

[edit] Wikipedia administrator → Wikipedia:Administrators

[edit] Factual Accuracy → Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute

[edit] Wikpedia:Abuse reports → Wikipedia:Abuse reports

[edit] Requests for assessment → Wikipedia:Article assessment

[edit] October 25

[edit] Squashed bugs → Wikipedia:Squashed bugs

[edit] Spoken articles → Category:Spoken articles

[edit] Spanish European Commissioner → Category:Spanish European Commissioners

[edit] South Pacific ocean Tropical Cyclone Intensity Scale → Template:South Pacific ocean Tropical Cyclone Intensity Scale

[edit] El-Manial → Cairo

[edit] Phil Fartman → Phil Hartman

[edit] Cake number → Fair division

[edit] Template:NGC 92 → Template:Robert's Quartet

[edit] How to rename a page → Help:Moving a page

[edit] October 24

[edit] Wikiproject Metal → Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal

[edit] Wikiproject cpp → Wikipedia:WikiProject Cal Poly Pomona

[edit] Kannadasan spirit → Eraaa 2008 Film

[edit] Dhigil → Eraaa 2008 Film

[edit] Spirit lyrics → Eraaa 2008 Film

[edit] Member page → Help:Logging in

[edit] Mangal font → Wikipedia:Sandbox/Mangal Font

[edit] Loyola Educational Institutes → Category:Educational institutions named for Saint Ignatius Loyola

[edit] Make a page → Wikipedia:Sandbox

[edit] October 23

[edit] Keiko armor → Bōgu