Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 30

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 30, 2014.

Windows 9

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep. (non-admin closure) Windows 10 is an article that provides explicit information about this term; therefore, it is the primary topic. Please note that per deletion policy, I have ignored a good number of !votes, including those that provided no reason, "it is useful" or "likely to be searched by thousands of people". In addition, I did take into the consideration that rumors are not encyclopedic and are best left well alone. However, by and large, the participants agree that the world in general has disregarded this principle and in doing so, gave due weight to the coverage of something that never existed. Fleet Command (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt (it was salted before, but has been unsalted just before the name announcement). It was never called this. � (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created it, because mountains of Windows 9 articles on the internet prior to the official Windows 10 naming. This link might be useful for some short period of time, but otherwise is not important after everyone learns about the new name. Actaully, I don't care if you keep or delete it, and not worth my time to argue either way. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:IFYOUTYPEAPHRASEINCAPITALSSOMEONEWILLMAKEAREDIRECTTOANAPPROPRIATEPAGETOPROVIDEANANSWER

[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 by the author under criterion G7. Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

joke redirect John Vandenberg (chat) 15:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Home/

[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. The voting is close, but I think those arguing to delete have the stronger arguments. Best to have a uniform approach to trailing slashes in our URLs; this one shouldn't stick out one way or another. --BDD (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed, as we have the big logo in the top left corner to go to the main page of the wiki. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

/? Si Trew (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think of the leading colon. Doh! Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are Wikipedia; wikis being pedantic about file paths is more an argument for removing than keeping. You have a point about file extensions, though, and most routing-enabled stuff I can find does indeed accept (or sometimes mandate) trailing slashes, so I'd say that leaves the precedent argument inconclusive. Therefore, let's do whatever seems the best for ourselves.
I see no advantage in allowing links of a form which nobody (to within experimental error) currently uses. Allowing trailing slashes on a minuscle fraction of our articles will just sow doubt about when they work and make people not use them.
I agree with Thryduulf on not automatically redirecting them. We've got enough restrictions on the titles already, I'd rather not add another. Additionally, even if we ignore trailing slashes, extra slashes in URLs sometimes have fully legitimate reasons to exist; we don't want home and /home to lead to the same place, nor should // (/wiki///) lead to anything except where it currently points. Ignoring extra slashes at some places and caring about them at other does not make any kind of sense to me.
Therefore, I still stand by not redirecting trailing slashes, and removing this one.
--81.232.114.228 (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Flip rock

[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) 20:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned at the target page, and the redirect's title seems to ambiguous to be helpful (it's not about how to flip rocks.) Also, the edit history of the redirect contains an article that probably wouldn't survive a WP:AFD nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Create a template

[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) 20:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Citebook

[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. Though redirects to citation templates have traditionally been considered benevolent CNRs, I found convincing the argument that this could be an obstacle to readers looking for an actual encyclopedic topic. --BDD (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace, which also conflicts with a real world term.[6] John Vandenberg (chat) 15:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the point. I can't comment on how prevalent this is as a legal term; nom suggested it and it makes sense to me. If it is a common legal term, then readers will come here looking for it, and they should find that we do not have an article about the topic, rather than finding information about how to format a book citation in Wikipedia's preferred format. Then again this is a fairly mature project - surely if it is a common legal term, there is an appropriate target in mainspace already? I don't know what that is. Ivanvector (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, based on the Google Books search maybe it would be better to retarget this to Citation? Ivanvector (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Chess Portal

[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. Portals are aimed at the reader and the consensus in this RFD reflects the broader consensus that pseudo-namespace redirects are acceptable as described in the relevant essay WP:CNS (second paragraph). NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace, using capitalisation as if it is a proper noun. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:CAT:ENFORCEMENT

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Talk:CAT:ENFORCEMENT

Blank and redirect

[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 speedily deleted by User: HJ Mitchell under G7. NAC. --NYKevin 23:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace. Not a WP:Shortcut. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I have this tendency to create shortcuts to policy in the main namespace instead of WP:. I've added a db-G7 tag so that it can be speedied. Diego (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Candidates for Speedy Deletion

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace. Not a WP:Shortcut. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per User:Thryduulf's analysis, which can be found at the previous discussion on this redirect here, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_5#Candidates for Speedy Deletion. This is a useful redirect and I use it several times a week. Safiel (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. These CSD redirects are only keepable since they are so heavily used by new user. However, the category is useless for a new users, they want the page that describes what speedy deletion is all about. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:Candidates for Speedy Deletion could be used for this purpose, but it isn't, since it points to the CSD criteria page; This is not reader content. WP:CSDCANDIDATES would even be shorter and conform to shortcut. The pseudo namespace indicator is "CAT", and this is missing it CAT:Candidates for Speedy Deletion this is not. This already uses a didfferent targetn from the WPspace redirect, so should be deleted as it conflict snd exists in the wrong namespace without a pseudonamespace indicator. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep per my analysis in the old discussion linked to by Safiel, and their comment that they find this useful. Consensus can change, but it is very unlikely to do so when, as in this case, the facts underlying that consensus have not changed. This is still very widely used, it still doesn't conflict with an article, it still doesn't do any harm, and it still makes speed deletion candidates as easy to find as possible for those people who don't understand namespaces (the IP's arguments miss the point that this is intended for people who have no concept of namespaces, let alone pseudo ones). Deleting redirects like this is directly contrary to the WMF's strategic goals regarding editor retention and reducing barriers to participation. For the same reasons, we should not retarget this because someone searching for or following a link to "candidates for speedy deletion" is looking for a list of pages that have been nominated for speedy deletion, if they were looking for the policy about what can be nominated they would search for "criteria for speedy deletion" or "speedy deletion policy", so while this might not be very confusing for long-term Wikipedians, it would be WP:ASTONISHing for newbies. Thryduulf (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What possibly could this title mean, aside from its current target? It clearly can refer to CAT:CSD, and nobody's going to be confused about that, and I can't imagine anything else (at least anything here at Wikipedia) to which it would refer better. It's not hurting anything, and deletion would be an inconvenience to everyone who uses it. Nyttend (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while I cordially detest cross-namespace redirection in all its forms, in this case I am persuaded an exception should be made. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC).
  • Keep per Thryduulf. I'm breaking my "no redirects from mainspace" mantra a lot today! This one is doing no harm - I find it highly unlikely that an average reader is going to come here typing this into a search box when they intend to find an article about something, so there is very little risk of confusion. Ivanvector (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Article moving

[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. Just Chilling (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirect from mainspace. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article request

[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. Just Chilling (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirect from mainspace. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Asosiy:

[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 creator's request. [Non-admin closure.] Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently created due to some interwiki problem, partially described at Talk:Asosiy:. No response from creator at User_talk:Haruo#Asosiy:. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created this redirect for the reason given on the talk page of the redirect. The problem that motivated me does not appear to exist any longer, so I can see no reason to keep the redirect except for sentimental reasons. I would be interested in knowing why the Uzbek Wikipedia had that particular defect back in 2007, but not interested enough to dig into the matter, and glad to see that it's ancient history. --Haruo (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Acceptable sources

[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) 20:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace; it is not a WP:shortcut. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Banterlion and durdock

[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) 20:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable/joke redirect created by a one-edit user called "Banterlion" in 2007. McGeddon (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indonesia portal

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uselss cross-namespace redirect - TheChampionMan1234 03:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, not about webportals in Indonesia, or other portals that are Indonesian -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as it directs the reader to the reader facing portal about Indonesia. Article space to portal redirects are harmless 99% of the time, and this is not an exception. See also #Chess Portal. Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Potentially useful and with no other likely use for the term 'Indonesia portal' I see no harm in it. Portals are aimed at the reader and pseudo-namespace redirects are acceptable as described in the relevant essay WP:CNS (second paragraph). (Apologies for cribbing another editor's remarks in that earlier close on Chess Portal but they put the situation well!) Just Chilling (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Common format for portal titles and completely harmless. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 04:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See WP:EGG. There is a proven concept in this world called "order and method". Deviating from it in the long run brings about chaos. In addition, if harmlessness was a criteria for keeping, there would have been no point in the existence of TfDRfD; no templatePortal, redirect, etc. in Wikipedia can harm anyone. Or perhaps my fellow colleagues here must define "harmful" and "harmless" anew? Fleet Command (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is RfD not TfD so different criteria apply, and "harmlessness" is a reason not to delete a redirect. At places like AfD and TfD, it is right that things like naming conventions are established and upheld for the location of content, however at RfD we are concerned with helping people find that content. We cannot expect people to know our naming conventions, and we cause harm to the encyclopaedia if we prevent people finding the content they are looking for. In this case it is a near certainty that someone looking for "Indonesia portal" is looking for a portal about Indonesia, so we should redirect them to our portal about Indonesia. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yo, nitpicker. TfD was typo. (R and T on a QWERTY keyboard are together.) And a copy and paste mishap too. (Well, that's an embarrassing mistake on my part, I confess. But the more embarrassing thing is that you, an admin no less, resort to nitpicking typos to evade a proper discussion.) The fact remains that everything in Wikipedia is harmless. If you wish to help people find stuff, you'd be better off helping them find it in the proper place or at least not blocking their way to the search engine with a redirect. When they search, let the search happen. (And if you want to nitpick and say this argument is not originally mine, yes, I admit it isn't. But so what? It is true.) Fleet Command (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You've been around long enough to know that countering an invalid argument is not nitpicking. You seem like a person who refuses to gracefully acknowledge when they're wrong. The correct response would be to alter your !vote and get on with your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 18:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf et. al., notwithstanding my usual objection to CNRs from mainspace. This is a good exception. Ivanvector (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Weissrussland

[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 White Russia#Name. Consensus is that if a foreign language name or term is discussed in an article, that term is at least a plausible search term and so arguments relating to Wikipedia not being a dictionary are no more relevant than they are when the language and topic are strongly associated. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not in a language relevant to the target. - TheChampionMan1234 02:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now, the Interwiki links from White Russia do not have anything for DE:WP. ButI think the IW has got a bit screwed up. I think the root cause of this is that German WP has no topic for "White Russia". To pick two other Wikis at random (or rather because they are the languages with which I am most familiar) that do:
The root problem then seems to be that de:Weißrussland cannot be IW'd in the "new" way both to "Belarus" and "White Russia".
  • de:Weissrussland is a redirect to de:Weißrussland, as you would expect.
  • de:Belarus is a redirect to de:Weißrussland. It's marked with an "other uses" to a DAB (at de:Belarus (Begriffsklärung)), but none of the three other entries there is for the region of White Russia, as I would expect (like e.g. English, Hungarian and French do). So I wonder if something has gone awry over at the German WP here and the region article has got "lost"? (Or merged, reversed over, or something?) I haven't checked the histories yet.
I did say not long ago that this is a disadvantage of the "new" way of doing the IW linking via Wikidata instead of longhand The limitation is that the linkage graph is a complete graph rather than a directed graph, so if two topics are dealt with in separate articles on one WP they must be done so on all WPs (rather than having one article serving both) for the IW links to work. QED.
Taking all this together, I think we can do it by making the Interwiki metadata for "White Russia" from the German redirect (:de:Weissrussland). With care, we then can keep both "White Russia" and "Belarus" properly interwiki'd, and we may be able to dispense with en:Weissrussland. Finally, I note en:Weißrussland is a redlink. Si Trew (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: I'm not sure I follow. Suppose in English you have articles A and B, and in Spanish you have article A+B. Wikidata has two entries, one for A and one for B. The A entry links to the English A article and the Spanish A+B article; similarly, the B entry links to B and A+B. Why can't you do something similar here? --NYKevin 01:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@NYKevin: ....and which does es:A+B link to, en:A or en:B? The Wikidata doesn't work like that: essentially the Wikipedia pages (and other Wikimedia pages) are just a set held at this record Q465351 at Wikidata ("White Russia"): there's no directionality in there. As a concrete example, I tried to add de:Weißrussland there but I got an error that it's already in use. As far as I know, then, we can't link both en:A and en:B to es:A+B (and de:A+C, etc). However, we can probably achieve it by Interwiki linking to a redirect (in this case, at de:Belarus or less likely at de:Weissrussland) if we get consensus that it's reasonable to do so. Si Trew (talk) 06:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: I don't understand your point. es:A+B is the A+B article on the Spanish Wikipedia. It does not "link" to anything under the new system. Links are strictly one-way from Wikidata to the other wikis. --NYKevin 22:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix Interwiki links then delete. Perhaps it is better if I make explicit after all that ramble:
  1. Retarget the Interwiki data for Belarus to point at de:Belarus (a redirect), not de:Weißrussland.
  2. Add Interwiki data from en:White Russia to de:Weißrussland.
  3. then Delete this redirect. en:Weissrussland. Si Trew (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Am I missing something? Is there a way explicitly to manage which Wikidata record is used for a Wikipedia page? In any case, perhaps White Russia should not have a DE:WP Interwiki link at all... Si Trew (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retarget to white Russia#name, where this specific topic is discussed. Names-in-different-languages articles or sections are a justifiable exception to the normal idea that we don't delete foreign-language names for topics unrelated to those languages — when the name itself is the subject, the foreign language term is quite relevant. Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

'''Belarus'''

[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) 20:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. - TheChampionMan1234 02:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

AbdelRahman Eltawil (Abdel Eltawil)

[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 as implausible typo. [Non-admin closure.] Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This sneakily created page is a redirect to a page (Abdel Eltawil) being AFDed, and is almost guaranteed deletion based on all delete votes. Quis separabit? 01:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Islamic Research Foundation

[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 redirect, noting that the AfD result does not decide whether we have a redirect or not. If the intent was to undelete the article, please go to WP:DRV to make that request. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No apparent reason given for speedy deletion. Request to restore article "IRF." Messiaindarain (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Research Foundation was nominated for deletion. The discussion ended in a delete decision. After, that delete decision, someone made this redirect. The nominator argues that since the deletion discussion ended with delete, that there shouldn't be a redirect here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Messiaindarain (talk · contribs) is arguing that the redirect should be replaced by an article, instead of being speedily deleted. However, @Messiaindarain: this requires a WP:DRV or new WP:AFD to overturn the existing decision to delete the article. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_30&oldid=1138579920"