Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.
Skip to Table of Contents. Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page
Shortcut:
WP:RFD
Deletion discussions
Wikipedia deletion policy
Tools

Process – Log – Guide
– Images – Admins

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

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

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

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

Centralized discussion
Treffpunkt.svg
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals
Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive • talk • edit • history • watch

Contents

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

...please familiarize yourself with the following:

[edit] The guiding principles of RfD

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

[edit] When should we delete a redirect?

Shortcut:
WP:RFD#HARMFUL

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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:
WP:RFD#DELETE

[edit] Reasons for deleting

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

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.
  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 it should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article.
  4. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange.
  5. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule is the "CAT:" shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space but in practice form their own "pseudo-namespaces". (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia.)
  6. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist or itself, it can be deleted immediately, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
  7. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created.
  8. 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.
  9. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject. In these cases, it is better that the target article contain a redlink pointing back to the redirect.
Shortcut:
WP:RFD#KEEP

[edit] Reasons for not deleting

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history. If the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  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.
  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 a liar, 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.

[edit] Neutrality of redirects

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  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. Dalmatian Kristallnacht → Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991).
  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 redirected to Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be commonly represented outside Wikipedia by non-neutral terms. Such terms cannot be used as Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance, the widely used but non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it.

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

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

[edit] Closing notes

Details at: 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).

[edit] How to list a redirect for discussion

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

I.
Flag the redirect.

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

{{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.
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:
    • {{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]]

Administrator instructions

[edit] Current list

[edit] December 22

[edit] Penix

I'm pretty sure this a joke, even if it's not I can not see anyone using therm "penix" in a search. I think we should also add Pnix to the discussion created at the same time by the same user. Ridernyc (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. To avoid any doubt, the plural of penis is "penises" in English and "penides" in classical Greek. So there is claim for it being a plural or adjectival form of "penis". Si Trew (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Energy in Illinois ‎

Delete. Why these should be created as a redirect to Illinois is a mystery to me. If Illinois had sections about it, it might be plausible. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_22#Energy_in_Illinois. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Commment. There's no section in the target article which corresponds to those topics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. I tried "Energy in New Mexico", "Energy in Iowa", "Energy in Texas" and "Energy in Georgia". None is a redirect, so (thankfully) this does not seem to be part of a larger pattern of creating these. One would think, for example, "Energy in Texas" might plausibly have such a redirect, being a large energy producer, but it does not (the search engine for "Energy in Texas" does show for example that Wind energy in Texas redirects to Wind power in Texas, which seems perfectly reasonable). And "Energy in Georgia" shows as its first result Category:Energy in Georgia (country), which suggests that the right way to go, if need be, would be to put articles in a category rather than via redirects. Si Trew (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Liam Adams

This redirect should be deleted for the following reasons: Liam Adams isn't mentioned in the article to which this subject is being redirected; he isn't likely to be mentioned, discussed, or included in said article in the near future; and the redirect has seemingly only been created so that a living person appears in the "fugitives" categories added on 19 December. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite is pre-judging matters when he says that he isn't likely to be mentioned, discussed, or included in the Gerry Adams article in the near future. There is discussion about this on the Gerry Adams talk page, I propose it continues there. PatGallacher (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep, as per PatGallacher. Si Trew (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 21

[edit] Defenestraphobia

Delete as an unhelpful search term. There is no mention of "Kosmikophobia" on the list so it should be restored to red link status. This is helpful as redlinks can inspire people to start articles rather than have it redirect to an obscure place where it isn't mentioned. Tavix |  Talk  23:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment is this the fear of falling out of windows? 70.29.211.163 (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Sun(newspaper)

Deletion, implausible search string. JHunterJ (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - I do not believe that we should count missing spaces as plausible typos... Even if the redirect is deleted, any search for "The Sun(newspaper)" would bring up The Sun (newspaper) as the first search result (see e.g., a search for The Regime(group). The redirect has only moderate traffic: 103 hits in the six months prior to this nomination (~60% in the last two months), for an average of approximately 17 per month, though it is worth noting that this was most likely due to an incoming link from an article. Now that the link has been removed, traffic should diminish to the standard level of approximately 10 hits per month. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


  • Delete as above. I would go further and say generally, a single plausible common typo or misspelling is one thing, but we should not turn redirects into an alternative to the search engine, because it leads to a combinatorial explosion. Repeat after me: InternationalHerald Tribine, International HeraldTribune, InternationalHeraldTribune, Internationalheraldtribue, International Herald-tribune, et cetera ad nauseam. Si Trew (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The S*n

Deletion, implausible typo (but not recently created). JHunterJ (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete – This redirect was created by a pagemove of The Sun to The S*n, which was reverted in less than six hours. The redirect is an implausible typo ("S*n" is a slightly-plausible typo on QWERTY keyboards, but "The S*n" is much less likely) and has no significant incoming links and very little traffic (43 hits in the six months prior to this nomination, for an average of just over 7 hits each month). The pagemove history is preserved in the page history of The Sun (newspaper). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete could also mean "The Son" (son of the Devil) or "The Sin" (original sin) ... 70.29.211.163 (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The Sun (newspaper), for which it is a moderately common nickname (due to its bowlderisation of any potentially offensive word). Not a likely search term for any other use of "The Sun" or "Sun". Warofdreams talk 14:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Donna Dunnings

The fact that they are cousins doesn't seems to merit a redirect. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 21:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. This was previously an article somebody turned into a Redirect in order to lump the information into the Todd Stroger article. Dunnings was not just Stroger's cousin, but Chief Financial Officer of one of the most important counties in the United States, the one which contains Chicago. Cook County has a population equal to some countries. Dunnings made front page news a couple of times in major Chicago newspapers, which because of the importance of Chicago and its suburban area, are among the major newspapers of the United States. H Padleckas (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn't post it for discussion because Donna Dunnings is not notable; I posted it because Donna Dunnings is not Todd Stroger. — The Man in Question (in question) 03:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I changed this Redirect to go specifically to the section where Donna Dunnings is discussed. H Padleckas (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment. The existence of this redirect may actually be a hindrance to people seeking information, because it will bring Wikipedia up on Google when other Internet sources will provide a more comprehensive description of the subject. — The Man in Question (in question) 19:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Then maybe the original Donna Dunnings article should be revived. If this redirect is erased, then the original article is lost from Wikipedia. H Padleckas (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am the one who changed the article to a redirect. I did that because I perceived WP:BLP issues with the Donna Dunnings article. She is known as a minor player in a political corruption scandal centered on Todd Stroger. The short article was more about the scandal than about her, and it represented her in a negative light. My Google searching found several articles about that scandal, all written shortly after the scandal broke. (After that, the story seemed to disappear from the news media.) I learned from the articles that she considered herself to be a mostly-innocent victim of Stroger's manipulations, not a perpetrator. My first inclination was to nominate the article for deletion (here's the diff in which I started that process), but then I decided that this was a WP:ONEVENT situation in which it would be best to merge the content about Dunnings into Todd Stroger and redirect this title to that page. That's what I did.
    Due to the WP:BLP problems with the article, I would strongly oppose recreating the article about her. I think it made sense to retarget the redirect to the section of the Stroger article that tells about Dunnings. (Thanks to H Padleckas for doing that.) --Orlady (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Then let's keep the revised Redirect which is now more specifically targeted to the part of the Todd Stroger article where Donna Dunnings is discussed. I understand that when I wrote the article, it was more about the scandal than about her, but that was the newsworthy or notable part which should be included in the article (preferably in the introduction) to establish context. Significant work she did in her CFO capacity was likely important to her career and the county in general, but news sources tend to concentrate on scandals which tend to make reading more interesting and sell papers. Such work would have been includable in the article. I was hoping others would pick up and expand the article in true Wiki fashion, but it did not happen this time. H Padleckas (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
At the time you created the article, it seemed reasonable to expect that Dunnings would remain in the public eye, and that additional information about her would emerge. As it happens, however, she quickly disappeared from the public scene. --Orlady (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Man in Question (in question) 00:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rice Country

Meaning escapes me. Not counting the day of its creation, viewed 10 times in November. Too broad a description to redirect to United States. — The Man in Question (in question) 21:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. "Rice Country" is a direct English translation of 「米国」, historically the most common term for the United States used in Japan (and rarely also in China). It's not likely to be a very common search term on enwiki, but in the absence of other meanings it's plausible for it to redirect there. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect (presuming it's a spelling error) to Rice County; but given the suggestion above, perhaps it ought to be a dab Josh Parris 01:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Seeing the variety of results pulled up by Google, as nominator I think it should be dabified. — The Man in Question (in question) 04:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as Japanese redirects are not English and the US is not a native Japanese topic, so is an inappropriate redirect. Also, in English "rice country" typically would mean rice growing regions (like dairy country, or wheat country, tobacco country, etc), so the US is definitely not a reasonable redirect for that meaning. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Mmm, but there are a wide variety of redirects in other languages to United States. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, for the US of A, I'd say that English, and any Native American language redirect should exist for the actual name and common slang names. For Spanish and French (US - Puerto Rico, Louisiana) those used by US populations should remain since PR uses Spanish officially and LA tries to keep its French population around. Redirects from other languages, or translations into English of slang terms from other languages should not exist unless they have currency/prominence in English, in which case they would be English slang names for the US, and thus not a foreign redirect in any case. "rice country" is a translation of a Japanese name for the US, it's not a romanization of the Japanese term, it's a translation; it would be more reasonable to have 米国 as a redirect, except that we shouldn't because it's not English and the US is not a Japanese-speaking place or formerly ruled by Japan. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Convert to Disambig, it's a plausible redirect term, but there are other uses for the term. A dab page seems perfect for the job here. --Taelus (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Disambiguate between what? — The Man in Question (in question) 23:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Man in Question (in question) 00:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: no mention of "Rice Country" on target article, no ambiguous articles to disambiguate. Only possible alternative should be a target of Rice County as a misspelling. -- JHunterJ (talk)

[edit] Portal:Scientific method

This portal was deleted here [1], then recreated as a redirect. Decstop (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment it was recreated as a redirect a week after deletion. That's what happens when someone deletes something that's getting over a hundred hits a day without cleaning up enough of the internal links. Remove the (viable, non-talk) internal links, wait a month so we can see the traffic die off, and then bring it back here for deletion. In the meantime, there may be a more appropriate portal to point to. Josh Parris 04:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
...Remove the (viable, non-talk) internal links, ... Done Decstop (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The number of page hits has been falling off over time, but it's still getting 10-20 a day, which in my opinion is too high to kill the redirect; I think it will keep falling to the point where deleting the redirect won't break anything much. I hope when we close this we can see a sudden fall-off and can delete, but I doubt it. Josh Parris 09:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Just keep it. It is perfectly reasonable. Redirects do no harm. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, but include a link to Portal:Philosophy of science in the deletion summary. In the week before Decstop's link cleanup on December 7 (i.e., November 30 – December 6), the redirect received about 14 hits per day; in the week after the cleanup (December 8 – December 14), the portal has been receiving less than 8 hits per day, and I would guess that most of that's from this RfD discussion. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 01:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Man in Question (in question) 00:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 20

[edit] National Gun Association

I am concerned with this redirect to National Rifle Association for two primary reasons, first because I have been unable to locate any source which states that the National Rifle Association may also be known as the National Gun Association, and second because I believe the redirect may have NPOV issues.

By glancing at the redirect's short history, it can be seen that the redirect actually began as an article, referencing TV episodes in which a fictional National Gun Association was mentioned, most likely as a parody of the NRA [2] (however this claim was never sourced). This content received a template stating that the article may not be notable, and was later replaced first with a redirect to the American Dad! episode which featured a fictional organization named the 'National Gun Association' [3]. This change was reverted [4], and after an expired PROD on the article, the information was merged into a new section in the NRA article [5] and the National Gun Association article changed into a redirect to that section [6]. The information merged into the NRA article seems to never have been sourced [7] and the entire section was eventually removed [8] (by an anonymous editor with no edit summary given). Noticing this removal of content, a user changed the redirect in question to point to the NRA article (no specific section) [9], removing the redirect from merge tag and noting in the edit summary that the merged content had been removed from the NRA article. This is how the redirect stands today.

While the original intent of the redirect was in fact to point to information merged into the NRA article from the National Gun Association article, because that section was removed it is no longer serving its original purpose. Furthermore, I believe that this redirect has NPOV issues because it does not explain why National Gun Association (mentioned in multiple TV shows, most with a critical or negative point of view) redirects to National Rifle Association. Instead of bringing a user to a section which explains that the National Gun Association served as a parody in some TV shows, instead it now seems to imply that the National Rifle Association is synonymous with the National Gun Association. Aka042 (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Just to address Wikipedia's policy on neutrality of redirects it is not the neutrality of the redirect's title I am contesting, but instead the implied neutrality by redirecting a fictional organization that has no sources to suggest it is parodying the NRA to the NRA article. Regardless, based on the removal of the 'Parodies' section from the NRA article the redirect is defunct. --Aka042 (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 01:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Centraltower Interstate Center

The result of the discussion was that the page (an article) was nominated in the wrong place. Non-admin closure. — The Man in Question (in question) 00:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion. Reason 'Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)' Eire1130 (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Charles, Count of Batthyani

Delete under R7. This is an even more implausible than Count Batthyani, nominated below, although most of the argument there also applies to this. Charles is not the English form of the name Karl (which is Karl or Carl); the Hungarian form of the name Charles is Károly. Si Trew (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. He was not the Count of Batthyány. His family name was Batthyány. He was the Count of Német-Ujvár. Si Trew (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
So it would seem. Still, some have made that mistake: [10]. — The Man in Question (in question) 14:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Count Batthyani

User:Phil Bridger removed a PROD I placed at Count Batthyani with the edit summary:

Remove WP:PROD tag as it doesn't apply to redirects. If you really think this is implausible (although it seems perfectly plausible to me that a non-Hungarian speaker would guess at this spelling) then try WP:RFD

I am sorry I listed it in the wrong place, but his edit summary is the main thing here, since it may seem at first sight like a plausible typo but I think really it is not, for reasons that individually seem slight but I believe compound one another:

  1. I accept this could plausibly be a typo or an incorrect spelling, or in fact two, since it misses the accent and spells the last letter wrong. But Hungarian surnames that used to be spelt ending in -Y, indicating nobility, are now often spelt ending in -I, to be more egalitarian. So, that is not the problem in itself, although if someone is wise enough to know he is a Count, I suggest they would be wise enough to know he ends in Y (or could), or are copying it from somewhere else that should know better. Under this criterion, a rather weak R7.
  2. Of course making a {{R from title without diacritics}} is quite reasonable, too, but this is not a redirect from such a title, since it does not redirect to Count Batthyány nor Count Batthyáni neither of which indeed exist (although one does for Charles, Count of Batthyani (to Karl Josef Batthyány), and for Count Lajos Batthyany, to whose redirect title this one also links. Under this criterion, perhaps R7.
  3. However, all (?) males in the noble family Batthyány are in fact counts, so the redirect to Count Lajos Batthyány seems unduly specific. Since Lajos Batthyány is not (at the moment) considered the primary topic for "Batthyány" it seems unreasonable that it should be for "Count Batthy(a/á)n(y/i)". Similarly, there is no redirect for the simpler Batthyani (no accent) or Batthyáni (with accent). Under this criterion, R1.
  4. There is in fact a redirect from Count Lajos Batthyany which is (in effect) an R from title without diacritics, since Count Lajos Batthyány (with accent) redirects to Lajos Batthyány, and so does the one without an accent. Under this criterion, perhaps R1 again.

As I say, none of these individually seem at all strong, but add little to little and we have a big pile, as Ovid said.

So, my preferred solution would be to get rid of the forms ending in -I for specific people, including the Count Batthyani forms, and to simply redirect Batthyáni (with accent), and Batthyani (without accent) and Batthyany (without accent) to the DAB page Batthyány (with accent, where it states "The members of this family bear the title count or countess (Graf/Gräfin) Batthyány von Német-Ujvár.")

I could of course also change Count Batthyani to redirect to Batthyány without bothering you good people about it, but really I think that if someone searching manages to make three mistakes in one search, there is a limit how much we should expect to cater for that, especially considering the combinatorial explosion of redirects that would entail such a policy where the search engine offers quite a better set of results than these numerous obscure redirects. Of course it is unlikely that many more members of this family are likely to be added to Wikipedia, so the explosion is unlikely to happen there, but that is not to say that many more articles might use these redirects and so unwittingly be incorrect in themselves (as for spelling) and also perhaps link to the wrong chap.

I do realise that WP:NOTBROKEN might apply here, but in my opinion it is broken, in that by not redirecting to the DAB page, it kinda "hides" other members of the family. Perhaps at least as a compromise position I should just change it to link to the DAB, but ideally I'd like to get rid of this altogether. The specific "Count" redirects (with forename) seem to me unlikely search terms but are doing no harm. This one I think is a redirect too far in that it is "wrong" in three different directions all at once (accent, spelling, target), where one would seem to be useful, two marginally useful, but three somewhat too implausible. I can see from my own argument here the recommendation might be simply to change the target, but I should like advice here first, since this is by no means a unique situation with redirects to Hungarian names (for which, to add more joy, the native form uses the Eastern name order, so where does it end?)

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. But surely having it redirect to [the same place is] Charles, Count of Batthyani is equally plausible, then? Which is to say, since neither is considered the primary topic for Batthyány right now, it should redirect to the DAB? I don't want to put words in your mouth but that seems implicit in your wanting to keep Charles, Count of Batthyani. Si Trew (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Mmm…I'm just saying it should be kept because it's doing no harm. — The Man in Question (in question) 14:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree it is doing no harm if for no other reason that nobody is looking at it (the few hits this month were probably just mine, although it has had a hit maybe about once a week as a long-term thing). I'd still prefer to redirect it to the DAB page, though, if you've no objections then I can do that and withdraw this from RFD. I just wanted others' opinions before I did so. Si Trew (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Immoral Study

Found this in the new page patrol: Reason for deletion: R9

"If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject. In these cases, it is better that the target article contain a redlink pointing back to the redirect."

If Immoral Study 2 is the second in the series, why does the first redirect to it? Seems quite odd to me. Taelus (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete to encourage the creation of an article on the actual topic. Right now it actively serves as a hindrance to anyone who wants to know something about Immoral Study, because Wikipedia will come up in Google search when other sources will actually discuss the topic. — The Man in Question (in question) 19:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep / turn into softredirect since the target is a sequel, it is quite plausible someone will search for it without the number, as people will forget if things have numbers on them. Note, I've tagged the redirect with {{R with possibilities}} 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I know this game series, the first game was very crappy, though the second one was interesting, If someone will want this crap, I'm 100% sure that they'll want the second game PornoBoyz (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment you could always turn it into a "series" article. From Google, it appears there's an "Immoral Study 3"... 76.66.192.35 (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Middle Earth/Olorin

WP:SUB = "Disallowed uses: Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia". Every redirect exists on its own (e.g., Olorin). Very few pageviews. Plus, the word is spelled "Middle-earth", not "Middle Earth". (P.S. Sorry I didn't format them all properly). — The Man in Question (in question) 11:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep all, ancient and harmless. Deleting these breaks links in old versions of articles from the time when subpages were acceptable. No advantage of deletion has been presented. — Kusma talk 12:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
    Note that none of the pages has any content, so they are not disallowed subpages. — Kusma talk 12:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
    In addition, WP:RFD#KEEP says these should be left alone. Make that a speedy keep. — Kusma talk 17:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all - Unlikely redirects. Garion96 (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment, at one time, long long ago, Wikipedia did not have categories, and allowed subpages in article space... 76.66.201.20 (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Kusma and WP:RFD#KEEP: "old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them." Jonathunder (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Middle Earth/Olorin gets no page views, has no internal links and its history is merely of re-targeting the redirect. Josh Parris 01:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Church of $cientology

Funny, but delete as disparaging the subject. — The Man in Question (in question) 11:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hexation

Also

Delete all. History:

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Colbert Report/wikiality

The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:SUB: no subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. — The Man in Question (in question) 10:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  • It has been speedily deleted on my request based on the fact that it qualified for db-vandal when it was first written and db-r3 when someone turned it into a redirect instead of having it deleted then. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Das Dualwiktorkeinekanzlormerklenschroederlowenbraudeadheatlickin'kopf

3 and 4 hits on Google respectively. Seven and three pageviews in November. Presumably an approximation of some false German name given as a joke on some random episode of the show. The thought of anyone typing this into search is absurd, and with only three hits on Google, copying and pasting seems unlikely as well. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Correct; I found the same results and feel the same way. Delete. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. When I saw this just now I thought {{db-vandal}} and the only reason I didn't go through with that is because the same thing occurred to me, that the word might have been used on the show once. But if it was, it didn't enter pop culture sufficiently for Google to have any indication of it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Just someone's joke. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 19

[edit] Book the Twelfth (A Series of Unfortunate Events)/The Nameless Novel

Another ridiculously long and over-punctuated redirect that no one will ever search. "The Nameless Novel" was never the name of the novel anyhow. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 02:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep This wasn't created by someone fishing around for redirects to create. This was once an article [[11]] back in the Dark Times when sub-pages were used in mainspace. The book got a name, the article got moved, a redirect got left, and then subpages in mainsapce went away making this look like a very silly redirect, which it actually wasn't. It's been 4 years, sure, but the redirect might still be useful somewhere out in cyberspace- not to mention the page history attached to this redirect is quite extensive. At worst, keep as harmless Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The fact that the book "got a name" does not excuse making a title up for it in the interim, though. This seems like the perpetuation of misinformation. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 07:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
No, it doesn't but, I was explaining that this redirect didn't get created as a term to be searched for, it's a result of a change in how Wikipedia organizes itself from 3-4 years ago. We still get between 4 and 6 hits a month off this redirect, so it's linked from somewhere. Not many, I agree. Maybe even few enough to just delete it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Google says nothing links to the redirect, deleting this will not cause linkrot. Four to six a month is consistent with unlinked articles, perhaps getting hits from Special:RandomRedirect or somesuch Josh Parris 08:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - subpages were deprecated long before 2005. This title would have been inappropriate at the time, and indeed the article was only at this title for five days. Warofdreams talk 02:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The article was about a website, not a book, and it appears to have been a duplicate of The Nameless Novel. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 23:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. Nonetheless, The Nameless Novel already exists. Plus, the publishers' advertising campaign hardly seems notable. Also, any number of the books (other than the first two, published simultaneously) were nameless novels to readers until their titles were released. Delete as nominator. — The Man in Question (in question) 02:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Act of war

I am looking for validation for a redirect change already conducted. The page Act of war was originally redirected to Casus belli. I redirected the link to the disambiguation page Acts of war. Likewise, the article Acts of War will soon be renamed and the redirect will point to the disambiguation page. Labattblueboy (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment act of war, acts of war, Acts of War, Act of War should all redirect to casus belli per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, and the dab page should be moved to acts of war (disambiguation). 76.66.194.220 (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • casus belli has never been identified as the primary topic (I suspect the Act of War video game franchise is high as well) and a number of article do contain Act(s) of War as their tittle. Redirecting all those links to a latin term seems inappropriate. I think the disambig. page is still the best way to go for this one.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • An act of war is an action that precipitates or causes a war, or is presented as a case for war, such as the bombing of Pearl Harbour, or the 9/11 attacks, and I would think is and will always been the primary meaning and usage, and the article for that is casus belli. And politicians always go on about what constitutes acts of war in their minds, such as when North Korea declared that any US search of their freighters would constitute an act of war, in the US attempt to embargo North Korea for ballistic missile shipments. 70.29.211.163 (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 4skin

Very unlikely search term. 4tune may favor the bold, but this redirect is too "bold". — The Man in Question (in question) 02:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, lest we set a precedent for similar redirects for every article that has "for", "fore", or "four" in the title. 4est, anyone? –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Glueal region

Silly typo for "Gluteal region", which is already an awkward search term. — The Man in Question (in question) 02:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Judy Varghese

The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete per G10. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably even a speedy delete for disparaging the subject. — The Man in Question (in question) 02:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible. Don't think this qualifies for R3 speedy deletion, but may qualify as G3 (vandalism) or possibly even G10 (attack page). KuyaBriBriTalk 06:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking WP:G10. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Tupid

Implausible typos. — The Man in Question (in question) 02:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Idjit

Created as a hoax (see history). — The Man in Question (in question) 02:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ifiot

Silly typo. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominated. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] David lou

The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete per G10. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoax, probably a speedy delete for disparaging the subject. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible. Don't think this qualifies for speedy deletion as R3 as it was not recently created, but may qualify as G3 (vandalism) or G10 (attack page). KuyaBriBriTalk 06:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking WP:G10. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Zeenaz

The Marathi and Urdu words for "chicken" are hardly apt to be searched by someone who simply wants to read about chickens. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Not sure about Zeenaz, but the reason I created the redirect for murgh is that it came up in various Indian recipes, many of which freely switch back and forth between Hindi and English words for things. I have used the English Wikipedia for deciphering recipes on many occasions. Additionally, what is the harm of leaving it as it is? If it's an issue of competing namespace, that's a different matter (and disambiguation can always be considered as a solution), but I don't think that's the case here, is it? My vote is to just leave it unless you have a compelling reason to delete it. The likelihood of being searched is not a relevant criteria for me, btw.--Hraefen Talk 04:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bullamacow

Nonsense. Bullamacow was a Samoan chief. Deleting this will encourage the creation of a proper article, if the chief is notable enough to deserve one. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Isobeef

A website: http://isobeef.org/ — The Man in Question (in question) 01:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Moovine

Hoax. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Moo Cow

Originally created as an article about a slang term. Current function is useless. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Cows

The original purpose for this redirect has been altered, and now nothing really suits. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Caterack

Caterack is the oldest recorded cat—which does not earn his name the right to redirect to Cat. Closer to Cataract than anything else, but even that's a stretch. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mrowie

Nonsense. Very few pageviews. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] My Cat

The only circumstances under which I can imagine someone searching for this is if they are looking for tips on caring for their cat, in which case they should not be directed to Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a guide. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cat/Lead photo

Subpages not part of Wikipedia mainspace policy. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Special chicken

Hoax. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Cat Facts

Not a suitable Wikipedia entry. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tiny puppy

Superfluous. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Land Seal

Hoax. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Duppie

Not a term in use. Besides, according to Word Spy, a "duppie" is a "depressed urban professional". Whatever the case, redirecting to Puppy (or Dog, a blend of which two words it seems to be) is unhelpful and misleading. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 18

[edit] User:Pabmeista/Barclaycard

Pointless cross-namespace redirect left behind by vandalisng socking serial hoaxer: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The One & Only Fools and Horses for more details.   pablohablo. 22:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not a plausible search term, no meaningful/useful history. KuyaBriBriTalk 17:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pabmeista/AntTyler DrWho

Pointless redirect left behind by vandalsng socking serial hoaxer: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The One & Only Fools and Horses for more details.   pablohablo. 22:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not a plausible search term, no meaningful/useful history. KuyaBriBriTalk 17:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayan International Airport

Both erroneously listed at AfD. AfD debate copied here.KuyaBriBriTalk 21:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

For Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayan International Airport:

An article for Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Airport already exists; there is no airport by the name of the article nominated for deletion (it was simply created by a user who has created other variants of the same Jasepl (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Its more than that.
There is already an article called "Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayan Airport" - this is valid.
One user, in an attempt to make the airport looker more important (in his mind anyway) created two additional articles:
And then filled said pages with either the same exact content as in the valid article, or added random bits of unneeded (or incorrect) information.
Someone else then removed the content and added a redirect.
Basically, neither of the new articles should exist, because there's not even a need for a redirect. The airport is not an international one, so the user's adding that word in a new article's title was false.
Jasepl (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

For Patna Airport(International):

An article for Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Airport already exists; there is no airport by the name of the article nominated for deletion (it was simply created by a user who has created other variants of the same) Jasepl (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 17

[edit] K madhavan

The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete under G8 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Target recently deleted as a copyvio, and had other problems. There is no telling when or if a proper article about this person will be created, or what the exact title will be. Until there is such an article the redirect seems to serve little purpose. Delete. DES (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Etan (band)

delete, hoax target, see Wikipedia:An/i#Network_of_hoaxes_needs_attention Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment once the longstanding hoax stuff is deleted, any redirects will be speedied for not having a target. Is there any reason to start before the articles themselves are deleted? Josh Parris 11:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Disposophobia

The result of the discussion was Keep, retracted by nominator. Josh Parris 11:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion; the term "disposophobia is a neologism coined by Ron Alford and intended as the title for a book he seems to have never completed (the title is mentioned in a 2004 New Yorker article, but I didn't find the book in Worldcat). No academic journals use the term. I ran across it in the Collyer Brothers article, and removed it there. As far as I can tell, it does not appear in any other articles. I do not believe a term made up and used by a single person warrants a redirect, but leave it to the wisdom of the group Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep of course. 28,900 Ghits for "Disposophobia". Why didn't the nominator do that simple search? Every word in use was made up by a person at some point, the question is has the word penetrated beyond that one person. The 28,900 Ghits says yes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Reconsideration: I'm not familiar with Redirects for discussion; I applied Articles for deletion standards, & can see why I shouldn't have -- two different things entirely. Looking at the stats, it does appear the word gets searched for here on WP, so it makes sense for the redirect to exist. Just so long as there's no article by that name, and the word itself doesn't get used as a synonym in existing articles, which obviously is beyond the power of any person to make happen or not, & not germaine to this discussion anyway. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Puppey

Should be deleted, nobody would spell puppy like that. 17 page views in November, but mostly from the user who created the redirect in the first place. -- BigDom 10:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mycoxafloppin

Delete, as per Mycoxaflopin (hee, hee). Dethroned Buoy (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment whilst I laud the consistency, as Mycoxafloppin has been viewed 26 times in 200911 with no internal links, I'm concerned that there may be call for this joke redirect. Josh Parris 07:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep subject of a joke with significant penetration and a likely target of searches Reswobslc (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Blood Knight

The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn, the page is no longer a redirect, and works well as a disambig page. --Taelus (talk) 09:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirect created after article was listed as PROD. I stand by my assertion with the PROD that this is not a helpful redirect, there is no information about the subject in the target, or any of the targets subpages. Blood Knights have had very light coverage in the long series, and do not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion as a subsection on an article, thus this information will not be present on Wikipedia. Whilst we do have an article for factions and races, that only details very major groups, not every group which has featured in the series. For those not familiar with the game, this group has only recieved minor attention in one expansion pack. Taelus (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment extensive traffic (Blood_Knight has been viewed 191 times in 200911), not insubstantial edit history, no internal links, maybe a couple of external links in, might be confused with The Blood Knight, possibly mentioned in The Da Vinci Code Josh Parris 02:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The traffic is not for the redirect, it was a redirect for only a few hours before I listed it. It was previously marked for deletion as it was an article which did not assert notability. Also, traffic shouldn't mean anything in this case, the information won't be on Wikipedia thus we shouldn't mislead users by sending them looking for it via redirects to semi-relevant pages. --Taelus (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: The traffic seems to suggest that there is interest in the topic. I created the redirect to prevent deletion, given that the nominator judged the article to be insufficient. I would have no objection to an improved article, but as I don't play Warcraft I could make not such improvements myself. Perhaps a better redirect target would be Races and factions of Warcraft#Blood Elves? Cnilep (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
That would be an acceptable outcome I suppose... However, personally I am not a fan of redirects to locations which don't actually contain the relevant information. It's like an unspoken "You must have meant this semi-relevant topic" pointer, which leaves some users confused. Also whilst I appreciate the invalidity of the following argument, I still feel I should mention that there are thousands of such redirect terms which could be plausible if we go down the "Here is a topic semi-relevant to your search term" route just for this one game series. However I will not oppose consensus to redirect, but I feel I must represent my personal belief, after all I was inspired to get an account in order to fix up frustrating redirects! --Taelus (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Note that the page originally read, [sic] "The Blood Knights are order of Blood Elf Paladins residing in Silvermoon City in the fantasy MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game) World of Warcraft." Cnilep (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] December 16

[edit] Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116

Delete consensus in recent AfD for delete not redirect. also very unlikely search term. LibStar (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep I can certainly see a situation where someone would come across this name somewhere else and search for it on Wikipedia for more information. faithless (speak) 07:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, searches will end up at the target anyway, and the redirect stops people from writing an article about the person. Can't see any advantages of deletion. — Kusma talk 09:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep definitely a target by cut and paste. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Redirects which point to list entries are quite standard per WP:REDIRECT#Sub-topics and small topics in broader contexts. The supposition that no-one will search for this seems quite erroneous. If you look at the stats from the past such as September, you will see that the name gets lots of hits and has a remarkably high rank. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per Faithless. — The Man in Question (in question) 00:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - this seems exactly something that might be searched for. Pseudomonas(talk) 18:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tony "Mommy" Eggmonterorer

No mention in target article. Only three and twelve pageviews in November, respectively. Anyone searching Google for information on this topic will not find it on Wikipedia. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 19:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

One of these has some history, but what about retargetting to either Animals in A Series of Unfortunate Events#Mamba du Mal or Lemony Snicket: The Unauthorized Autobiography#Hidden Anagrams? Personally I prefer the latter since it is currently more useful, but I'm not sure that information is going to last. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
If the autobiography ever becomes a Good Article or better, it will undoubtedly lose the "Hidden Anagrams" section in the process, as you've suggested. Honestly, it seems so trivial. I understand the worries about page history, but still…especially the first (Tony "Mommy" Eggmonterorer), which is not notable, not mentioned in the target article, and not spelled correctly at all. Some editors have frowned on my use of analogies before, but still, it's like creating a Billy Ray Cryrus[21] redirect to List of 30 Rock characters or something. It just makes you say, "What?" — The Man in Question (in question) 20:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 22:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • 'either retarget, or add the character to the target article Upgrade rather than downgrade. There should be a link for every named character in a more than ordinarily notable fiction to the fiction, or to some subpage of it. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
"Tony 'Mommy' Eggmonteror" is not a character in the series. It is an anagram of the name of the author of a fictional book appearing in a supplementary book to the series. Articles should ideally contain third-party published sources. There are no such sources that mention "Tony 'Mommy' Eggmonteror", and never are there likely to be any. Delete as nominator. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] TSOTL

Initials for a target of inerest to a limited subculture. May cause confusion with other subjects that happen to share the same or similar initials. No indication that any existing subject is referred to by these initials enough to justify creation of a disambiguation page. --Allen3 talk 21:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Margaritiis

Typo. Cybervoron (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep, typos are one of the reasons for having redirects. It seems plausible enough. --Taelus (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 14

[edit] If you feel my love (album)

This article was created by a known sock puppet, then redirected to another article created by the same person, I suggest it be deleted as it is most likely a hoax. 117Avenue (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

keep, google confirmd the title, sock or not. By the way, where is the evidence it is a sockpuppet? - Altenmann >t 04:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Evidence: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Montana 4, and the warnings on User talk:STEF1995S. You cannot see all of his contributions, because when an article is deleted, the contributions he made on that article are also deleted. But from the contributions you can see, they are all vandalism. 117Avenue (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] If Yoy Feel My Love (abum)

This redirect goes to an article created by a known sock puppet, I suggest it be deleted as it is most likely a hoax. 117Avenue (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

  • keep, google confirms the title, sock or not. YOu have to make delete the target article deleted first. - Altenmann >t 04:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Note. Could you please rewrite that last sentence? I don't know what you are trying to say. 117Avenue (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry: Please make the target article deleted first: speedy or AfD. If the topic is OK, then redirect is OK and vice versa. "Known" sock puppets must be treated by wikipedia rules WP:SOCK (blocked if abusive). Otherwise it is an unjustified offense. - Altenmann >t 18:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Well then, off to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If You Feel My Love (album). 117Avenue (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
It was created December 1. 117Avenue (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah! my bad. Still, the period between its creation and listing shows negligible pageviews. — The Man in Question (in question) 00:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • DElete: Implausible typo. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Major Mikhail Fetisov

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 01:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirect from a person's name to a biography of another person. Fetisov is mentioned in the article, but the connection is probably not significant enough for a redirect. snigbrook (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

  • delete - immaterial connection. - Altenmann >t 04:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Kosmikophobia

Delete as an unhelpful search term. There is no mention of "Kosmikophobia" on the list so it should be restored to red link status. This is helpful as redlinks can inspire people to start articles rather than have it redirect to an obscure place where it isn't mentioned. Tavix |  Talk  01:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment this has already been an article which was merged as a result of the AfD; I think the problem here is not the redirect, but the removal of Kosmikophobia from the target. Google currently references this page if you ask for a define: of Kosmikophobia. There is a not insubstantial history for this page. Josh Parris 02:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • delete If you look into article, you will see it is nothing but a dicdef, and poorly referenced, too. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and its "merge" was correctly deleted from list of phobias, which, as other wikipedia lists, is a list of wikipedia articles. Every Greek, Latin, and even English noun or verb may be connected with suffix "-phobia" to make sometnig that probably someone may be scared of. The place of such coinages in in wiktionary. And looking at the deletion debate, I see the closure as quite contestable: all people, even those who were in favor of merge, actually said that it is nothing but dicdef in available sources. - Altenmann >t 04:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • keep, and add to the target article When an AfD gives a merge result,this is a keep, and the link and the history is intended to be kept. RfD is a very obscure process by comparison to AfD, and doing a total delete this way is in effect trying to evade community consensus which would not have given a delete, by doing it where it won;t be noticed. Peerhaps we need to change the rules, to put all RfD discussions of redirects from articles kept in AfD back into AfD, as the simplest way of getting them noticed. I don;t want to propose mergingthe entire RfD back, because that would encumber AfD needlessly for most of thew workload. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Regardless the deletion discussion, kosmikophobia was removed from List of phobias, and is not supposed to be restored there, and this page cannot dictate what to do with List of phobias. If you look into the talk page of List of phobias and its archives, it was agreed multiple times that this list, as all other wikipedia lists, must list artlices, not just words/dicdefs. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and dicdefs and lists thereof belong to wiktionary. - Altenmann >t 06:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Definitely a real term: [22] [23] [24] [25]. — The Man in Question (in question) 23:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Visually-impaired people encountering an elephant for the first time

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 01:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete: not necessarily hurting anything, but it's quite an implausible search term. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 10:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment low traffic, no history, no links Josh Parris 11:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • delete This title coinage is dubious OR (visually impaired is not the same as blind), smelling of mockery of political correctness. - Altenmann >t 04:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete – although i LOLed. 188.221.240.150 (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ha! That's a good one. — The Man in Question (in question) 23:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] December 13

[edit] Sky of chaos

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 01:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirect is from total speculation. quick Google brings up nothing. The first post was from a forum speculation, and the title is probably incorrect as it is. The view stats are close to nothing; most of them this month are from User:Brambleclawx and me. Please delete, as it really doesn't help. Airplaneman talk 01:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as indicated above. Page probably created from speculation of a 5th series (there is no evidence, and no 5th series has been announced), or it is the name of a Fanfiction. Brambleclawx (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Warrior kittys

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 01:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirect not relevant, as hardly anyone looking to learn about the Warrior cats would search "Warrior kittys". Page view stats. Two of the hits were from User:Brambleclawx and me looking at page. Airplaneman talk 23:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as indicated above. Note that I actually viewed the page multiple times. The diction of the title is not particularly good, and "kittys" is a misspelling of "kitties". Not many people would actually search this term. Brambleclawx (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Wikipedia:SNAFU

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 01:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion. 1: SNAFU has nothing to do with an ampersand, and 2: The Wikipedia namespace usually should not redirect to the main namespace. Samwb123T-C-@ 18:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as weird Josh Parris 02:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, I can't really work out what on earth that redirect is doing there... Very odd. --Taelus (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete; makes no sense. 188.221.240.150 (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: very strange... no obvious relationship.Brambleclawx (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as either a subtle (too subtle, in my opinion) criticism of Wikipedia or just very odd... –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 07:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Perhaps it was created because encodings beginning with & (such as &nbsр;) would present a snafu in the mainspace if not handled properly? Pshh, who knows. — The Man in Question (in question) 23:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Парадокс близанаца

Should be deleted. Anon started Serbian article on the twin paradox. Gets the occasional hit, so I wouldn't mind, but it might draw search engine hits away from the Serbian Wikipedia's entry. Paradoctor (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Transwiki and histmerge to the Serbian article, to preseve GFDL history of the Serbian article. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to the serbian wikipedia. --MisterWiki talk contribs 14:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Association Contre le Harcèlement Professionnel

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 01:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirects from name of an very obscure organization to article about an obscure Spanish physicist where it is only mentioned in one sentence. There is no indication of notability of this organization so those redirects are unlikely to be useful. Also, in the English Wikipedia, no one will be searching for the Spanish title. 93.136.141.144 (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, per above. --MisterWiki talk contribs 14:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, redirecting this (obscure) organisation to an individual is not appropriate; if a reader wants information on the organisation the target is not going to enlighten them. There's a non-trivial amount of traffic to the first option, so if it becomes a redlink there's a chance that an article may be born. Josh Parris 01:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] December 9

[edit] Albanian genocide

The result of the discussion was delete. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This redirect has gone back and forth. I'm really not aware of an appopriate target, if any. Grsz11 00:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete no context in the target article. If only this had been speedied as a hoax when created, but it got WP:ZAPped... mass suicide? Pyramid scheme? I seem to remember something about a pyramid scheme sucking in vast amounts of the population somewhere, but genocide? Josh Parris 00:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment If anything, History of post-Communist Albania would probably be the most applicable target. Grsz11 00:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete The original article was a hoax. None of the suggested targets are appropriate.--Ptolion (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment:I don't think we have to delete it. Maybe we can write something about the Kodra and other massacres, where women and children from Korça were massacred by Cretan irrgulars. What about the massacres in Kossovo? What about the starving Chams, children and old people in the Greek-Albanian border? If you need any refs, I can help. Guildenrich (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
    • If you actually have refs that it was genocide, there's northing stopping you from creating an article on it. This discussion is about the redirect that leads to articles that don't mention anything about genocide.--Ptolion (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: The term is misleading, no need for that redirection.Alexikoua (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Albanian Genocide, at [26]
That proves nothing. Still the current redirection is misleading.Alexikoua (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] David Icke pied

The result of the discussion was delete both. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Both of these originate as an attempt to add content on a protest of David Icke in February 2004, redirected the same month. The material in question was also added to the David Icke article by the same editor, so there is no attribution issue; in any case, the material has been gone from that article since February 2004 as well. Neither represents a useful searching or linking term for the target. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Negligible pageviews. — The Man in Question (in question) 20:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as not helpful Josh Parris 23:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete both as implausible search terms. Neither have relevant information in the target page either to explain why such search term may be considered. --Taelus (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Template:WikiProject Bannershell

Unused, no need to have Every Combination of capitalization for this (as many different versions makes it harder for WikiProject tagging bots to recognize the shells). Keep it simple. –xenotalk 17:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep, useful per Template:Multiple WikiProjects below. They were used until you bypassed them. --NE2 17:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep second. Camel-case pages should always have a spaced redirect (which this one already has in Template:WikiProject Banner Shell), but also capitalizing the first part of a phrase and not the second makes enough sense that someone might search it. Neutral on first. I don't see why anyone would type the second part as one word instead of typing it all as one word or as three separate words. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Were these really used? Very few links probably added by a single user once. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - the title suggests that the template is itself a WikiProject banner for the Bannershell (or Banner shell) WikiProject. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
    This is a good reason to delete. Wikiproject foo suggest that the template is a Wikiproject about foo. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Black Falcon. I am sympathetic to TMiQ's reasoning in terms of the second one, but in truth they DO both look like a WikiProject link and so those sorts of arguments carry less weight in my mind in this case. Since it's not a project but a tool, I think less is more, especially the simpler, less confusing ones. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hammer thingy

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Not properly descriptive of its target. A reader searching for "Hammer thingy" might well be looking for any sort of hammer (...thingy), and a link through this is essentially an easter egg. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unhelpful nonsense. No particular connection to Gavel. — The Man in Question (in question) 20:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - agree with The Man in Question. JohnCD (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: would a redirect to Category:Hammers be appropriate? Anyways, gets no traffic, has no history; whatever happens to this will have a trivial effect on the 'pedia. Josh Parris 23:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who is looking for a random hammer probably would start by loading our Hammer article and navigating from there; I can't imagine that more than a negligible number of people would ever search on "Hammer thingy", especially without trying "Hammer" first. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Silly. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete they could just as easily be looking for a mace or a mallet 76.66.192.35 (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, multiple targets it could be redirected to, but not a suitable term for a disambiguation page, and not really a plausible search term for an encyclopedia. --Taelus (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Would judge hammer thingy be an appropriate redirect? :) --NE2 14:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Please no. Anyway, judge hammer → gavel already exists. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. More than silly. Eeekster (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Brooklyn District Attorney

The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete WP:CSD#G8, targets gone. JohnCD (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I originally created these redirects and pointed them to New York County District Attorney. This was a mistake on my part but the appropriate targets for these redirects are redlinks and therefore I propose the redirects should be deleted. Tassedethe (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Multiple WikiProjects

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 01:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

We have plenty of redirects to the same target. This one a) is unused, b) has not similar name with all the others Magioladitis (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep as a plausible "search term" (which I'm using here mainly in the sense that someone who can't remember what the template is called might type it). --NE2 11:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Search term for templates? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, as I explained. If I'm only a casual tagger with WikiProject templates, I might forget the exact name of the "banner shell". "Multiple WikiProjects" is a plausible thing to try. --NE2 14:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per NE2. You can use things such as this for search terms, as doing an advanced search in non-mainspace areas is possible. Seems harmless enough, and I can see it being searched by someone at somepoint, who then finds their way to the main template. --Taelus (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unused, many different names makes it harder for WikiProject tagging bots to recognize the shells. Keep it simple. –xenotalk 17:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unused. — The Man in Question (in question) 20:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Only because Xeno bypassed it. --NE2 06:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
No, by "unused" I mean no one views the page. — The Man in Question (in question) 18:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Why would people view a template redirect? --NE2 20:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I think there were only very few uses and all made by a single editors. I can't be bothered to check exactly right now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per NE2. Tavix |  Talk  01:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} is a widely-used and -recognised template, so this seems to me to be a case where a redirect with such a different title is more likely to be confusing than helpful. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] List of articles about Colorado

The result of the discussion was delete. I linked to the target page in the deletion log so that editors who have bookmarked the article can continue to find the page in project-space and update their links. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 05:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a cross-namespace redirect created when User:Thejadefalcon moved a page during this now-closed AfD. I propose we delete this redirect per WP:RfD#DELETE reason #5, as it is a cross-namespace redirect from the article namespace to the project namespace. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, I believe this would be eligible under CSD G6 if the AfD is linked to? I will try tagging it anyway, since there is no way it will survive here as a cross-namespace redirect. --Taelus (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, CSD R2 suggests leaving the link there for a few days, probably so that people can update their links. I won't tag it then, the RfD will give people time. --Taelus (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion"