Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Skip to Table of Contents. Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page
Shortcut:
Deletion discussions

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: If you want to move a page but a redirect to that page is preventing this, do not list it here. Place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests and an administrator will perform the move.

Note: Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as the only 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.

Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals
Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Contents

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

Before listing a redirect for discussion, please familiarize yourself with the following:

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

  • 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 enter 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. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • 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.
  • Try to consider whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader when discussing.

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

Shortcut:

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old (or a redirect is created as a result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), 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.

Note that there could exist (for example), links to the URL "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorneygate" anywhere on the internet. If so, then those links might not show up by checking for (clicking on) "WhatLinksHere" for "Attorneygate"—since those links might come from somewhere outside Wikipedia.

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

Shortcut:

Reasons for deleting[edit]

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):

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. 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 the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 may apply.) See also: #Neutrality of redirects
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange. (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. 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 are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to itself or to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Improbable typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created.
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then it needs to be deleted to make way for move.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. In such a case, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself.
Shortcut:

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history, or edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, 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.
  2. 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.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, if someone sees the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but does not know what that refers to, then he or she will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. Old CamelCase links and old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them.
  5. 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 being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.
  6. The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form, or to some other grammatical form.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut:

Just like article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. 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. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
  2. 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 now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the 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 because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream 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.

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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).

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Shortcut:

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

I.
Tag the redirect.

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

{{subst:rfd}}
#REDIRECT [[Foo]]
  • 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]]
  • Save the page.
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
II.
List the entry on RfD.

 Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For the template in the previous step:
    • 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=".
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after "text=").
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:rfd2m|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:rfd2m|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • Please consider using What links here 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|RedirectName}} ~~~~

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

Current list[edit]

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

June 19[edit]

Laura Arrillaga Andreessen[edit]

Request deleting this redirect page. It's no longer needed, as there is now a Wiki article on her using the correct spelling of her name (with the hyphen). The redirect uses an incorrect spelling of her name. It could cause confusion and is preventing the new article from showing up in Google search results. JNorman704 (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Homeless veterans[edit]

There's almost definitely enough information on homeless veterans to justify a proper article here, meaning that this is better as a redlink than a redirect. Especially seeing as there's no real good target for this—redirecting to a related advocacy group is like if we had violence against women as a redirect to a particular womens' charity. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 04:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Wilson Park, Philadelphia[edit]

Target does not mention Wilson Park Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Tasker, Philadelphia[edit]

Target does not mention Tasker Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Greenwich, Philadelphia[edit]

Target does not mention Greenwich. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


Custer Terrace, Georgia[edit]

Article does not mention Custer Terrace or Fortson. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


June 18[edit]

Kane is his common name[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per G7 and R3. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Unlikely article name created when an editor was moving an article - moved again immediately. noq (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  • As the creator of this unfortunate redirect, I want it to be deleted immediately. It was an accident and a redirect does no good for the actual article.LM2000 (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Cure for ataxia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Author has converted it into a very short article. Will nominate at AfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirect implies that the target is a "cure" for ataxia when all of the content indicates that it is only a treatment to ameliorate symptoms. "Cure" has a specific medical definition and this redirect is therefore misleading. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Cure for cerebellar ataxia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Author has converted it into a very short article. Will nominate at AfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirect implies that the target is a "cure" for ataxia when all of the content indicates that it is only a treatment to ameliorate symptoms. "Cure" has a specific medical definition and this redirect is therefore misleading. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

ATAXIA CURE[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Author has converted it into a very short article. Will nominate at AfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirect implies that the target is a "cure" for ataxia when all of the content indicates that it is only a treatment to ameliorate symptoms. "Cure" has a specific medical definition and this redirect is therefore misleading. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. I will specifically state there is no cure in the article. Cheers. Fletcherbrian 15:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fletcherbrian (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Spud gun (version 2)[edit]

Highly improbable redirect name. uKER (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Bass.jpg[edit]

This is a 'generic' name that should be salted. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Anti-choice[edit]

Anti-choice is a POV redirect to United States pro-life movement. I am aware that non-neutral redirects are expressly permitted and I am not requesting that this be deleted. The term "anti-choice" is highly notable and needs to stay. I am merely trying to make it redirect to a more discerning article or section. There seem to be two main problems:

  1. This pejorative redirect is going against a trend (if not a policy) in Wikipedia that I brought up in another RfD. Of the 13 pejorative redirects I could find, only 2 took this approach of "redirecting, no questions asked." The other 11 had some way of presenting the user with a disclaimer upon redirecting which I think is better.
  2. The idea that "pro-life = anti-choice" is a mistruth. As mentioned in the abortion debate terminology section and various articles about opinion polls, many people who condemn the morality of abortion still wish for it to remain legal (full disclosure: I consider myself part of this group). A possible refutation of this argument is that the redirect is not implying "pro-life sentiments = anti-choice", it is implying "pro-life movement = anti-choice" which is different. A pro-life person associated with the movement is much less likely to be one of the "pro-choice and pro-life" people than an average pro-life person. Nevertheless, I think anti-choice should link to some place that makes this distinction.

There used to be an article called Opposition to legal abortion. This would have satisfied problem 2 above because the article (or at least the title) is already making it clear that it is not all pro-life people being referred to but the subset of them who also seek to ban abortion. However, because the article on Opposition to legal abortion was written almost exclusively about the United States pro-life movement, it was renamed to this in November 2012. At the very least, this makes it uncertain as to whether the result of the December 2011 discussion concerning this redirect still applies.

Proposed solution: We should retarget Anti-choice to United States pro-life movement#Controversies over terminology. This is almost the same; the user just has to scroll up if he or she wants to read from the beginning. However, this would bring Anti-choice in line with what the other pejorative redirects do by providing a description of the term itself. Moreover, I happen to like the description that is there because it mentions that not all pro-life Americans support having a legal ban. The only downside as I see it is the focus on the US. However, Anti-abortion movements, perhaps intentionally, does not have a section on terminology. Connor Behan (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure I have an opinion on the principle, but I oppose any solution that does not hit every redirect in this category, eg. pro-death, anti-life. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Pro-death and anti-life link to disambiguation pages because those terms also have to do with the capital punishment debate. The other term I can think of right now is pro-coercion. It redirects to abortion debate but it should be changed to redirect to the same place as anti-choice. Connor Behan (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Pro-choice[edit]

Redirects about hot topics that are likely to be discussed should have their own talk pages. Pro-choice has a redirecting talk page which I think should be deleted. Moreover the talk page redirect is inconsistent. Pro-choice redirects to Abortion-rights movements (as it should) but Talk:Pro-choice redirects to Talk:United States pro-choice movement, not Talk:Abortion-rights movements. Please delete the redirect, or at least make it consistent if you think that deletion is not appropriate. Connor Behan (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Unrelated. The discussion was about the names of abortion articles, not talk pages of redirects to abortion articles. It is a nuisance when articles lack talk pages and this includes redirects. Connor Behan (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is useful to host a talk page of a redirect, ever. Such a talk page gets lost to wider views, and only those who have the old article or talk page on their watchlist will see any discussion. I think in every case a redirected article name should be accompanied by a redirected talk page. "Hot" topics don't get different treatment. Binksternet (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Convert into a real talk page, with an information box at the top indicating places to go to discuss the related topics. Add a big red banner to say that the talk page is only to be used to discuss the redirect itself. Then tag with the various project banners as "|class=redirect" ; there have been lively debates on redirect talk pages about the redirects themselves, and they should stay at those pages, since placing those discussions at the target talk page would be misleading, and when redirects are changed to be about something else, then the talk page redirect mistakenly redirects people to the wrong page, where all sorts of misplaced discussions occur all the time, because people click on talk and the new discussion without checking where they ended up. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Pro-life[edit]

Unlike with most other redirects I have seen, the talk page for Pro-life points to the talk page for the article it redirects to. This impedes a user's ability to talk about the redirect itself as I recently had cause to do. Please delete this redirect. Connor Behan (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Unrelated. The discussion was about the names of abortion articles, not talk pages of redirects to abortion articles. It is a nuisance when articles lack talk pages and this includes redirects. Connor Behan (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Convert into a real talk page, with an information box at the top indicating places to go to discuss the related topics. Add a big red banner to say that the talk page is only to be used to discuss the redirect itself. Then tag with the various project banners as "|class=redirect" ; there have been lively debates on redirect talk pages about the redirects themselves, and they should stay at those pages, since placing those discussions at the target talk page would be misleading, and when redirects are changed to be about something else, then the talk page redirect mistakenly redirects people to the wrong page, where all sorts of misplaced discussions occur all the time, because people click on talk and the new discussion without checking where they ended up. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Pro-life[edit]

Pro-choice redirects to Abortion-rights movements but pro-life does not redirect to Anti-abortion movements. Instead it redirects to United States pro-life movement, an example of regional bias. A possible reason for this is that a few of the people who took part in a large discussion seemed to think that the term "pro-life" is unique to the US. This is not true, it is easy to find "pro-life" mentioned in news articles, discussion threads, advocacy group homepages etc that are about other English speaking countries and hosted in other English speaking countries (.co.uk domains, .au domains and so on). Please make pro-life point to anti-abortion movements. Connor Behan (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hefemale[edit]

Hefemale redirects to trans man (a female-to-male transgender person) without a discussion about whether people should or should not use the term. I have looked at all of the entries in Category:Pejoratives excluding Category:Reclaimed words and most of them have dedicated articles about the offensive words. Only 13 of them are redirects. Hefemale is one of the two pejorative redirects that Wikipedia seems to be implicitly legitimizing in this way (the other is anti-choice, a topic for another discussion). Either by consensus or coincidence, pejorative redirects are usually handled differently. The other 11 are:

  1. A word - redirects to an article about a similar word
  2. Chonger - redirects to an article about a similar word
  3. He-she - redirects to a section about a similar word
  4. L word - redirects to a section about a similar word
  5. Lamestream media - redirects to a section discussing the term
  6. Muzzie - redirects to a list of ethnic slurs
  7. Name slur - redirects to an article about pejoratives
  8. Quack - redirects to an article about a similar word
  9. Russki - redirects to a list of ethnic slurs
  10. Schemie - redirects to an article about a similar word
  11. Soviet Canuckistan - redirects to a section discussing the term

I can think of two ways to resolve this. One is to write a sentence about "hefemale" in Trans man#Terminology and have it link to that section. The other is to delete the "hefemale" redirect if the term is not notable enough to be mentioned in Trans man. I'm no expert but it seems like this term is not notable at all. Wiktionary lists it as rarely used and Google turns up many forum threads asking if "hefemale" is even a real word. Connor Behan (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Eastern Virginia[edit]

Virginia population map.png

The primary topic would be the Eastern part of Virginia (Tidewater region of Virginia) Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

June 17[edit]

Guerrilla Jiu-Jitsu[edit]

Guerrilla Jiu-Jitsu currently redirects to American Kickboxing Academy, this made some sense when Dave Camarillo the founder of Guerrilla Jiu-Jitsu was the head grappling trainer at AKA. However with this no longer being the case the redirect should be deleted. Phospheros (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ahmed Ziauddin[edit]

Deletion discussion for this article was delete not redirect. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep: Fresh content was added to the target of the redirect after the AfDs. Crtew (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
A new section to the above article highlights Ziuddin's role in the event. 2012 ICT Skype controversy#Ahmed Ziauddin
As per the 2 AfD discussions, most contributors for deletion said he was a 1E, and the redirect was put up in that spirit and directed to that 1E section in event articel. The other argument for keep was that he was a significant player in this event. He is also mentioned and linked in multiple articles throughout WP that all have to do with the same event.
The above user is the nominator of the both attempts to delete his entry and seems bent on expunging.
WP is not censored. (reedited for clarity) Crtew (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep, he has a section in the target article. Cavarrone 05:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep I think you misunderstood the AfD. No one actually argued a redirect was inappropriate, and given that the closer gave BLP1E as the rationale, there's little reason to think a redirect would be a runaround. I'll contact that closing admin to see if he wants to comment here. --BDD (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I Got This Feeling (Baby Bumps song)[edit]

This song appears to sample the target song, but it's not mentioned anywhere on the target article, so this is unhelpful and confusing as a redirect. BDD (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Store robbery[edit]

Delete. Newly created, incorrect link by the creator of multiple absurd redirects. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Retarget redirect to simply robbery. Someone might search for such, however what it is currently linked to is not right. 4.238.1.127 (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Bank burglary[edit]

Delete. Technically incorrect, improbable, newly created, redirect by a known creator of absurd redirects. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep Plausible search term. I understand there's a legal distinction between burglary and robbery, but it doesn't really exist in common usage. --BDD (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    But nobody uses the term "bank burglary"; [[WP:COMMONNAME|common usage]] is not helpful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    The first ten google hits for "bank burglary" (at least, in my localization) are accurate; they were describing burglary, not robbery. There would need to be some likelihood of the incorrect usage, for this redirect to be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
But do you think it likely that bank burglary is ever going to have its own article? If not, wouldn't you say a reader who does search for "bank burglary" will have his or her needs at least partially served by the target article? --BDD (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps a redirect to burglary, instead of deleting. That is, if anyone other than Voortle, who has more deleted edits than undeleted edits, thinks it's a plausible search key. As it stands, it almost qualifies for {{db-redirmisnomer}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Disability swimming[edit]

User:Memasa has contended that there is something unique about "Disability swimming" in comparison to "Paralympic swimming". I don't know exactly what the editor contends, but the editor wanted a discussion like this opened. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

See talk page for more details. Thanks to ViperSnake151 for nominating this. If you need more argumentation, let me know. Memasa (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Since English isn't my mother tongue there might be some differences in terminology which I haven't realized. Memasa (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

But disability swimming on a general level would deserve its own article, I think Memasa (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

But if paralympic swimming and disability swimming are synonymous, I have to say it's a bit misleading to say the least. Memasa (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If they happen to be synonymous Paralympic swimming should, in my opinion, be renamed as Disability swimming. But I remind you again that English isn't my first language. Memasa (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Disability swimming is, for all practical purpose, Paralympic swimming. The redirect should stand unless enough reliable sources are found describing it simply as Disability Swimming (or something similar). GenQuest "Talk to Me" 17:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Paralympic swimming makes me think of Swimming at the Summer Paralympics which isn't the purpose. But maybe it's just me. Memasa (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
If this is the case not all paralympic swimmers are paralympians. Quite contradictory. Memasa (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I know this isn't a reliable source for the term: List of IPC world records in swimming. Memasa (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
All three projects have been notified. Memasa (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I know why paralympic swimming is called paralympic swimming. But is it the best and only choice, that is the question? Memasa (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

June 16[edit]

Joel DiBartolo[edit]

No apparent reason for redirect to the TV show. If anything, it should redirect to the article on The Tonight Show Band, but hardly seems necessary either. Either the guy is sufficiently relevant to "deserve" his own article or he isn't, but redirecting in this case just ends up with everyone going round in circles. Technopat (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose - the fact that the nominator ahs said "Either the guy is sufficiently relevant to "deserve" his own article or he isn't" shows a complete lack of understanding of redirects. GiantSnowman 09:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Unnecessary unconstructive criticism apart, given your earlier reversal of my "prod", I can only conlude that you seem to have missed the point. The point is, and sorry if this is repetitive, that I can see no reason whatsoever for redirecting to the actual TV show. The musician in question did not, as far as I know, appear on the show as a guest artist but, apparently, as a member of the The Tonight Show Band. It would obviously have been much easier for me to simply modify the redirect, but I thought it would be better to get other people's input, hence the "prod". --Technopat (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
      • If you were really seekung the input of others, you would have taken to AFD rather than PROD. Furthermore, your PROD was not valid as it was not placed on an article. However, if your concern is with the destination of the redirect, rather than the principle of it, then why not simply change the redirect to The Tonight Show Band? GiantSnowman 11:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Please AGF ("If you were really..."). I chose "prod" for two reasons: a) because the page obviously does not "meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion", and b) "PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected." (i.e., as it seemed to me pretty clearcut, I didn't expect any serious objection). As to whether the "prod" was valid or not because "it was not placed on an article", I bow to your obvious superior knowledge, as an admin., of the corresponding policies. However, now you come out with "why not simply change the redirect to The Tonight Show Band?" OK, so, where do we go from here? Do I take it that there is no further opposition to redirecting it to The Tonight Show Band, which was my original option B, before you reverted? Do I redirect to The Tonight Show Band, or do you sort it out as an admin.? --Technopat (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
          • It's hard to AGF when you contradict yourself - you say you wanted to "get other people's input" and yet "didn't expect any serious objection"? Also I have never reverted a redirect to The Tonight Show Band, please retract that accusation. I suggest waiting for further input, there is no rush. GiantSnowman 09:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) No contradiction whatsoever. No accusation whatsoever. However, just to avoid any possible misunderstanding, I'll rephrase the above question: "Do I take it that there is no further opposition to redirecting it to The Tonight Show Band, which was my original option B, before you reverted my "prod" and told me (in your edit summary) to raise the issue here? --Technopat (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. You placed a PROD on a redirect. Redirects are not eligible for PRODs, so I removed it. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't take it so personally. If you had wanted to change the redirect, then you should have been WP:BOLD and done it. As for the "no further opposition", we can't be sure, this has only been open for 24 hours. Let it run. GiantSnowman 10:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Kansas City Penguins[edit]

Completely implausible search term for a team that never has existed. Created by an editor whose edit history is vitally concerned with Kansas City sport. Ravenswing 21:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

TV18[edit]

TV18 (India) appears to be the only entity called "TV18", as opposed to "Channel 18" or other variants. TV18 should either point to TV18 (India), or the latter page be moved to the former name. A hatnote to Channel 18 can disambiguate. Cnilep (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose "TV18", "Antenna 18", "UHF 18", "Cable 18" etc are common variants on the term "channel 18" -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

June 15[edit]

Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy[edit]

I think these redirects should be kept. There has been a recent effort to have it redirect to Todd Akin. I think this redirect gives the reader what they are looking for. Casprings (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep (?), by which I mean they should point to the relevant section of Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. The Todd Akin article seems to use summary style in such a way that the relevant section of the "controversies" article functions as a sub-article of the Akin article, which goes into more depth than size and weight constraints on the Akin article would allow. It seems commonsensical for these to point to the target which contains substantially more information. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep as they are, especially Legitimate rape. It is pretty obvious that someone who search for these specific topics should be redirected to the main topic about the controversity and not to the Akin's biography. Cavarrone 05:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep at least until someone makes an article for the L&O: SVU episode "Legitimate Rape". Connor Behan (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - all useful redirects for visitors using the search field. Cwobeel (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Surrender of Pakistan[edit]

It's redundant and unnecessary. It is not according to the WP:NPOV. And is almost the same to the article, to which it redirects. Faizan 15:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep - May I know why you reposted this RfD after withdrawing it few hours earlier? --Zayeem (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, its mentioned above that not being neutral is not sufficient to delete a redirect. You will need a better reason.--174.93.167.9 (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Restored comments from RFD started earlier today and removed when same editor withdrew the nomination. GB fan 17:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep It's the most commonly used term to refer to the event. A simple Google search produces thousands of results.--ArmanJ (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  • Delete: This is a non-NPOV case to me obvious Conflict of interest and pov pushing. 86.151.237.220 (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)IP sock of Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. Non-NPOV is not a sufficient reason to delete a redirect. Tideflat (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep weird RFD actions seems to mean keeping is the better option, for atleast the next 3 months. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. How is this a matter of neutrality? Pakistan quite obviously surrendered via the Instrument of Surrender (1971), and WP:RNEUTRAL isn't even an issue. Nyttend (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Procedural Speedy Keep as pointed above a few hours ago the nominator deleted a previous discussion that was going to be closed as kept with the edit summary "withdrawing". [1] Now he is opening a new discussion with identical arguments. Speedy close and trout the nominator for his attempt of gaming the system. Cavarrone 05:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Polish School of history of ideas[edit]

Last month, someone moved the target article into three different namespaces; it ended up as a template and remained there until I moved it back a few minutes ago. This would qualify for G6, "Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace", but it sat there for a few weeks; however, I don't see people searching for this target or typing the URL when they want the article. Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Polish School of history od ideas[edit]

Last month, someone moved the target article into templatespace, but made a typo in the title, so after a few minutes it got moved to "history of ideas". Doesn't qualify for speedy, but nobody's going to use a redirect that's (1) in the wrong namespace, (2) just created a few weeks ago, and (3) only was the title of the page for a few minutes. Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

List of smosh's videos[edit]

Delete. Unlikely search term, and the list doesn't exist. 117Avenue (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the link doesn't exist"? What link? Nyttend (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
There is no list of Smosh videos on Wikipedia. 117Avenue (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Food Battle 2006[edit]

Delete. Individual videos are not mentioned on the target article because they are not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The Epic Battle: Jesus vs. Cyborg Satan[edit]

Delete. Individual videos are not mentioned on the target article because they are not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

TMNT theme (Smosh)[edit]

Delete. Individual videos are not mentioned on the target article because they are not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Battleship (Smosh)[edit]

Delete. Individual videos are not mentioned on the target article because they are not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Transformers Theme Music Video[edit]

Delete. Individual videos are not mentioned on the target article because they are not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Smosh Short 1: Dolls[edit]

Delete. Individual videos are not mentioned on the target article because they are not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The California Stereotype Experiment[edit]

Delete. Individual videos are not mentioned on the target article because they are not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Boxman (character)[edit]

Delete. No mention in article. 117Avenue (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The Best Car EVER[edit]

Delete. Individual videos are not mentioned on the target article because they are not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Ian Is Pregnant[edit]

Delete. Individual videos are not mentioned on the target article because they are not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Peter O'Reilly/Comments[edit]

Comments subpages are deprecated per this discussion and this is just an uneeded and implausible redirect. Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

June 14[edit]

PRiSM[edit]

As suggested at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PRiSM, I've created PRiSM (project management) to replace this in the meantime. Widefox; talk 18:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

  • This should have probably waited until after the AfD on the management method was closed. Having two deletion notices on the same page can be really confusing. I'm not sure what the particular spelling "PRiSM" should redirect to. It looks like the management company GPM Global is not likely to be notable enough for Wikipedia, so the redirect would have been deleted as WP:CSD#G8 thereafter, so the page could be reused for redirecting somewhere else. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Competing confusion - disambiguating the high profile topic from this arguable non-notable topic both for readers and experienced editors at the AfD. I've done my best at the DAB Prism. The original AfD should be moved to the new article's location, and this redirect considered separately. I considered waiting for the AfD impractical considering the ambiguous confusion created at the AfD, and another editors concern (at the AfD) over reader confusion, considering the high profile in the news of the new article. I decided to WP:IAR. Widefox; talk 10:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

List of autostereotypes by nation[edit]

There is no such list in the target article. Either find a better target, or delete. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

June 13[edit]

Snark (punctuation)[edit]

The term "snark" is not used or mentioned in the target article; formerly it was, but the relevant section was removed in 2010 for sourcing/significance concerns. Seeing as how there's no link to the term "snark" in the article now, and the redirect is currently unused anyway, this redirect should be removed; a redirect with a parethesized dab thingy is nto going to behelpful outside of wikilinks, and there are no wikilinks where it could be used. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep, The page was viewed 351 times back in April, so I think we should definitely keep it. Tideflat (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete, not mentioned at target, so no help to anyone who uses it. Siuenti (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Brissalius caparti[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was deleted by INeverCry. --BDD (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong redirect Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Luke Thomas[edit]

At one time a child named Luke Thomas was killed at Eastern Commerce Collegiate Institute. That content was moved into the Eastern Commerce article, but has since been removed. Now we have a redirect from Luke Thomas to Eastern Commerce for no apparent reason. I think it makes sense to delete the redirect so the namespace is empty for new use. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

June 12[edit]

Plaintiff in error[edit]

Delete per WP:REDLINK. The targeted section doesn't exist anymore, and the phrase isn't mentioned in that article or at Plaintiff. The phrase was transwiki'd to Wiktionary a long time ago, so a soft redirect may be appropriate instead. BDD (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

NYC BABY![edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Test page Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 13:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

New your city[edit]

Misspelling Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 13:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ciudad Nueva York[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Spanish redirect Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 13:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is English Wikipedia, and Spanish-language redirects are not needed for this topic. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ciudad de Nueva York[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Spanish redirect Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 13:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is English Wikipedia, and Spanish-language redirects are not needed for this topic. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nueva York (ciudad)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Spanish redirect Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 13:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is English Wikipedia, and Spanish-language redirects are not needed for this topic. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

New Yourk City[edit]

Test page Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 13:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. This one gets traffic. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I created both this redirect and "New Yourk, New Yourk." They are not test pages, and I don't appreciate such an insult to my work: you practically just called me a vandal. I think both misspellings are common and understandable enough; note that a Google search for "new yourk" turns up 489,000 hits. szyslak (t) 22:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment is this supposed to be Brooklyn English? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep, typical R From Misspelling. Cavarrone 10:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
If this is a typical "mispelling", perhaps we should also create redirects for "New Pork", "Noo Pork", "Noo Dork", Poo Cork" and any variation of the above. Are they not teaching Inglysh in skools aneemoor? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Your argument is silly. "New Yourk" is an understandable misspelling, "Noo Pork" or "Poo Cork" obviously not. Cavarrone 21:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
New York is so well known worldwide that such a misspelling is only understandable if the reader is functionally illiterate. The point of my examples, which are no more silly than "yourk", is that we can create redirects for every possible misspelling but we limit them to plausible cases. That a few people may have typed such misspellings doesn't make them any more plausible than other examples such as Melbouring (Melbourne), Sydelly (courtesy of Juan Antonio Samaranch's 2000 Summer Olympics announcement) or Unyted Staytes. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned above, half a million Google hits make this specific case plausible and not so rare. And AGF, it could easily be a typo error, not depending from being "functionally illiterate" (in fact, R from misspelling refers to " misspelling or typographical error"). Your examples have not the same strength, as Sydelly and Melbouring have a few hundreds of Google hits and for the main part (if not all) they don't refer to the related places. Cavarrone 05:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:GOOGLEHITS, "a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". A quick look reveals that many of those hits have nothing to do New York City itself. There are links to a dog kennel, a hotel in Las Vegas and so on. In any case, the number of google hits really has nothing to do with a redirect. They might have some relevance if the redirect was an article, but it isn't. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
1) WP:GOOGLEHITS refers to notability and has nothing to do with a redirect from misspelling, 2) the main part of the Google hits refers to New York, if you says otherwise you are in bad faith, 3) A New York dog kennel called "New Yourk Dog" is clearly a wordplay based on New York. Cavarrone 08:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways. You can't justify retention of a redirect based on the number of ghits without accepting what WP:GOOGLEHITS says. Redirects are still articles - they're in article space (they're simply redirected articles), so GOOGLEHITS still applies. They New York dog kennel is not New York, so the fact that somebody has misspelled the city's name in order to create a business name is not justification to keep this redirect, any more than the Las Vegas hotel. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Redirects are not articles, not everything in article space is an article (see Wikipedia:Article namespace). Notability does not apply to redirects, and certainly not to now "notable" a misspelling is for the purposes of redirects from misspelling. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
To get back on track, my point was (and still is) that the number of google hits is irrelevant to whether or not this redirect should be kept. Clearly the people looking for dog kennels or Las Vegas hotels aren't looking for New York city based on traffic. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
To get back on track, the main part of the half a million google hits is patently related to New York City (even excluding nine-tenths of unrelated results, we would have the impressive number of 50,000 hits!) and Wikipedia stats document that "New Yourk City" is used as a search-term about 300 times a month [2], [3], [4]. There are no other significant results for the search-term ([5]). Your main argument is an outright rejection of the concept of redirect from misspelling, but obviously this is not the place for this discussion. Cavarrone 19:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete See my comments above. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep People are using it, and the target article very likely is where they want to end up; thus, it's useful and should be kept. Also, WP:CHEAP applies. Sideways713 (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

New Yourk, New Yourk[edit]

Test page Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 13:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete. Two typos make it unlikely to be searched, and the traffic reflects this. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment is this supposed to be Brooklyn English? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I didn't intend this as a representation of Brooklyn English or any other form of "eye dialect." szyslak (t) 22:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • See my comments on "#New Yourk City", above. szyslak (t) 22:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - See my comments above at #New Yourk City. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Fun city[edit]

Test page Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 13:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is a plausible search term that is seeing actual use. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • disambiguate many cities are "Fun City" such as Las Vegas and Atlantic City and Vansterdam and Sin City of Canada, etc. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per above sound analysis. Many cities are referred as "Fun City". Cavarrone 10:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. The list of cities not known as "Fun City" is probably shorter than the list of cities known as "Fun City". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Too generic a term, even for a disambiguation page. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The City So Nice They Named It Twice[edit]

Test page, redirect Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 13:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

November Yankee Charlie[edit]

Test page, redirect Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 13:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. Not a likely search term. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete, pointless. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak keep phonetic alphabetic spelling (police-speak) [same as SAAB commercials spelled it Sierra-Alpha-Alpha-Bravo] -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but only if the redirect can be made to NYC, and not followed to New York City. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
That would create a double-redirect. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - Hotel India Golf Hotel Lima Yankee Uniform November Lima...... No, too hard. People don't do that. Highly unlikely search term. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to NYC (disambiguation) per 65.94.79.6 Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Highly unlikely search term. A redirect entirely for people who like to try to be clever. (Show me a person familiar with "November Yankee Charlie" but not New York City and I may change my mind.) --BDD (talk) 05:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Australian road/KML/Pialligo Avenue[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This was an unused, redundant KML file, that was part of failed experiment. (See Template talk:Infobox Australian road). As I was the only editor of this and a related group of other KML files, I was tagging them with {{db-author}} as none of the files were needed. Unfortunately, another editor has rushed in and redirected the remaining files so {{db-author}} is no longer appropriate AussieLegend (✉) 07:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Procedural note-These were originally all nominated separately with identical rationales. I've combined them for ease of discussion.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete all - Redundant redirects. Harryboyles 01:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Fucking stolen sign[edit]

Although the signs of Fucking, Austria have been notably stolen to the point that they were welded and cemented into the ground (as noted in the article this redirect leads to), this particular redirect seems like a joke much more than a legitimate redirect and should be deleted. Floydian τ ¢ 04:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Weak keep seems like a search term someone might use, if they didn't know the place was in Austria. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep-Plausible search term, averaging around 30-40 hits per month.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Redirect to File:Fucking, Austria, street sign cropped.jpg. If people are searching for "Fucking stolen sign", they're clearly searching for the image, not the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

June 10[edit]

XL Services[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete: XL Services (not to be confused with XL Group) seems to have been a company that the user who created the redirect was involved in in some way. Not mentioned in the target article. jonkerz ♠talk 23:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Delete: Seems absurd, even if XL Services were a questionable company. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kaizo Mario World[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This page refers to an SNES hack. SNES hacks are not generally notable and do not require a page, even one that just redirects. I move that this page be deleted per WP:Notability. EnglishEfternamn*t/c* 21:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment there's 1.3 MGhits for it, so it seems rather popular? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is probably notable enough for an article (we have one on I Wanna Be the Guy, though that's not a ROM hack), but the present redirect is not a usable substitute, since it doesn't mention Kaizo Mario World at all. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Samantha Stevenson[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Nominating Samantha Stevenson for deletion. Military Wives has no mention of "Samantha Stevenson". Natg 19 (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Norden[edit]

"Norden" is apparently being redirected towards Nordic because this his how one might say it in one of those languages - or something, I never got a response on the talk page. GHits demonstrate this is not a common use for English. There are any number of other targets this could point to, including the Norden bombsight and the German town of this name. Suggest turning this to a disambig - do I even need to RfD in this case? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

  • You certainly don't need to RfD if you want to turn a redirect into a dab. If you also want to remove the original target, I'd say it's best practice to list here although not strictly necessary. Go ahead and get started on the disambig. Siuenti (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Norden literally means "the North" in the Scandinavian languages (as does der Norden in German), and it has gained currency in English as a loanword in this same sense. The close relationship of "north" cognates among Germanic languages is probably responsible for this word's widespread recognition in English and other Germanic languages. Looking at Google Books search results for norden (13.3 million hits), five of the top ten search results are English sources clearly using the word Norden in reference to the Nordic countries collectively or northern geography more vaguely (one other of the top ten results uses it this way in Danish, but this is not an English source). I did not take the time to scroll through all 13 million results, but I think the evidence presented among the top hits would seem to refute Maury's claim that Norden is not used in English to mean the Nordic countries collectively, or some very closely related concept. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 01:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I might add that Norden (disambiguation) already exists. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 01:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace it with the disambiguation page; the disambiguation page used to reside here, until it was displaced. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Not only is "Norden" used in English to refer to the Nordic countries, but it is the primary topic of the term, as the following search results suggest. I am counting both norden+scandinavia and norden+"nordic countries" as referring to "nordic countries", and many of the results for norden+"nordic council" also use the word norden in reference to the geographical region. I was even rather generous in the cases of the place in Greater Manchester and the place in Dorset, though I did not take the time to check all these for non-English sources. My conclusion is that this evidence gives general indications of notability that would suggest deleting Norden to move Norden (disambiguation) would be an inappropriate course of action, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (see Redirecting to a primary topic). Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 05:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete and move disambiguation page back. The google books and google scholar results were not checked for "English language", and I'm sure I've seen Norden, California more often than any of the other references. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Google Books results
Google Scholar results

Edible green seed pods[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Should be deleted per reason #8 (novel or very obscure synonym for an article name). The only google results for this exact text are Wikipedia and sites that mirror it. I'm not sure why the person who added this felt like it was needed. I contacted them, but they never responded. It was only used on 2 pages and I've removed the redirect from both. lukini (talk | contribs) 16:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

June 9[edit]

Trigger tha Gambler[edit]

Misleading redirects. Trigger tha Gambler is the brother of Smoothe da Hustler, but a redirect somewhat suggests that they are the same person (until you read the later paragraph). He probably doesn't meet the notability requirement for an own article, so the redirects should just go. Don Cuan (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's common practice to redirect nonnotable people to their notable relatives. Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment. It is common practice where it makes sense. Usually the target article would have a Personal Life section that the redirect points to. In this case, the brother is only mentioned passingly. The redirect is also confusing because it looks like "Trigger tha Gambler" would be an older performance name of "Smoothe da Hustler", until that passing mention. The redirect does more harm than good. Don Cuan (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:R from sp[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per G7. --BDD (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I have accidentally created these redirects; instead of the word "from", each redirect's title and target page should have used the word "to". Their current target is a redirect in itself, making these double-redirects. I recently created the appropriate redirects (to the correct target, {{R to subpage}}), but these useless ones remain, and therefore they must be deleted. — |J~Pæst| 04:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

June 8[edit]

YouTube Comedy Week[edit]

The page it's redirecting to says nothing about "YouTube Comedy Week", I would've requested speedy deletion, but I can't find any criteria relating to an invalid redirect.AshFR (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

This was already solved until you dicked about with it! KenSharp (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason to redirect it to YouTube, the page it's redirecting say's absolutely nothing on the subject, though I'm not sure the subject itself is notable. --AshFR (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not mentioned on the target page. --BDD (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Just delete the page even though I created it. Man you people are SOOOOO angry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potnpan123 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

June 6[edit]

Henry H. Brecher[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. It's clear after the relist that this discussion isn't attracting much interest. There's narrow consensus to delete, and this outcome actually addresses one of DadaNeem's concerns—if a Henry Brecher article is created, the link will be there. Deleting this redirect will leave it a redlink; it won't remove it altogether. See WP:REDLINK for more information. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete - text-book example of reason 10, the target article contains virtually no information on the subject, and contains a redirect back to itself. Better to keep redlink. Jan1naD (talk • contrib) 11:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Retain - the target article contains more info on Mr Brecher than any other article in Wikipedia, namely:

It was named after Henry H. Brecher of the Byrd Polar Research Center, Ohio State University; he conducted Antarctic glaciological investigations for over 30 years, 1960–95, including determinations of surface velocities and elevations on Byrd Glacier.

I agree the redirect back to itself is messy, but should be retained in case a Henry H. Brecher page appears. On balance I considered something is better than nothing.DadaNeem (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Craft(s)manship[edit]

This is an odd situation: craftmanship and craftsmanship are obviously the same concept, but the two have different targets. Should craft be retargeted to Artisan, or should crafts be retargeted to Handicraft, or should they both be sent to another page? I don't particularly have an opinion. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

  • In addition, Craftsman is a disambiguation page while Craftsmen redirects to Artisan. In any case, these pairs should be consistent. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • In the absence of an article (even a broad-concept stub) on artistry/craftmanship/skill-with-hand, retarget Craftmanship to Artisan. There's no reason to send these to a the Craftsman dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    Demoting my earlier note "Agreed with Joy, although it will take an RM to move the Craftsman dab page to make room for the redirect to primary topic "Artisan". I'll submit that." The move didn't require the admin bit, so I moved the dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Retarget pbp 22:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Retarget to what? There have been more than one suggestion. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Although I created the original article, I cannot remember doing it or why. I have no opinion on what ro do with it now. GreatWhiteNortherner (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Restore Craftsman to a dab (currently at Craftsman (disambiguation)) and retarget both there. A craft(s)man can be an artisan or involved in handicraft. We disambiguate when terms aren't precise. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Please could all future commenters be explicit about what they are proposing should redirect to where as the above isn't very clear
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

===Metagenomics: An Alternative Approach to Genomics===[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was deleted by INeverCry. --BDD (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

DNLA[edit]

I believe the article DNLA should be deleted. It is redirecting to DLNA, which has an entire different meaning.

  • Keep the redirect - plausible spelling error - I never remember that initialism exactly. Widefox; talk 21:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep but edit article. Add to the article's header that DNLA redirects there, but did you mean Danish National Library Authority? Dancraggs (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
It would probably be better to retarget there instead, since those are actually the initials of that organization. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches[edit]

WP:RFD#DELETE #8, possibly #5. AldezD (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Very weak keep and target to the #Claimed use in terrorism section. But of course, there's not an actual list there. We have a List of Guantanamo Bay detainees, and for some of whom the watch is mentioned, but we don't have a standalone list of them anywhere. It may be best to turn this into an article and let it stand or fall on its own merits. --BDD (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep -- We used to have an article at this location, the redirect replaces the deleted article. Why is this important? Because WP:Reliable sources, like the The Guardian [6], Slate magazine [7], and Atlantico magazine [8], directly linked to the wikipedia through this specific article name. So it is important that it should continue to point somewhere meaningful. (I used http://www.backlinkwatch.com/index.php to find the backlinks...) Geo Swan (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Highly unlikely to be a search term Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep and refine target to Casio F91W#Claimed use in terrorism. As BDD noted there's no list there, but there is information about the topic. Unlikely search term or not, plenty of people are using this, probably due to the off-site links noted by Geo Swan. Sideways713 (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Deathklok[edit]

Redirects about an article of the virtual band. There is an article about the Marvel Comics character with the distinguish note. Disambiguate it or delete it. JJ98 (Talk) 07:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is a plausible misspelling, and (because "death" is an English word, but "klok" is not) it's a far more plausible misspelling of the virtual band Dethklok than of the comics character Deathlok. --Orlady (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per nom ; there's also death clock that could fit o such a dab page -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak keep It's an equally plausible misspelling for Dethklok or Deathlok, but I'm fine with keeping it as is since it's been stably pointing to the former for several years. I was initially thinking Death clock should be incorporated into the hatnote until I learned that it is itself a redirect, to what I think is a junk article (I'm nominating it for deletion now). --BDD (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Update: With Death test deleted, and thus the Death clock redirect, this is really only a plausible search term for Dethklok or Deathlok. In the spirit of WP:TWODABS, it would probably be better to have it point to one of those targets rather than turning it into a dab. Since both articles link to each other with {{distinguish}}, the choice probably isn't that important. So we might as well not upset the status quo and keep. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Franklin Virtual High School[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete. Creator of redirect agrees with deletion. No point in continuing the discussion further. Orlady (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Implausible cross-namespace redirect. Orlady (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete, accidental redirect created when the page was moved out of user space. Not a helpful redirect in any regards. Salavat (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

June 5[edit]

Driving with friends with a colorado license[edit]

Pointless redirect, should be deleted. Aaaccc (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:R#KEEP criterion #5. At least one person would have found this useful - the person who originally wrote a question in article space at this location. I redirected it to the article with the answer (in the juvenile license table, under Colorado): "...Drivers under 18 cannot have any passengers under 21 for the first 6 months of being licensed, unless it's an immediate family member. At 6 months 1 passenger under 21 is allowed and unrestricted after 1 year..." VQuakr (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Questions are for the reference desk. I'm afraid this would set a rather ridiculous precedent. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per BDD. The correct thing to do is to direct the author to the answer by a link on their talk page, and to the reference desk for future questions. We do not want to encourage the use of article space titles for asking questions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a FAQ. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Implausible. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Cyber Love[edit]

Am I missing something? Formerly an article, this was redirected to the album at AfD. But it doesn't appear to actually be a song on the album. It's not mentioned anywhere on the target article. BDD (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Retarget to the dab page at Cyberlove. If there is a connection to the current target then it can be added to the dab page in the usual manner. Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree. If no one objects, any uninvolved editor may close and carry out this retargeting. --BDD (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hinduism and violence[edit]

Delete per WP:REDLINK. While there's certainly overlap between religion violence in India and violence in Hinduism, the topics are different. Islam and violence isn't about religious violence in Islamic countries, for example. What does Hinduism say about violence? Describing violence in India doesn't really answer that. BDD (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Religion in Palestine[edit]

Delete per WP:REDLINK. Freedom of religion in the Palestinian territories is only one part of the overall topic of religion there, which I'm surprised to see we don't have an article on. I'm adding the redirect Religion in the Palestinian territories for the same reason. BDD (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

1st IIFA Awards[edit]

Why will we need this redirect? Should we create one for 2nd, 3rd etc.? Anshuk (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:USCOTWnom[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. This actually should've been G8 speedied. --BDD (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Unneeded redirect. Kumioko (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:USNCOTW[edit]

Uneeded redirect. The collab has been dead for so long no one even knows it there anymore. Kumioko (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Retarget redirect to Wikipedia:United States is Not the Center Of The World. Wait, never mind, we don't have such a page. Perhaps we should have a section by this title at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. bd2412 T 02:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Frankly we have so many unnecessary redirects to things I'm surprised it doesn't already exist. Kumioko (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

June 4[edit]

Basic Integrated Operating System[edit]

Deletion of the redirect "Basic Integrated Operating System". Rational: The term BIOS stands for Basic Input/Output System in computing since 1975. It never stood for Basic Integrated Operating System, therefore this redirect will only cause confusion if people run into it. It has no edit history and no incoming links. Therefore we can safely delete it. Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep. While you are right in saying that this phrase is not the correct expansion of BIOS, it seems to be occasionally used, and so people may search for it trying to find information on BIOSes. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Conservation Management Strategy[edit]

Generic topic not covered in regional article Department of Conservation (New Zealand), suggest delete (or if obvious retarget - I didnt see one) and I will remove from CMS dab Widefox; talk 13:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Herulf Trolle class[edit]

(Apologies, I have no idea how to do this)
This page was the original title for an article (now (after several moves) at Herluf Trolle-class coastal defence ship. It was moved after 6 minutes to a correct spelling of the name. The advice at WP:CSD#R3 is that it should be kept, but do we really need to? It hardly serves any purpose, and the article has enough redirects already. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep It's definitely a plausible search term—that is, a reader could reasonably use the phrase in search of the target article. --BDD (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Particle collsion[edit]

I know that English Wikipedia community has very high tolerance to typos and even mojibake in titles, but everyone can see that collsion itself is a red link and was never created. Should we have all possible variants: colision, cllision, collison, collidion, … ? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2[edit]

Fictional Presidents[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of fictional politicians #Presidents (a hatnote was already present). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete or Disambiguate. Lots of countries have presidents. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nakba[edit]

please help on Nakba article issue. 109.65.226.91 (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Nomination formatted by Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment This long-standing redirect was changed into a disambiguation page on 23 May 2013 by IP editor 79.179.174.56 with this edit, by including the so-called "Jewish Nakba". There followed the usual edits wars. My own belief is that it was correctly a redirect, as primary topic, and that the target should have had a dab hatnote to Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries#Jewish "Nakba". However, this may no longer be the correct forum. I note in passing that this was the only edit from IP editor 79.179.174.56 and he or she seems to have known a fair amount about Wikipedia structure. --Bejnar (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Note this was originally nominated yesterday but placed on the discussion page for 12 May. I have moved it here to avoid confusion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong keep It's clear the IP who made this change was trying to push a minority POV. Naqba/Nakba clearly refers primarily to this specific event. Holocaust seems like a good analogy, as there are other events referred to by the same name, but majority usage is clear. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That was me Hello, first of all I will present my self. I am Mizrahi Jewish. My grandparents from both sides are refugees from the arab lands. the arab governments took from them everything. homes, money, properties, shops and etc. they escape from their place living (for save their life) to israel only with clothes on them. some of their Relatives are massacred by arab soliders and far right civilians. if this is not Nakba, I dont know what it is Nakba. we are in 2013 and still any of the victims are didnt get any Compensation for their suffering. and also the arabs governments do not recognize the jewish nakba and even denial it and say to its citizens the Jews immigrate from our states because they were Zionists. while Israel recognize the Palestinian Nakba. my family aren't zionist. its the arabs who did it to us they are the real Zionists between us. the difference between Israel and the Arab states is Israel gave to some Palestinians who left their home in 1948 citizenship. arabs states are never did that. Arab states jewish population are close to 0% while Israel Palestinians population are near to 20%.

maybe you are right, the jews from the arab lands didnt Nakba'ed by their governments and its never happend. (MY OPNION ONLY:) +--+ You are right, because their nakba is worse then the palestinan nakba X1000 and its should get a different name. +--+ about the Holocaust, I dont know if you are mean it or not. but its totaly different and cant be compared with the Nakba. I think its unfair by Wikipedia to its Jewish readers, show only one side of the Nakba tragic story during its have 2 sides. one Palestinan (the most famous) and the other one Jewish (not such famous). its like to say to us you aren't suffered enough so, you are not deserve for present your own story here. and I Male. thank you 79.177.194.86 (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No one means to discount the suffering of your family, but Nakba is a term given (in Arabic) to a specific historical event, namely the target of this redirect. There's currently a hatnote on that page pointing to the Jewish Nakba, so any readers looking for that information will be able to find it. There are other events referred to as Holocaust, but it would do our readers a disservice not to use the term as it's used in a majority of reliable sources. Our goal is to treat everything with a neutral point of view. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Primary topic is the Arab one, the Jewish one has a hatnote. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Again me You all may be right. Because at first the term Nakba was used by the palestinians. And then the Jews. This is why I said the Palestinian Nakba is the most famous and the Jewish one not such famous. And this is why also in the nakba article I put the Palestinian Nakba first and the Jewish Nakba second. So I agree, lets keep Nakba article redirected to the 1948 Palestinian exodus with hanote to the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries.

But here 1948 expulsion its must be changed to the both exodus no doubt about that. I think you all agree with me right now. If someone against it please let me know. Maybe I am wrong again. 79.177.194.86 (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

June 1[edit]

Nicole Whittaker[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was soft delete. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No obvious connection to the target article. The article was originally about a character in a video game series by the name of Purple Moon, but that doesn't have an article. The Purple Moon article is about a software company, and I can't see any connection. A search reveals that the person is a model who wouldn't be notable enough for an article about her. Lugia2453 (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Olivia Cheeks[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Unlikely search term, there is no person name besides the SpongeBob character, no ghits about it. JJ98 (Talk) 05:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete: No obvious connection to the target article. Lugia2453 (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

ISBN 0-596-00027-8[edit]

I propose that this redirect be deleted because it is "novel or very obscure." 108.56.232.165 (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but it isn't very good, is it? It doesn't even show the title and author. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, to elaborate, it's terrible, isn't it? It doesn't even show the title and author. The first thing a person wants to know after typing in a long number is whether they typed the right number, and there's no way to know here, so that puts this service in terrible category. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
And I don't see how this redirect is actually interfering with it. I type in that first ISBN in the search box and get a red link, not the page. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • comment as far as I can tell, this is the only redirect formatted in this way. There is for example no page ISBN 0-596-00313-7 that redirects to Perl Cookbook. Even if we assume that anyone will search Wikipedia by ISBN, it seems strange to me that such a search will be successful for this one book and no others. We could keep this redirect and create many thousands of others, but there is as Thryduulf suggests already a mechanism in place for referring to books by ISBN within MediaWiki.108.56.232.165 (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment that's not right. The thing Thryduulf pointed out does not link to a Wikipedia article page, it links to external resources for searching additional information on books. You can't find a Wikipedia article with that, easily. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep and make more There should be a redirect like this for every article about a book, including fiction. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a book lookup service, so typing in an ISBN should always point to the article if there is one, and a red link if there isn't. We're an encyclopedia, not a reference desk, so this ISBN thing belongs somewhere other than article space - we shouldn't be filling article space with a huge number of pages that never link to articles. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see any likelihood that someone typing in an ISBN would want to see an article on the book; they'd want to find a copy of the book, which the current pseudolink handles fine. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

May 31[edit]

New articles[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was soft delete. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

deletion, because users trying to get to Wikipedia's new articles will be redirected to a disambiguation about articles Surfer43 (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Free software development[edit]

The "open-source software development" article seems to be exactly not about free software or open-source software (in the "under an OSI-approved license" sense), it even avoids any mention of free software. AVRS (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the article's lead section: "Open source software development is the process by which open source software (or similar software whose source code is publicly available) is often developed". Jarble (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
True, but the "often" was just added by me, here is the version before my edits. It didn't mention free software explicitly anywhere, only through the mention of source code and the navbox at the bottom. It does have "These are software products “available with its source code and under an open source license to study, change, and improve its design”" after it, but IMO the "publicly available" is too confusing to be clarified by that, it is as confusing as the name "freely (re)distributable software" sometimes used for free software in Russian Wikipedia. I think "publicly available" means availability to more than just the software user; and the article talks about more interaction between developers and users (see the History section, in which everything start with Eric S. Raymond's 1997 book). FSF/OSI's requirements do not include much interaction, software can be "FSF"-free or "OSI"-open-source without a "bazaar", and the article's subject might work just as well with noncommercial-only licenses. More closely related to the article seem to be Open source and Peer production. --AVRS (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd just redirect "Free software development" to "Free software", but the latter does not really concern development process. --AVRS (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Retarget per AVRS. It won't be the greatest redirect, but Free software does contain discussion of the development process. It may make sense to create a #Development section there and refine the redirect to that section. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Berry blue[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Berry Blue. I actually carried this out a few days ago and forgot to close the discussion. --BDD (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Transwiki redirect smileguy91talk 02:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep: Soft redirects to Wiktionary are acceptable; see Category:Redirects to Wiktionary pbp 03:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Berry Blue, make Berry Blue a disambiguation page covering the Jell-O, Pebbles cereal, etc., topics covered on WP per MOS:DABMENTION. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    But none of those things are actual articles on berry blue; none of them describe Berry Blue in any sort of detail beyond "List of flavors: Berry Blue and a bunch of others". The wiktionary page is the only one that gives an explanation of the topic. Furthermore; I can find no other instance where a flavor redirects to all the brands that manufacture a product flavored with it pbp 13:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    See MOS:DABMENTION for why that's not an issue. If the mentions of "Berry Blue" are not encyclopedic, they can be removed from the linked articles. If the lists remain on the linked articles, the ambiguous phrase can (and should) be disambiguated. Yes, we have many redirects from list mentions to the article with the list; no idea if any of them are "flavor lists", but it would be OK if this were the first. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    So, I've fixed the wrong softredirect template on Berry Blue (wiktionary has a specialized template), and added a sample disambiguation page after it. I don't see why we would have two redirects to wiktionary, that PBP restored by undoing my hardredirect to the page under discussion, instead of redirecting one title to the other title. There should only be one soft redirect page, other spellings/forms should hard redirect to the soft redirect, we shouldn't end up having a soft redirect at every spelling variant. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    Look, you shouldn't have made the edits you did. You essentially BOLDly did the things we're discussing whether should be done or not in this RfD. You should have waited to do them until after the RfD is decided. I remain strongly opposed to the disambiguation page; because it offers no information. If an article entitled List of products flavored Berry Blue was created, it'd be deleted quite quickly. I don't see why this gets a pass because it's a disambiguation. The only page in WikiMedia with any kind of information at all on what berry blue is is wikt:berry blue, and as such all other pages anywhere on WikiMedia should redirect to it pbp 14:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    WP:Duplicate, there were two softredirects to wiktionary for the same topic, with only capitalization variation. The recommended action is to merge the two pages together. Since "blue berry" is the version under redirect discussion, because it is a softredirect to wiktionary, and both are softredirects to wiktionary, I don't see how hardredirecting the "Blue Berry" page is a problem. That page was not under deletion discussion, but it was a duplication. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, a list article might be deleted where a disambiguation non-article navigational page would not. You got the difference right there: it doesn't get a pass, but "just because it's a disambiguation" means that it's evaluated as a navigational page, not a list article. The articles mentioning "Berry Blue" on Wikipedia do indeed provide information on what Berry Blue may refer to. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with JHJ about retargeting with disambiguation page at Berry Blue, which should also mention Barry Blue in see also. older ≠ wiser 12:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    See above as to why that's a bad move pbp 13:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    There's nothing above that indicates that's a bad move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    See my additional comments above. If the type of thing you, Konrad and 64 advocate was a list and not a disamb, it'd almost certainly be deleted pbp 14:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    The proper Wiktionary Softredirect template is called {{Wiktionary redirect}} it does not change the matter of the redirect under discussion, since it is still a soft redirect, still points to the same location, and still falls under RfD, there is no material change in the primary usage of the page with a change in the template from the general {{soft redirect}} to the more specific {{Wiktionary redirect}}. The nominator's rationale is that it's a wiktionary redirect, the template change still results in a wiktionary redirect. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    (ec) Good thing it's a disamb and not a list then. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    Various responses. 1) I agree IP 126 and others should hold on before being BOLD with a discussion that has only just begun. 2) I don't agree with PBP that having a disambiguation is a bad thing. The entries satisfy MOS:DABMENTION, so I don't see the problem. older ≠ wiser 15:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Berry Blue per JHunterJ. bd2412 T 15:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hurricane Ramon[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete to allow replacement by an article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Need to delete the page so I can move my completed sandbox to this namespace. iPhoneHurricane95 01:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedied. Go for it. --Golbez (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Calle Ridderwall[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was converted to an article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

delete this redirect, Calle should have his own article Xgeorg (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Expand into article - Ridderwall meets one or more of the criteria listed at WP:NHOCKEY, so I have expanded the redirect into an article making this discussion moot. Dolovis (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

May 30[edit]

Anna Unterberger[edit]

Has no content. Meaningless Redirect. cyan 12:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Nomination fixed by Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment with preference to keep. Not really meaningless since I searched for her name myself before creation. The page itself does get hits. I agree not many, but some: 8 views in Dec; 11 in Jan.; 7 in Feb; 16 in Mar; 13 in Apr; and 44 in May, but if I subtract the 20 views from the date of creation, then it's still 24. But if it's a real bother to Wikipedia, I submit myself to the verdict of the jury :) – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. This doesn't seem like a useful way to deal with a living actor. If we're talking about a dead person who will only ever be known for his or her role in one production, a redirect like this might be helpful. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

May 28[edit]

Pugh Hall[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The building itself is non-notable, neither its current target nor its former target Bob Graham Center for Public Service, provide any significant detail. It's hardly a likely search term for the departments housed in that building (and even if it were, which one?). Huon (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete - and if anyone's feeling keen, the way every brick at the U of Florida has its own WP page does bring out my inner deletionist. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

W. Keith Thornton[edit]

He's not even mentioned in the article, nor should he be; I do not see how the redirect can be justified. (It was originally made to remove extensive promotional content, but outright deletion would have been the better course) DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --BDD (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

May 26[edit]

ROTS[edit]

Unlikely search term, should be possibly retarget to a french town besides the Star Wars film. JJ98 (Talk) 18:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's a common acronym in Star Wars lingo. See TPM, AOTC, ANH, ESB, and ROTJ for the other Star Wars episodes. If needed it can be turned into a disambiguation page. TheCoffee (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Rots, which already has a hatnote to the film. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment there should be a disambiguation page, since ROTs/Rots can be plurals of the various ROT/Rot topics, and "rots" is the action of rotting. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment there's also RotS -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate - the best solution here seems to be a disambiguation page, listing the Star Wars film, the French town Rots, and any other possible meanings. Robofish (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment a sample DAB page is now located below the horizontal rule at ROTS for evaluation. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep ROTS redirect to Revenge of the Sith, and create dab page at Rots (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Third Korean War[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Premature: it hasn't happened yet. This redirect can always be recreated if conflict actually breaks out, but at the moment it's inaccurate. (Note that Second Korean War is a redirect to Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–69), which I don't have a problem with.) Robofish (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Latest stable release/Google Spreadsheets[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy deletion per WP:G8. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

No such category ever exists as "Latest stable release" nor does such a template exist for any software product. So such a redirect is useless,unrequired and handles just one use cases of the thousands possible. Anyways. the redirecting page template has no information either. It reads "NA" - not available. So this deletion is justified. Compfreak7 (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. The target is currently listed at TfD (discussion). If it is deleted, this redirect can be speedily deleted (per WP:CSD#G8). Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

May 24[edit]

The Homestead (Georges Hall, NSW),[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Typo Dicklyon (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

65 million years ago[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget, since this is a double redirect. Consensus is against deletion. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Cretaceous period ended 66 million years ago Eyesnore (PC) 19:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep it's commonly called 65 million years ago [10] [11] [12] -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep but follow redirect to the extinction event itself. 65 million = 66 million is absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
If kept it should retarget to Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event since the current target redirects there.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Human world losses by country after WWII[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Newly created, misleading, absurd redirect. "Human world" is absurd; "World human" would be plausible but it doesn't read right. And it should be losses during WWII rather than after WWII. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete. I haven't been notified of the discussion for deletion of the redirect. Anyway I had in mind to insert it in a {{Further}} template. That is because the code doesn't not accept article sections. BTW have you ever heard of "non-earthlings" at all?   M aurice   Carbonaro  11:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm fairly sure there were no extraterrestrial casualties of WWII.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete-Borderline R3. As Arthur Rubin says above, the phrasing is just nonsensical.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with the statement above. I doubt that anyone looking for deaths from WW II would use the term human world.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete The redirect is just a jumble of words. It is impossible to tell the creator's intentions—is it a joke? incompetence? Should the indefinite block be reinstated? In brief, the redirect is unhelpful and it is irritating to have to debate such nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Nonsensical redirect. Maurice also appears to be trolling, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pineapple_face[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete, abusive/offensive, not an actual nickname. Relaxing (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete Offensive redirect no mention in main article, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Brian Dunning (felon)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Severe BLP violation. No source calls Dunning a felon, and the final judgement is not publicly available. His case, where he entered into a plea deal is still ongoing as far as I can make out. His wire fraud case is a not the sole contributor to his notability, and this smacks of grave dancing. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong: In pleading guilty, Dunning admitted that, between approximately May 2006 and June 2007, he engaged in a scheme to defraud eBay through so-called “cookie stuffing.” According to the plea agreement, commissions paid to Dunning’s company, Kessler’s Flying Circus (KFC), which Dunning owned jointly with his brother, totaled approximately $5.2 million during that period from eBay’s domestic Affiliate Program.Brian's page at FBI.GOV Zaphraud (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree that any use of the word "felon" in the title is unnecessary. The subject is well-established as primarily an author and businessman. His court case, once complete, merits a mention in the article but not in the title. I made a quick check and did not find any other BLPs that have that word in the descriptor. Allecher (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe felony convictions for CEOs are regarded as just cutting the teeth in some circles, but for most of the world, pleading guilty to felony fraud does not go along with being a well-established anything, except a well-established felon. It certainly removes any chance anyone would mistake him as a well-established businessman - in many states, he can't even qualify for welfare anymore, let alone a business loan.Zaphraud (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete – I looked at the FBI most wanted list and other articles and could not find such descriptors. WP:NDESC is the guidance. The parens description is needed only because we have another Brian Dunning. "(author)" serves quite well. (Thanks) – S. Rich (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC) – S. Rich (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Well OF COURSE he's not on the FBI's most wanted list. He pled guilty and is awaiting sentencing. I think you have a very flawed idea of what the most wanted list is - that's a list of fugitives from the law, not a list of felons. You can find his page on the FBI's website here: [13] Zaphraud (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
It wouldn't be necessary at all, except for the fact there is more than one guy with that name. As a result, his most notable act - ripping off millions of dollars - should distinguish him. The use of felon here is actually quite kind, as it is merely a legal term, backed by both facts and admission of guilt. It's not like I moved the page to Brian Dunning (mega-thief). Zaphraud (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete pbp 20:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep I had no idea who this Internet personality was until I read of his crimes in the news, which involved several million dollars. Definitely several orders of magnitude more significant than any influence his podcast series has ever had. Dunning is certainly no Richard Dawkins by any stretch of the imagination, but when it comes to electronic fraud, Brian Dunning is The Man. Well, almost - he's still #2 to Shawn Hogan. Zaphraud (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
It is not for you to go around calling living people felons when no source does and when you connect the dots. That is WP:BLP violation, and a particularly nasty one. There was a plea deal and you don't know the substance of that deal. If you are unable to see why calling someone a felon is a bad idea, then you should not be editing BLPs. If you perform more BLP violations on other biographies I will seek a sanction on the topic area at arbitration enforcement. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment Per the FBI press release on this matter, an "evidentiary hearing to determine the loss amount will be held on August 8, 2013." (The reference is on the Dunning talk page, #4.) With this in mind, we do not know how much was taken. Depends upon what the prove-up. In any event, the parens "(author)" serves quite well to distinguish him from the other Dunning. – S. Rich (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

File:Matter logo.png[edit]

Re-titled non-free image, all uses updated making this redirect redundant. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  • don't speedy delete. I don't know whether there is a value to having these long term, but it's best to keep them around for at least a short while to help people find the new location. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

File:MATTER logo.png[edit]

Non-free image redirect, re-titled owing to duplicative file names. Relevant uses updated, so redirect is redundant. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Don't speedy delete per above. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

May 23[edit]

Aurolac[edit]

Originally tagged as speedy, but declined. Aurolac is (or was) a commercial brand name for an industrial product manufactured in Romania. As shown in the film Children Underground, it was frequently abused as an inhalant. However, I still believe creating a redirect from a commercial brand name to the article about inhalant abuse violates NPOV, as it seems to negatively state that that's the only use it ever has/had. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 17:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Aurolac was a synthetic paint thinner used in Romania; I believe it is no longer manufactured. It was so popular with huffers that the name became the Romanian word for someone who huffs inhalants (usually in the plural, aurolaci). We could have a disambiguation page at Aurolac also providing an article about the synthetic paint thinner itself or about synthetic paint thinners in general (I don't know enough about it to write it), but people reading about the problems of Romanian youth are very likely to run into the term aurolaci (it often fails to be translated to an equivalent English-language colloquialism), and I think the link is entirely appropriate, certainly not amounting to anything like an attack. - Jmabel | Talk 19:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep The redirect doesn't "state that that's the only use it ever has/had". It simply links to an article where there is some information about Aurolac, and so is likely to be useful to people looking for that information. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Do you disagree that it's a violation of NPOV to create a plain redirect from an industrial brand name to an article about substance abuse? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 20:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, of course I disagree. To try once again to make clear the point that I seem to have failed to make first time, there is an article which has content relating to a particular subject. Someone searching on Wikipedia for information about that subject might, therefore, find it useful to be directed to that article. Therefore a redirect to that article may well be useful for some people looking for information on that subject. There is no point of view involved there: it is simply providing a link that may be useful to some people. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Blurred Lines[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was wrong process, being handled at WP:RM. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It is now not possible to access the Blurred Lines by Robin Thicke featuring T.I. and Pharrell because it redirects to Robin Thicke's page. This is why am I requesting for it to be removed!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucifer1998 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 May 2013‎ (UTC)

  • Speedy close already being discussed at the move request at Talk:Blurred Lines (song) ; and inaccessibility of the article can be fixed with a hatnote at the target. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

May 21[edit]

Redirects of Harry Potter characters from post-wedding names[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep. Fleur Weasley lacks a certain je ne sais quoi, though. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The characters are never reffered to by these last names in the Harry Potter books; in fact, the last one is reffered to by her old last name after she got married. Even in the real world, some women don't change their last name when they get married; there is no reason to think it's any different in the world of Harry Potter; and with the exception of Ginny, there is no hint in the books that any one of these women did, in fact, change their last names. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep all. Redirects are cheap, these are all used, point to the correct targets and aren't in the way of anything else. No reason to delete them. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep all pbp 20:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Essentially harmless, and no real potential for ambiguity. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Southern nationalism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete, without prejudice toward dabifying. Be bold. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Southern nationalism is not the same thing as the Confederacy, or as supporting the Confederacy. In America today, the primary use of the term would probably be to refer to modern-day Southern nationalism, rather then nationalistic support of the Confederacy during the Civil War.

That's just in America, other countries may well have "southern nationalism" of their own. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete or disambiguate this is clear US-history bias, not considering more modern US south nationalism, or Bolivarism, etc. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete/recreate as disambig per 65.94.76.126.-- Brainy J (previously Atlantima) ~✿~ (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Create an article This is definitely a topic with a lot of information on it, both antebellum and postbellum, from the Dukes of Hazzard to the writings of John C. Calhoun pbp 20:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
But the article created should be called Southern nationalism in the United States Ego White Tray (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Harry's Wife[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

There are so many "Harry"'s this title could be referring to - there is no reason one would expect this title to be used for Harry Potter (character), not the many real and fictional people by this name. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  • "Harry's Wife" is a song by Eric Bogle, but there seems to be no article that mentions this, so delete. TimBentley (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per above -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete this redirect is vague since there are lots of notable Harry's aside from HP that has a wife. A dab would be too unwieldy.--Lenticel (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Revolutionary War[edit]

Would "American Revolutionary War" really be the primary topic? Wouldn't this be better as a disambig or a redirect to Revolution? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps ARW is not the proper redir, but revolution certainly isn't. People looking for information on revolutionary wars will not be looking for information about the industrial revolution. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC) (ps. thanks for the note on my talk page, I never would have seen this otherwise!)

This should be a disambiguation page, there are plenty of examples that fit the description. Reiftyr (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete or disambiguate this is clear US bias -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Note Revolutionary war also redirects to American Revolutionary War. Revolutionary wars redirects to Revolution. Revolutionary Wars is an existing dab page (with only two entries, one of them ARW). It seems likely all four should go to the same place... Sideways713 (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Revolution.--Lenticel (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. Google books and scholar results show that the clear primary topic for "Revolutionary War" (singular) is the American war, and that the clear primary topic for "Revolutionary Wars" (plural) are the French wars. The two articles should link to each other with hatnotes and, in the absence of a separate article about the general concept, Revolution and/or List of revolutions and rebellions. Almost every armed revolution is sometimes known as a revolutionary war so a separate dab page would substantially duplicate the list article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of revolutions and rebellions, since any revolution can be called a revolutionary war. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf, but retarget Revolutionary war to List of revolutions and rebellions per Ego White Tray. Whether this is given as a proper noun or not matters. --BDD (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The google searches are case insensitive, so the primary topic for "revolutionary war" (singular) in any capitalisation is clearly the American war. I do agree that both War and war forms should point to the same place, but this should be the American war that most people will be looking for - those wanting other wars an use the hatnote to the list.Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of revolutions and rebellions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

May 17[edit]

Genetic Misconceptions[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Common misunderstandings of genetics. JohnCD (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sparsely used, unlikely search term. Page history shows that this was once an OR-laden article not worth keeping. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:EWNB[edit]

Please redirect it to Edit Warring Notice Board! Tito Dutta (contact) 07:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Note the proposed target is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral. This gets quite a bit of traffic, but it's not possible to say whether they were intending the current target or the proposed one. I'm inclined to think that if the majority of people were ending at the wrong place someone would have added a hatnote by now (whichever target is chosen, the other should be linked from a hatnote). There are only 4 incoming links that are uses, 3 intending the current target and 1 (the most recent) the proposed target - but that's really not enough to base a firm judgement on. Both traffic and link stats weakly favour the current target, but against that is that the English Wikipedians' notice board (where this redirect originally pointed and what it represents) has long since been merged to the UK Wikipedians' notice board and that the proposed target is by far the busier page. To me these completely balance out and so I am really not sure which target I favour! Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Convert to a dab page to Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.--Lenticel (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate per Lenticel, to WP:UK, and the editwarring page, and WP:ENGLAND -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Why can this not be resolved with a hatnote? bd2412 T 12:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree, in most cases a hatnote is better than a dab page for a shortcut. I still don't know which target I prefer, but it should definitely point to one and have a hatnote to the other. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom but add a hatnote to cover the previous target. I agree that making shortcuts into dabs is generally undesirable. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

POKETTO MONSUTAA EMERARUDO CHOUSEN!! BATORU FURONTIA[edit]

The title looks like a vandal page. Of course it's not, but the title is capital screaming, and even uses '!'. I really thought it was a vandal hoax, and that's why I found this page. What are our readers going to say for this? Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 02:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment: It's common for Japanese titles to have that punctuation. when the reader sees the romaji, he/she will understand. I may have gotten the all caps version from a copyright notice on a web page. I'll have to take a look. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep as harmless, but mark as {{unprintworthy}}. The stats show quite significant usage, but given the activity around the redirect it's not a definitive statement of regular use in recent months, but even looking at the last few months of 2012 (when the history was quiet) it was regularly getting hits above background noise. Thryduulf (talk)
  • Keep as possible romaji translation. I think it is not the best translation but it is a plausible synonym.--Lenticel (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. --BDD (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

May 15[edit]

Template:Metro St Louis[edit]

Template-to-article namespace redirect. Unused. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverse lottery[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete per WP:REDLINK]. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This used to be a short page on one aspect of the target television show, but the target page doesn't mention it at all. It was only redirected, not merged, so we can safely delete. It's borderline WP:REDLINK, as even the former article admitted the concept wasn't unique to 8 Out of 10 Cats. But either way, the redirect as it is isn't helpful. BDD (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete better left as a red link.--Salix (talk): 10:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

NewsCenter[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was dabify. --BDD (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Channel 4 News is the successor of NewsCenter 4. The problem is because some of stations have used NewsCenter as newscast name past or present without NBC affiliate. jcnJohn Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 05:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Stubbify since there are many NewsCenters. A set index article can be created. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Stubbify since wcsh and wlbz use it ثلج (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Comment a sample SIA is now available for evaluation below the horizontal rule -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jetix (Worldwide)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep all (withdrawn). Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (converse) @ 23:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Needless redirect for a defunct channel. jcnJohn Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 05:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=560528837"