The nominated redirect was deleted. The majority (8 against 5) wants to delete the redirect and the policy (WP:SELF) supports this; furthermore, the article does not mention that it's the one millionth article, and the strawpoll on the talk page indicates that that is not going to change. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Post scriptum: Combining with the discussion for the redirect at One million articles (nominated on 2 March), I count 10 editors arguing for deletion (cesarb, Ziggurat, BrokenSegue, P199, Pavel Vozenilek, Cryptic, Grocer, Chick Bowen, bodgan, Whouk) and 8 that it be kept (Kappa, Johntex, Kilo-Lima, Clarkefreak, Zocky, God of War, lancaddy, Moa3333). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've already used this, much easier to remember than "Jordanhill railway station". Kappa 04:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, long after our special banner is gone off our home page, someone will wonder what our one-millionth article was. This redirect should be kept and should eihter point to the "Jordanhill railway station" article, as it does now, or to the press release pertaining to hitting the milestone. Johntex\talk 05:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johntex. KILO-LIMA 18:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or if its kept, I am going to make redirects from favorite pizza toppingtoanchovi to save myself time. It doesn't matter that you find this useful or if its convenient. Millionth article isn't an alternate name for that railway station. The article doesn't even mention that it is the millionth, so why should we have a redirect for it. That will, at the least, confuse people and, worse, it violates wp:self. BrokenSegue 23:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment whether the article mentions its one-millionth status is a question of when you look at the article. Opinion is split about 60-40 against mentioning at the moment - this is likely to drift the other way as media mentions start coming in. Johntex\talk 03:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur with CesarB and BrokenSegue. An article on Wikipedia facts/stats can state this milestone and identify the one millionth article. But a redirect is useless in the long run. P199 19:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per self-referential --Grocer 17:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that "One Millionth Article" is not the name of the station, but in no way is it harmful to the article itself (nor de-encyclopedifying) to have a redirect to that page. If we were to add in a notice on that page, I would object, because it is irrelevant to the railway station that it was wikipedia's 1,000,000th article. It's a way for wikinerds to refer themselves to this milestone article. By the way, I gleaned WP:SELF and I'm not sure how that applies to this case. Could someone explain briefly how that affects what we're dealing with? Clarkefreak∞ 23:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for a couple of weeks , while we're in the news, in case some clueless user types it into the search box, then delete. Zocky | picture popups 13:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cryptic. Chick Bowen 18:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Category not redirect & speedy deleted by R3m0t. -- JLaTondre 20:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all cross-namespace redirects. -- JLaTondre 01:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand this policy of cross-namespace redirects, but I feel it's being applied irrationally. We all need a little common sense ... Rollback feature clearly applies only to Wikipedia:Rollback feature, and this redirect only makes it easier on new users to find information on a topic they don't understand. I feel that redirects that link one topic to another clearly related topic and that make finding information on that topic easier should be kept. AmiDaniel 08:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
All three nominated redirects were deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely typo. --nnh 04:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated redirect was deleted. — Mar. 7, '06 [17:17] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Userbox → Wikipedia:Userboxes -- No self-reference. I thought this was decided, but people keep recreating it. I bring it here so that we can legitimately put deletedpages on it. BrokenSegue 23:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can you show me where this was decided? Sorry if I have restarted this issue. --Fang Aili
Where what was decided? No-self reference? That has been policy for as long as I can remember. See WP:SELF. Also, Wikipedia:Redirect says that a redirect should be deleted if "It is a cross-space redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace." This issue has never been controversial there is nothing to start. The policy is pritty cut and dry (at least, I hope you don't start some thing, it'd annoy me if yet another policy that I agree came under attack). BrokenSegue 01:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, ok. I was just asking. I was not familiar with that policy. --Fang Aili 14:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Strongest Objection. That redirect does no harm in anyway that I can see. I don´t think that any article is going to be written with that title. It is quite usefull and easy to use (a official goal of Wikipedia) for new and old users. I also object how the whole matter is being dealt by over-eager users. You listed that re-direct in this list, that is true (see below), but as two users showed that they did not agree, you simply ignored their view and deleted the re-direct anyway. This is not a shootinglist where someone announces that he going to kill a wild animal and then does it regardless of everything. This is place where someone asks for the opinion of other users and tries to reach a agreement. Therefore I must most strongly object the deletion of this redirect and also your behaviour. Flamarande 18:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Strong Objection. What that guy said. ^^^^^^^ Recon0 20:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See above ^^^ Dtm142 01:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid its an instance of people not understanding the rules. (The List of admins link is wrong as well) In Wikipedia:Redirect ona t the top of this page it is made clear that such redirects (no matter how convenient) are to be deleted. The users who are voting here don't understand this policy. As to Flamarande's comments I say AGF. I did nothing of the sort. I didn't even delete this template (and I deleted nothing after listing them here as you suggested). So I have no idea what you are talking about. Also note that two other respected admins (Tony Sidaway and Pathoschild) speedied this redirect (they were right to do so), but to clear it for users who don't understand the policy on inter-namespace redirects I listed them here. I am not here to destroy your userboxes *sheesh* this isn't a conspiracy. Cross-namespace redirect = bad and have always been that way. We're only having this conversation because it's about userboxes. I fear mentioning this, but a few clicks down the page you will find the uncontrovertial nomination of Rollback feature. If you want a quick way to acess the userboxes page use the WP shortcuts (WP:UB). BrokenSegue 21:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First I have to apolagize to Broken. I confused him with the administrator who deleted the redirects whithout following proper channels and also imediatly put a deletedpages on it (see the talpages). I am sorry. But there a lawfull exceptions to rule mentioned above which (in my opinion) also apply to these case. Flamarande 18:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to think that it falls under: "*5. It is a cross-space redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace."
I can certainly understand that, but fact is that these redirects also fall under: However, avoid deleting such redirects if:"*3. They aid searches on certain terms." and "*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."
Delete per norm. Those who voted keep, see BrokenSegue's rationale at Talk:Userboxes. This isn't a move against userboxes. All such inter-namespace redirects should be deleted. --Fang Aili 21:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and second what Fang Aili said. Mackensen(talk) 21:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all cross-namespace redirects. -- JLaTondre 01:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all cross-namespace redirects. —Cryptic(talk) 15:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Look at the alternative: a user who wants to find out how to use userboxes types it in the searchbox, only to get an ugly page with a "this page has been deleted" notice on it. What kind of impression does that give to a newbie about the usability of Wikipedia? To whose benefit is that? The user isn't looking for an encyclopedia article on it, they just want to add the damn things to their userpage, or take a look at the gallery of them. Without a deleted notice page nor a redirection, the result is a search list with Wikipedia:Userboxes right at the top. Your solution has users seeing a "deleted" notice page, forcing them to backtrack to hit the search button. Why not cut the steps down to one: hit the go button and go straight to the desired page? IT MAKES NO SENSE TO HAMPER THE USABILITY OF WIKIPEDIA FOR THE SAKE OF A PEDANTIC RULE. Please don't break the search box: I typed in "userboxes" and got an ugly page with a notice leading me here. This is NOT what I was looking for! Think of the user and what he or she wants to find when typing in the term. Make Wikipedia work better, make it intuitive. Empathize with the user, for that's who we are serving. --Go for it! 04:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. What harm is this page doing anyone? You might not like userboxes, but it's an awfully cheap way to get rid of them--by making them impossible for new users to learn about. AmiDaniel 06:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I think this deletion was made by a group of strict interpreters of wikipedia policy, and it is rediculous to delete this, unless someone will write an article on userboxes that is informative, and includes a link to the wikipedia userspace page, but that encyclopedic information is already found in the wiki-space. It is a useful link that makes wikipedia easier to navigate. Clarkefreak∞ 23:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per User:Go for it! -arctic gnome 17:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.[reply]
The nominated redirect was deleted. — Mar. 7, '06 [17:17] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Strong Keep I have advocated the recreation of the redirect ever since that weird deletion conspricy. Beside, many new users will have no idea how to find userboxes without it. If this is deleted, might as well do this to all redirects. The Republican 03:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the policy on no self-references does not mean that no search term or redirect can point to an article about Wikipedia. The policy is meant to prevent *useless* self-references, such as "This Wikipedia article is about Cats" at the top of the Cat article. Johntex\talk 03:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I can see no wrong with this redirect. I helps the WikiUser and does no harm. I can only ask you to explain us what harm is done by that redirect. Flamarande 18:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Those who voted keep, see BrokenSegue's rationale at Talk:Userboxes. This isn't a move against userboxes. All such inter-namespace redirects should be deleted. --Fang Aili 21:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and second what Fang Aili said. Mackensen(talk) 21:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or if not deleted, at least make it a real redirect. "Soft redirects" are the most useless thing since decaffeinated coffee. — Mar. 4, '06 [00:57] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Delete all cross-namespace redirects. -- JLaTondre 01:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all cross-namespace redirects. —Cryptic(talk) 15:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Look at the alternative: a user who wants to find out how to use userboxes types it in the searchbox, only to get an ugly page with a "this page has been deleted" notice on it. What kind of impression does that give to a newbie about the usability of Wikipedia? To whose benefit is that? The user isn't looking for an encyclopedia article on it, and certainly not an ugly dead end -- they just want to add userboxes to their userpage, or take a look at the gallery of them. Without a deleted notice page nor a redirection, the result is a search list with Wikipedia:Userboxes right at the top. Your solution has users seeing a "deleted" notice page, forcing them to backtrack to hit the search button. Why not cut the steps down to one: hit the go button and go straight to the desired page? IT MAKES NO SENSE TO HAMPER THE USABILITY OF WIKIPEDIA FOR THE SAKE OF A PEDANTIC RULE. Please don't break the search box: I typed in "userboxes" and got an ugly page with a notice leading me here. This is NOT what I was looking for! Think of the user and what he or she wants to find when typing in the term. Make Wikipedia work better, make it intuitive. Empathize with the user, for that's who we are serving. --Go for it! 05:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per what I said above. AmiDaniel 06:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep see above. Clarkefreak∞ 23:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a cross-namespace link, which is not allowed. Deleting this has nothing to do with userboxes per se, other publishers may mirror the contents of Wikipedia, and cross-namespace links break. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 11:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.[reply]
The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't proving a point as such, just filling in redlinks with redirects that might make sense. If you look at the Baden Powell debate I originally voted to merge the content back into the main article, so I'm confused as to what point I might have been making. Happy to have this deleted, but equally think that a "sexuality" category makes sense.Vizjim 16:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't be anything other than pure speculation, and as such is not encyclopedic even as a redirect. Not relevant, unnecessary. --DanielCD 14:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does his sexuality have to do anyting with his abuse charges? KILO-LIMA 18:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Gadget850. KILO-LIMA 18:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted (see the discussion for One millionth article, nominated on the previous day (1 March 2006). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, long after our special banner is gone off our home page, someone will wonder what our one-millionth article was. This redirect should be kept and should eihter point to the "Jordanhill railway station" article, as it does now, or to the press release pertaining to hitting the milestone. Johntex\talk 19:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note also the poll below on One millionth article, which currently has 3 opinions to keep compared the the one opinion listing it for consideration here. Thank you, Johntex\talk 19:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted, but please notice this article was created under different circumstances, deleted a few times, then recreated as a redirect. And while "One millionth article" is a somewhat likely search string, "one million articles" is hard to make sense of. --Grocer 19:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This was 1 away from actually being the millionth article. scary.--God Ω War 22:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, God of War, that isn't an acceptable reason to keep a redirect. BrokenSegue 23:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Johntex says it is a historic thing which people will wonder about and want to find. It should redirect to the press release which then links to the article itself. Iancaddy 00:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until 2 million articles. I created this article (at the time, the old article was deleted and did not exited). It was the article number 999999. I sugest to delete this article 1 mounth after wikipedia reaches 2 million articles. In the meantime we could expalin it was number 999999, and make a link to the one millionth, without redirect. Moa3333 19:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no self-references. Someone who wants to know what the millionth article in Wikipedia was should look at Wikipedia. —Cryptic(talk) 15:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-referencial. bogdan 09:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for a couple of weeks , while we're in the news, in case some clueless user types it into the search box, then delete. Zocky | picture popups 13:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated redirect was kept, though I wish we could do away with these at some point. — Mar. 12, '06 [13:14] <freakofnurxture|talk>
SocialisM → Socialism - why an article with such a name should exist??? yanis 16:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Note This was originally posted on WP:AFD. I moved it, and the vote history, here. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep it is a redirect to Socialism to help users who miss type during searches. Not overly nessary in this case.--Blue520 16:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Not a very likely incorrect spelling. Better to fall through to the search feature. — RJH 18:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Unless I'm missing something, typing a misplaced cap at the end of a word should still go to the correctly capitalized article, and not the search page. For fun, I tried 'CommunisM' and was sent right to Communism with no redirect. The only time I can see this being useful is if the typo is in an inline link, in which case the red link would make it stand out enough that it would be found and corrected quickly anyway. -- Vary | Talk 22:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. pointless redirecT. Eivind 00:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the usual CamelCase with old edit history. -- User:Docu
Question: could you say something to the benefit of keeping the edit history on this and similar items? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: thanks to JLaTondre's reference; I see that the camelcase version existed long before the normalcase version and that there is a history discontinuity between the two; therefore, the redirect up for deletion must be kept in order to satisfy GFDL licensing requirements. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Kappa 02:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirects are cheap, but this one is completely unnecessary -- are we going to create a page for every possible spelling of every word?AmiDaniel 23:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sorry, I see your point now. AmiDaniel 03:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep because of its edit history. Incidentally, I took the liberty of replacing the {{afd1}} on the redirect with {{rfd1}}. Hairy Dude 05:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC) ♫ (Talk?) 03:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: CamelCase redirects are historically significant and sometimes act as targets for external links. What did you think the huge great notice was telling you? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 18:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. — Mar. 12, '06 [13:14] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Pimation → Multiplication -- Pimation is apparently not a word and the creating account is new, so the article is probably a hoax. The Rod (☎ Smith) 05:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.[reply]
The nominated redirect was deleted. Malformed, unlikely search term. — Mar. 12, '06 [13:14] <freakofnurxture|talk>
The nominated redirect was disambiguated. — Mar. 12, '06 [13:14] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Shadows (album) → Shadows (Gordon Lightfoot album) -- This redirect was created out of a page move in line with the album page guidelines. All pages that previously linked to this redirect now link directly to the main page and thus the redirect serves no purpose. Shadow007 15:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination makes no sense. If there is only one notable album called Shadows, Lightfoot's album should be placed at Shadows (album). If there is more than one, Shadows (album) should be a disambiguation page rather than a deleted redirect. — Mar. 3, '06 [17:13] <freakofnurxture|talk>
As Dan says, Gordon Lightfoot's album was originally the only album called Shadows with a page. But subsequently another one has been created so Shadows (album) was moved to Shadows (Gordon Lightfoot album). Both Shadows albums have a link on the Shadow (disambiguation) page and so the redirect is pointless. Although I note that someone turned the redirect into a disambig page I think this is pointless. I still believe it should be deleted. Shadow007 00:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, as a disambig page it is unlikely to be helpful. People will simply search "Shadows" and be redireted to Shadow, then to the Shadow (disambiguation) page from which they will get to one of the two Shadows albums. I think it extremely unlikey that without any pages linking to Shadows (album) anyone will actually go there. Shadow007 07:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For general users, true. However, for those familiar with Wikipedia's naming convention, not necessarily. The existence of Shadows (album) as a disambig page would ensure a duplicate article or an article on another album with the same name is not created at Shadows (album) by mistake. -- JLaTondre 17:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as dab page. Agreed, if you delete Shadows (album) someone will recreate it in error next time they write an article about an album called Shadows, then people who know the wiki will link to it from the wrong album without checking and they'll see their link go blue on the preview and think 'oh clever of me I guessed it right', and it'll be a mess. At least if it's a dab page when people link to it in error we'll pick it up on WP:DPL and be able to clean it up ~ Veledan • Talk 18:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Keep as dab, and I have learned from this experience. Dan, the CowMan 05:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary: this should appear in Wiktionary as a sometimes euphemistic and sometimes stylistic alternate spelling of Wiktionary:sucks (consult Wiktionary:suck, colloquial meaning of general disparagement). (recall the usage "6000 SUX" from RoboCop for instance) User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SUX should redirect to the Sioux Gateway Airport in Sioux City, Iowa. SUX is the three-letter IATA code.
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. Write a disambiguation page later if you want. — Mar. 12, '06 [13:26] <freakofnurxture|talk>
1976-77 → 1976-77 in English football -- Too unspecific (created by page move to better title). Similar redirects were deleted recently, but I had overlooked this one. Kusma(討論) 20:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to DAB: convert the page from a redirect to a disambiguation page that would include the present target among others. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
You can't redirect it to a nonexistent page. Perhaps it could be redirected to truth. 64.192.107.242 14:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I implied creation of one or the other article followed by the redirection; I'm aware that redirecting to a non-existant page is not desirable (though it can be done technically). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change Target → To Tell the Truth ... thanks for suggesting that one as a "mechanics" path; should then be tagged with R-from-related-word perhaps. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Keep. I'm not sure why you think that's inappropriate. Pointing people to where information is discussed when there's not an article on the topic is one of the purposes of redirects. -- JLaTondre 22:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the existence of this particular redirect is almost definitely because it is displayed on the page March (music), where a link to Wagner's page is prominently displayed right next to the piece. I would say that its fine for this particular piece to redirect to Wagner, but it's sort of inappropriate since not all of Wagner's music redirects to him, and, indeed, far more prominent marches do not redirect to their composers, so the redirect seems somewhat out of place and redundant. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: in the absence of an article on the march itself I can see at least two places that the redirect might point, the composer (it's current target) or a list of the composer's pieces (such as List of works by Josef Wagner), which in many cases is in fact part of the composer's biographical article. I can see, though, the point of deleting it if one wishes to discourage a trend of creating redirects for every one of every artist's works. I waffle back and forth on that particular notion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. — Mar. 12, '06 [13:36] <freakofnurxture|talk>
John 6 → Gospel of John -- Redlinks work a lot better than redirects for the purposes of the {{Chapters in the Gospel of John}} box. Imagine if every redlinked chapter was actual a redirect back to the parent Gospel. A user wouldn't be able to tell which chapters actually had content and which ones were just redirects. Since John 6 is the odd ball, I suggest this redirect be deleted Andrew c 07:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AmiDaniel 09:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Makes sense to me.Herostratus 14:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a simple newbie error. Page was created by an anon editor simply pasting in the text of the bible chapter and a later editor changed it to a redir instead of deleting the page. ~ Veledan • Talk 21:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there is considerable debate over the meaning of the chapter, it is best covered in articles on the doctrines involved and on the gospel itself. --CTSWyneken 02:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.[reply]
Johanesburg → Johannesburg -- Not a common misspelling that I've seen (in fact, only one article pointed there). Dbinder 13:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look too unplausible to me. I've tagged it as {{R from misspelling}}, and vote keep. Kusma(討論) 17:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "n" vs. "nn" is a relatively common misspelling error when typing. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per above. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.[reply]
The nominated redirect was deleted. — Mar. 12, '06 [13:36] <freakofnurxture|talk>
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was kept, fixed double redirect. — Mar. 12, '06 [13:36] <freakofnurxture|talk>
OOT → Ocarina of Time -- The targeted article itself is a redirect to The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Since the chances of OOT being typed in and expecting "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time" as a hit are minimal, I recommend the redirect be deleted. み使いMitsukai 02:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change target to The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. OoT (note different capitalization) already exists as a redirect to that page, and Google gives about 252,000 results for "Ocarina of Time" and "OOT" together. — TKD (Talk) 08:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.[reply]
The nominated redirect was deleted. — Mar. 12, '06 [13:36] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Gərbəˈtɕov → Mikhail Gorbachev -- Fun with IPA is not a plausible reason for a redirect. Seems like it might be a test page by a relatively new user. Kinut/c 06:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I challenge anyone to type that into the search box at all, let alone do it by accident :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 18:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless keyboards with IPA symbols become suddenly widespread. ;) — TKD::Talk 13:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.[reply]
Keep. No matter how the university may call itself, this is still a common mistake. What page move is it blocking? -- That might change my opinion.AmiDaniel 23:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, I understand now. AmiDaniel 03:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. Target article does not contain the word "warehouse". — Mar. 12, '06 [13:43] <freakofnurxture|talk>
The Warehouse (Leeds) → University of Leeds -- An old article originally about a club in Leeds popular with students and redirected to the University. Does not seem to be useful redirect. Salix alba (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AmiDaniel 23:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.[reply]
The nominated redirect was kept. I'm confident that this redirect will prevent at least one duplicate article. — Mar. 12, '06 [13:43] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Keep. Seems like a worthwhile redirect for people unaware of the merger searching under the old company name.--Andrew c 02:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.[reply]
The nominated redirect was kept, harmless, may need to be moved back at some point anyway. Plus if it's been there for a while, there are probably a lot of old page revisions that link to it. — Mar. 12, '06 [13:43] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Knocked Up (film) → Knocked Up -- Self-nom. Originally made to disamb, but wasn't it needed so the page was moved. Resulting redirect not needed. Crumbsucker 13:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AmiDaniel 23:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was kept as a stub. — Mar. 12, '06 [13:43] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Canopy (forest) redirects to Forest but that page does not discuss topic. Someone is currently redirect pages directly to forest causing incorrect meanings in articles like West Nile virus where the habitat of forest versus canopy is significant. Rmhermen 19:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into article, rather than just remove the redirect. At the very least it will be a useful stub. --Salix alba (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stub per Salix. --Allen 00:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stub per the above. Royboycrashfan 02:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. Not mentioned in latter article as a variant spelling. — Mar. 12, '06 [13:52] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Gongsta → Gangster -- Unlikely misspelling. Used to be an article created by an anon user but was turned into a redirect for being non-notable. Hairy Dude 06:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's not a misspelling, it's jargon. ॐ Metta Bubblepuff 06:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.[reply]
Keep. The article was merged into the "list of" article once before, I'm going to do it again now. And the new article's title is misspelled anyway. Bryan 07:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was speedily kept as the nomination was withdrawn. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gurunath → Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath -- Gurunath is a title used by people other than the redirect subject. For example, the current leader of my lineage is Shri Gurunath Kapilnath.Adityanath 12:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Rather than deleting, edit into a description of the title. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advice taken. Thanks.Adityanath 19:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was speedily kept as the nomination was withdrawn. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yogiraj → Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath -- This term is a title given to other individuals besides the redirect subject. Just one example is Yogiraj Shama Churn Lahiree[2].Adityanath 12:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Rather than deleting, edit into a description of the title. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advice taken. Thanks.Adityanath 19:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was kept, harmless. — Mar. 12, '06 [13:52] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Keep: people could type this into the search box any which way. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I often accidently capitilize that word when looking up episode lists, it's a legitimate redirect. --lightdarkness (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plausible search term. Royboycrashfan 00:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.[reply]
The nominated redirect was deleted, article mentions no affinity for CAPS LOCK. — Mar. 12, '06 [13:52] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Delete, unnecessary. Royboycrashfan 00:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change redirect to point to Delete, which is a disambig page that links to both the policy page and a couple articles. --Allen 06:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Delete, not a useful redirect per nom. --Kinut/c 07:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted, not mentioned on latter page. — Mar. 12, '06 [14:02] <freakofnurxture|talk>
KVX-FM → KLOS -- This redirect had the "considered for deletion" noticed added on 2006-02-04 by 66.81.149.82 but was not brought over to here. I support the deletion, since nothing on the KLOS page even mentions KVX-FM, let alone why there should be a redirect. —LrdChaos 16:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.[reply]
The nominated redirect was redirected to holiday, per Kappa, duh. — Mar. 12, '06 [14:02] <freakofnurxture|talk>
The Holiday → Christmas -- Not being linked on any pages. Highly unlikely that someone would search for "The Holiday" if they are searching for Christmas, and it's blocking a page move. Crumbsucker 17:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Christmas is not the only holiday. Royboycrashfan 00:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above comment -Localzuk(talk) 15:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Royboycrashfan. —LrdChaos 16:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reredirecttoholiday, as I have just done. Kappa 00:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No redirect, page is going to be used for the 2006 film. Crumbsucker 00:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was kept, harmless. — Mar. 12, '06 [14:02] <freakofnurxture|talk>
I see no harm in keeping it. Royboycrashfan 00:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - serves no purpose. -Localzuk(talk) 15:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this format is frequently the first link I attempt if I refer to a singer. Not doing any harm is it? ~ Veledan • Talk 00:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted, somebody went overboard. — Mar. 12, '06 [14:02] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Delete - serves even less than no purpose. -Localzuk(talk) 15:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.[reply]
The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Demon Zophiel → Jophiel -- Prodded and then nominated for AfD (discussion here) after article was turned into redirect; I am moving it here. Doesn't seem plausible, so I am voting delete. Royboycrashfan 00:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I removed this PROD. The user who created the page, and then redirected it to Jophiel, stated in the PROD summary, "There's no reason to keep this article since it links to Jophiel now." I interpreted this to mean that the user didn't quite understand how redirects work, and maybe didn't realize that if the article was deleted, the redirect would vanish and stop working. No biggie; delete it if it seems reasonable to do so. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. — Mar. 12, '06 [14:05] <freakofnurxture|talk>
The nominated redirect was deleted. On the whole, these are only 7 letters shorter than the actual title. Stupid. Maybe we could create numbered BJAODN redirects like WP:BJAODN/1, WP:BJAODN/2, WP:BJAODN/ALL, etc. Those would actually be useful. — Mar. 12, '06 [14:12] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Perhaps convert it to a disambiguation page, one meaning being that it is a diminutive of the common name James. Darcyj 06:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Jamie already redirects to the James disambiguation page... and I really don't think having the question mark in there makes this a legitimate redirect to there either. --Kinut/c 06:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Delete. Darcyj 12:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu. — TKD::Talk 13:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was kept, duh... — Mar. 16, '06 [20:20] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Demo version → Demo -- Was used only once in the Witchaven 2 article. I fixed the link to point directly to the proper article: Game demo. Redirect is quite useless, since normally one would search for 'Demo' or 'Game demo' instead of 'Demo version' Yaco 03:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC
Strong Keep - Demo version, while an uncommonly used term these days, has been a rather common way to refer to a demo in the past and I wouldn't be surprised if people still searched for the term demo version today.
Keep but redirect should point to an article like Game demo, instead of to a disambig page. AmiDaniel 01:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term "demo version" is also used for other things such as songs, so the redirect to disambig is fine. — sjorford(talk) 20:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Milhouse, Paul W. → Paul William Milhouse -- Unused redirect, created by author of target article to resolve two dead links created by the same editor, including a circular link in the target article. BrownHairedGirl 14:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AmiDaniel 01:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AmiDaniel 01:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral vote. I had created the original article (Gold (Cat Stevens album)) and mysteriously, someone (a registered user, yet), had moved the article to the "Universal record album" space, whatever the hell that was supposed to be. This move apparently sat for a week without my knowledge until another gentleman reverted it back. So, basically, what I guess I'm trying to say is I don't care whether the dumb-ass "Universal record album" redirect remains or not. LOL. Cjmarsicano 06:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call that reason to delete myself ~ Veledan • Talk 19:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ASS → Wikipedia:Administrators -- Assuming it isn't self-evident, I think the connection between WP:ASS and administrators is rather an attack, especially in light of other crude shortcuts like WP:DICK. To be honest, I thought it was going to redirect to something along the lines of WP:DICK, and was rather shocked to find that it went to Administrators. EssjayTalk • Contact 22:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this redirect seems to have pointed to every page under the sun in its history, and none of them are appropriate. — sjorford(talk) 22:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not funny. Innapropriate. Offensive. Not helpful. Etc. --TantalumTelluride 03:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, the edit history is actually pretty entertaining. But the page's varied history is even more reason to delete it, in order to avoid confusion. --TantalumTelluride 03:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change target to some page for ill advised redirects (perhaps a new page like WP:List of ill-advised redirects), and protect it from being edited. Otherwise it will be created anew and pointed somewhere else. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can kind of see the reasoning as to why it was created, but I would find it confusing myself. — TKD::Talk 21:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was kept. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's from the advertising jingle for Glade Plug Ins - EurekaLott 03:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep It's doing no harm, and could help the occasional insomniac who's hearing the jingle in his/her head. Chris the speller 16:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chris. Although the target article needs to be cleaned up and expanded to cover that. — TKD::Talk 21:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chris .. and yes that target article needs some cleaning, definitely. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just corrected List of Susquehanna River bridges, which was in error. (The original author made at least one other serious mistake on that page, which I'll correct shortly.) But both Rockville Bridge and the Cumberland Valley Railroad Bridge are generally known by those names; the redirect under consideration was just made up for disambiguation and has no currency outside of Wikipedia. I don't see why we need to keep it; no articles link there and it isn't a name someone would choose to link to. Choess 03:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. I've removed my redirect suggestion & concur with delete. -- JLaTondre 13:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was kept, because it doesn't do much harm. I have no idea what it means to transwiki a redirect. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Voted off the island → Survivor (TV series) -- I originally placed the re-direct at the time, considering it was related to the popular Survivor reality television show, but looking at the page's history [3]. It has nn information, and furthermore I dont think anyone is going to look for a specific article called Voted off the island-- Arnzy | Talk 04:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as known phrase related to the show. I don't think that the title is so convoluted as to be useless. — TKD::Talk 21:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki→Wiktionary: yes, it is associated with the show, but it has entered the popular vernacular and has a meaning that transcends the show. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite reeling at the information that there is a legitimate article Corpse Humping. For my sanity, Delete ~ Veledan • Talk 19:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Though the title would seem to be the stuff of WP:BJAODN. — TKD::Talk 21:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was speedied. It's gone. — Mar. 12, '06 [18:25] <freakofnurxture|talk>
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Directed → Directed set -- the majority of links to it are unrelated to the target. a disambig would do better but I don't have the time. Olleicua 17:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Situatedness → Situated -- Situatedness is not an actual word, nor is it commonly used. The redirect is completely unnecessary as no one would search for it and only one article links to it...which is probably why the redirect was created in the first place. AmiDaniel 19:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was kept. No "votes", and it seems a reasonable redirect (Tikka Rain is mentioned on the target page). Notability requirements are minimal for redirects. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rock nacional → Argentine rock -- "Rock nacional" means "national rock (music)" in Spanish - which obviously does not only refer to Argentine rock. Besides, it has been previously deleted for the same reason: [4]. Fibonacci 04:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The discussion is moot, after EurekaLott's revert. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nucleus → Nuclear -- Changes the disambiguation of "nuclear" to "nucleus", which is a seperate topic. 69.63.48.84 21:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
?Nuclear currently redirects to Nucleus, not the other way around. Are you suggesting that Nuclear be deleted? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nuclear should really become a disambiguation page to pages such as Nuclear power and Nuclear bomb. Nucleus has no info on either. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wouldn't expect a generic "Chapter X" to redirect there, nor do I expect that most users would search for such a broad term. — TKD::Talk 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely a misspell physicistjedi 21:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. User:King V seems to be in the know. I'm slightly worried though about the number of pages linking to GM 3200 engine. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GM_3200_engine → GM_60-Degree_V6_engine -- There is no such thing as a GM 3200 engine. There was, in 1978 and 1979, a Buick 3.2L V6 (196 CID), but it was based on the Buick 3.8L V6, and it was never called a 3200. Both are 90 degree V6 engines, not 60 degree. The Buick 3.2L is mentioned on the GM 3800 engine page. King V 16:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep- searching for this sounds like an honest mistake someone might make. Reyk 21:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it would still be incorrect, and direct them to the wrong page. The problems are that the Buick 3.2L V6:
pre-dates GM's use of rounded-off cc designations such as 3300, 3800, etc., in lieu of liter-designations such as 3.0, 4.1 by about 9 to 10 years. GM didn't start the cc designations until 1988.
That's my take on it, anyway. I might grudgingly concede that the redirect should be left in, and redirect to the LC9 entry on the 3800's page, but given my third point listed above, I don't really think that would be such a good idea, either. --King V 22:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. Search is case-insensitive anyway. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. PJM 20:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course it is likely to be capitalized. After all, this redirect results from a move from the capitalized version, which had apparently stood for nearly a year before the recent move. Gene Nygaard 21:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amateur Athletic Association → English Amateur Athletics Association -- The article was a sub-stub (created Feb 2006) that was converted into a redirect to a non-existent article (Mar 2006). If noteworthy, it will be re-created under the proper title at a future date. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom, hoax. Speedy as recreation of deleted material under slightly different spelling. Weregerbil 10:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I seriously doubt anyone who would type in Tropical Storm Jason would want the Perfect Storm. Hurricanehink 02:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was kept, after Alex43223's explanation. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Premears → Disney Channel Original Movie -- I'm not quite sure why this redirect was created. I believe the creator meant create "Premiers", but even still, why it would redirect to Disney Channel Original Movie isn't made clear. Just because the movies premier on Disney Channel, doesn't mean Premears has to redirect to it. lightdarkness (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created this because of the old name of Disney Channel Original movies was premEARS (check [5]), but mostly because there is already a redirect for premEARS (The title is PremEARS on Wiki), and if someone typed this with the wrong spelling, I figured this would direct them where they wanted. Alex43223 04:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KVX (AM) → KABC (AM) -- User:66.81.149.82 put the RfD tag here back in February. I haven't found anywhere showing the two are the same station, nor anything indicating KVX as a radio station. TimBentley 04:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted, created purely to attack the rival team. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scummers → [[Portsmouth F.C.]] -- (Note: this redirect has been subject to an edit war since September 2005, and so sometimes the target is Southampton F.C.. The redirect is offensive to whoever the target happens to be at the time. Waggers 09:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect; unstable attack redirect. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 09:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make this redirect a disambiguation page to Portsmouth F.C. and Southampton F.C. --As hL 04:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Deleted by Rossami. -- JLaTondre 18:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated redirect was kept. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Texas Medical Algorithm Project → Texas Medication Algorithm Project -- This was a literal error to start with, and content later transferred to the substntive page. There is a significant MEDical ALgorithm project, which by coincidence is in Texas, and is referred to in the WP medical algorithm page which I have an obvious (intellectual and practical) interest in. But in any case the potential for confusion and misdirection is likely to be there. I think it is just an extra page that was fixed temporarily rather a long time ago witha redirect, and has no reason to persist. Midgley 18:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be a common mistake as per this Google search. In particular, this State of Texas report makes the same mistake on page 3. As such, it's a reasonable term for people to be searching on. -- JLaTondre 23:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Common mis-spelling. Perhaps a soft dab page may eventually be needed, if an article on MedAl is started some day. Ombudsman 00:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was converted into a disambiguation page. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There is a difference in meaning here in some contexts (and not in others.) Until a reasonable article on the term is written, I think a redirect here is better than nothing. Elecktra Complex is certainly one place to learn about some meanings of the term. Xoloz 21:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15 peg → 51 Pegasi b -- This redirect was apparently created as a typo when trying to move the 51 Pegasi b article. 15 peg would presumably refer to the star 15 Pegasi, not 51 Pegasi, so this link is misleading. Chaos syndrome 01:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(I moved this from afd.) Technically speedyable as an author request, but I think it'd help searches. Weak keep. —Cryptic(talk) 22:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems feasible. PJM 01:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. — Mar. 27, '06 [06:01] <freakofnurxture|talk>
There are already many many articles of a country's performance at a particular games. For example, all the competing countries at the 2006 Commonwealth Games have their own article about their results. Similar articles exist for the Summer and Winter Olympics. Remy B 09:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. — Mar. 27, '06 [06:05] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Tv-3 High School -> TV-3 - Formerly a redirect to a vanity page, which itself now redirects to a dab page. Any particular reason to keep this lying around? 00:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. "High School" dosen't make it very useful. PJM 01:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Keep. They might have been reading another band's page and had to go through a disambig to get there, so they didn't want to do it again and so searched for it with (band). --Rory096 23:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: no disambig or any other pages link to it at all--except for this one, obviously. --Hriped 22:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was kept, Beardo seems to know what he's talking about. — Mar. 27, '06 [11:46] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Rock Nacional → Argentine rock -- "Rock nacional" means "national rock (music)" in Spanish - which obviously does not only refer to Argentine rock. Besides, it has been previously deleted for the same reason: [7]. --Fibonacci 03:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 06:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Spanish wiki has the same redirect http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_nacional Whilst "rock nacional" does just mean "national rock" it may be that the term is specifically and widely used in Argentina, and not in other Spanish speaking coutries. -- Beardo 09:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted, should have been tagged for speedy. — Mar. 27, '06 [11:46] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Delete per nom. PJM 06:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Rory096 23:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was kept. If loops are a problem, de-link the .us page. — Mar. 27, '06 [11:46] <freakofnurxture|talk>
.il.us → .us -- No vote. Tagged as speedy by User:Txuspe with the reasoning "Not the same as .us". Since that is not a speedy criterion, and because this redirect could be considered useful, am listing it here. Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 09:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the .us page, each state's domain name is listed as a link. Only .il.us and .co.us are blue. All the others are red. However, both .il.us and .co.us are only linked to from .us and they both redirect back to .us. As loops cause confusion, they both should be deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but ... remove the wikilink brackets for all of the .(state).us links at .us as they don't really add to the article substantially; subsequently add the tag {{R to list entry}} to the .il.us and .co.us redirects. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine as well. -- JLaTondre 13:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was kept, doesn't seem to be a major issue. — Mar. 27, '06 [11:46] <freakofnurxture|talk>
KeepRijsttafel (has redirect, spelling in the article) and Rijstafel (I don't know why the t would be doubled). Weak Delete ff variants. Gene Nygaard 22:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap; create one at rice table, too (if there is more general usage, someone can always replace redirect with an article later). Gene Nygaard 16:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.[reply]
The nominated redirect was deleted. — Mar. 27, '06 [07:36] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Keep. We can consider eliminating cross-namespace links, but don't have to. Don't understand the self-reference point. Gene Nygaard 17:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all cross-namespace links. The different namespaces serve different purposes and we shouldn't confuse readers with such redirects. As for the self-reference, Superm401 is refering to policy / guideline (can't remember which and can't find it quickly) of not writing articles about Wikipedia itself. I don't think that really applies to redirects. -- JLaTondre 13:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this one in particular could be conceivably tried in search for information found at pump. It's not an obvious Wikipedia-exclusive term. BigBlueFish 15:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all cross-namespace redirs. BrokenSegue 23:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was delete. — Mar. 27, '06 [11:47] <freakofnurxture|talk>
"Antonio Breschi" → Antonio Breschi -- No particular reason why anybody would search for this name with quotation marks, and no reason to encourage this in general, so we have such redirects from all names. Gene Nygaard 17:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Nom. is right that this isn't to be encouraged; however, since redirects are cheap, and this is a possible search term, I don't see a compelling need to kill it. Xoloz 21:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People may put part of a name in quotes, but are unlikely to search for a name with the whole thing in quotes. I can understand using quotes:
For things such as titles of songs, books, and the like which people might put in quotes. Gene Nygaard 08:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bad precedent , highly unlikely search term. Ziggurat 04:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed Bad precedent. Do we then put all of the redirects in quotes as well?--Looper5920 09:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as implausible typo. Most quotation mark redirects seem to fit that criteria, although I could be mistaken. Highly unlikely that someone will search that way, in either case. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete while it does set a bad precedent, some newbies not familiar with the wikipedia search engine might put things in quotations since that is how one would search with many other engines (such as google and yahoo). JoshuaZ 04:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Keep. Someone who didn't know English well might type that. --Allen 03:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Allen's comments. Remy B 07:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same as above--Looper5920 08:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although there should be a minimal level of english assumed for people searching. It seems like in this case it clearly is in the keep zone, but it may make sense to establish some general consensus about what sort of errors are reasonable for redirects. JoshuaZ 04:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was kept, appears to be from a rather major content merge. Latter page has an extensive trivia section. GFDL, preserve authorship, blah blah blah. — Mar. 27, '06 [11:52] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Weak delete. I can sort of imagine someone typing it in if they've been reading other trivia articles, but still pretty unlikely. --Allen 03:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Hyphen5 09:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for the page history. The article was merged, not deleted. If deleted, this needs to have its history merged, which will probably result in a mess. Kusma(討論) 21:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above users. Page history and so on. — Deckiller 02:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted, should have been speedied as a broken redirect. — Mar. 27, '06 [11:52] <freakofnurxture|talk>
(OSIR) → The Office of Scientific Investigation and Research -- XD, I just happened to notice this on my watchlist. The associated article is long gone. It's up to you guys whether it should go or stay, but I can't see any more purpose in such an odd and random redirect. - CorbinSimpson 03:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, especially because of weird parentheses. --Allen 03:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (although I'm not particularly afraid of the weird parentheses :) ). Joe 05:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. Should have been speedied. — Mar. 27, '06 [11:56] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Hueg → Xbox -- Obviously just making fun of the Xbox's size, never seen it used in context before. ShadowMan1od 05:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though mildly amusing. — TKD::Talk 12:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. "Hueg Xbox" does get a lot of Google hits... far more than for other game consoles, but far fewer than for "Hueg [X]" where X is any of various body parts. --Allen 00:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete XBox is hueg and XBox is hueg is a decently spread meme, nevertheless this redirect is not needed. kotepho 02:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Khader → Linux -- Has always been redirect to various articles including Baseball. Without some justification, why keep?Septentrionalis 21:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was reverted. This is where you use a template that says "for other uses, see Foo (disambiguation), etc." at the top of the primary topic page. — Mar. 27, '06 [12:05] <freakofnurxture|talk>
What's the problem here? There are enough variations of Catholicism for a disambig. Anglo-Catholic, Roman Catholic, indent and tridentine - there seem to be plenty. I see no pressing need to delete this, only to turn it into a proper disambig. Mayve there should be a wider debate about the whole group of Cathollic articles, the Christianity WikiPorject can probably help out here. Just zis Guy you know? 21:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider reverting to the disambiguation page, which could be used to point readers to the correct article faster than the longer pages Catholic and Catholicism. Kusma(討論) 21:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Hyphen5 09:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and tag as {{R from alternate language}}. Redirects are cheap, and those from alternate languages can be useful. Kusma(討論) 21:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep revert and cleanup≈ jossi ≈t • @ 22:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was kept per Ceyockey. Note also that somebody might search for "Area code 908" because they want to know the origin of a strange phone call they've received, who knows? — Mar. 30, '06 [09:04] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Area code 908 → New Jersey -- We have many articles on area codes (e.g. Area Code 718), so this article should be about the area code (or blank until such an article is created), not a redirect... --Tothebarricades 02:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. If nobody noticed it by now, nobody's gonna miss it. — Mar. 30, '06 [09:04] <freakofnurxture|talk>
KVXT → KABC-TV -- This has long been tagged for deletion, but somehow it was never listed here. Reflects speculation of KABC-TV's future that has been reverted elsewhere, very unlikely alternate search term. WCQuidditch☎✎ 02:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was speedied some days ago ~ Veledan • Talk 20:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kokos → Constantine II of Greece -- Aleksandar created this page to redirect to Constantine II of Greece. He was heavily involved in vandalism and then reversion of various pages on the Greek Royal Family and has been warned a number of times. He has performed copy/paste moves to Anne-Marie of Greece due to his POV and this page (Kokos) ought to be deleted. Charles 22:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted, there being no objection and no logical reason not to delete. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi you can have this speedied under reason G7 - author request - without waiting for a decision here. I'll change the tag for you and it'll be gone in no time ~ Veledan • Talk 11:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion request is pointless. -- RHaworth 13:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RHaworth. Hoort 21:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. Should have been speedy deleted under at least 3 criteria. — Mar. 27, '06 [12:09] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Hick activity → Nascar -- Redirect is being used as a slur/joke against Nascar. I had changed it to redirect to Hick, but that has been reverted a few times. I also tagged it as an A6 speedy but tag removed by same user. JJay 22:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a difficult decision. JoshuaZ 22:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Talk:PMI → Talk:PMI (music) -- PMI is an disambiguation page. The talk page of the disambiguation page should not link back to the ambiguous article's talk page. Emana 22:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think blanking the talk page instead of deleting it would work just as well, or is there a reason you want Talk:PMI to be a redlink? Kusma(討論) 22:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, keep the page but switch off the redirect ~ Veledan • Talk 20:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion. No I don't want the Talk:PMI (music) page deleted. I would like to see the redirect from Talk:PMI switched off because if the redirect stays, that means there is no Talk page for PMI.--Emana 18:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was softened (i.e., turned into a soft redirect). I think this is a good compromise between the positions taken. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Protologism → Neologism. AfD deleted this article but it has reappeared as a redirect. Given that the word is Wikipedic navel gazing, appears in no dictionaries and that Wikipedia is not one and that Wikipedia has already rejected the term as unsuitable for inclusion, there is no case for retaining such a redirect. It's already at Wiktionary, which allows protologisms; we all know that Wikpedia does not, and we should resist the temptation to think that invented terminology is somehow encyclopedic just because it's handy in AfD debate. It also should not be alternatively targetted out of article space, since such redirects are bad. -Splashtalk 02:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep due to usefulness in AfD debates, especially for newbies who might not otherwise know what one is talking about when the word is used. JoshuaZ 02:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have Wikipedia:Neologism already for just that purpose. That page should be edited if necessary, but we should not clutter the encyclopedia with such things out of what really amounts to laziness: the inner workings of things, by long, very intelligent practise, have no place appearing in article space. We make some exceptions, but really this isn't one of them since, as indicated by the Whatlinkshere list, it is only ever referred to in AfD. Make a WP: shortcut to Wikipedia:Neologism, by all means, but don't pollute article space. -Splashtalk 02:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have to agree with JoshuaZ. The word is used in debates and the redirect helps people find some sort of sense of what it means. -- JJay 02:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem to work. So why not just redirect to that page? The important thing is that a user can type protologism into the search page and get to an explanation, because that's how people find info here. I don't think you are suggesting that new users would know a shortcut.-- JJay 12:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a big fan of cross-namespace redirects but I think it would be ok in this case. That being said, redirecting to WP:NEO isn't really that helpful as it uses the term but never defines it. kotepho 00:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That can be fixed easily enough by adding a mention. -Splashtalk 17:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SELF. This relates directly to the process of making this encyclopedia, and is not an encyclopedic topic (or even a word!) outside of Wikipedia. Ziggurat 02:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Splash and Ziggurat. Henning Makholm 16:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it might be useful but help using Wikipedia doesn't belong in the main article space. It doesn't exist in Webster, Chambers, or The American Heritage® Dictionary so having it in our main space is misinformative ~ Veledan • Talk 20:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Splash. Term is now mentioned at WP:NEO. Doesn't belong in main article space since it's not a real word. People using it in debates should simply add a link to WP:NEO, e.g.: protologism. Phr 03:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Protologism" is a protologism. 64.12.116.10 21:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make a soft redirect to Wiktionary, could be useful, and term has some use. Sjakkalle(Check!) 09:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RedirecttoWikipedia:Neologism, the redirect already has almost a hundred uses on discussion pages. Petri Krohn 08:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Speedily Deleted as a G2 test page, etc. ËvilphoenixBurn! 05:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated redirect was speedy deleted. — Mar. 29, '06 [08:55] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Jeeeee → Jesus -- I'm not quite sure why this redirect was created, on google I see no references to Jesus as "Jeeeee". lightdarkness (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was merged into the target article by the original author, so the page history isn't really worth keeping. Delete. Kusma(討論) 16:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated redirect was deleted. Johnleemk | Talk 12:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
====*Drop the soap → Prison rape==== -- I appreciate there are some funny crude jokes that connect the two articles but I can't imagine anyone who wants to read about prison rape searching for this. Also, prison rape makes no mention of the expression drop the soap (nor should it) so the redirect could be confusing if encountered during a search. Lastly, prison rape is not a humorous topic and I think the presence of this redirect is one of those little things that detracts (if only slightly) from the prestige and professionalism of this project ~ Veledan • Talk 23:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — TKD::Talk 02:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hoort 21:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 18:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was delete – Sceptre(Talk) 10:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
====Timeline of Kurdish history → Kurdish people==== -- I just deleted the only link using Timeline of Kurdish history from List of Themed Timelines because Kurdish people isn't and doesn't contain a timeline JeffW 21:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. Johnleemk | Talk 12:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
====Gori (city in Georgia) → Gori, Georgia==== -- Highly unlikely anyone would search for that. Only link to it is the disambig page Gori, which I'm now going to repair to point to the target. AmiDaniel (Talk) 12:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic redirect, goes against the naming convention. Royboycrashfan 20:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — TKD::Talk 02:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hoort 21:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. Johnleemk | Talk 12:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
week-Keep since a new user found it usefull. I changed it to a redirect since the topic was already covered. I'm not sure how can a redirect be POV? The phrase is real afterall... If there is a better article to point it at, then feel free. ---J.Smith 02:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly unnecessary, no one is going to search for that term. JoshuaZ 14:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Royboycrashfan 20:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted already, by somebody else. — Apr. 2, '06 [19:24] <freakofnurxture|talk>
====Uncle Jerry → North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics==== -- Uncle Jerry is not mentioned at target article and it's too generic. Looking at history, it was originally a redirect to Gerald Boarman which was a redirect to the school. A bot corrected the double redirect, but missed that this was probably a vanity redirect based upon family relationship (i.e. Gerald is someone's uncle). -- JLaTondre 02:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 20:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted already, by somebody else. — Apr. 2, '06 [19:24] <freakofnurxture|talk>
====Created → St. John's College, U. S.==== -- From creation summary: Forgot to remove beginning of phrase when cutting and pasting (when I created this mis-named page). Redirect name has no relation with target article. -- JLaTondre 04:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete - BIA has Three Federal Entities listed. The Cherokee Nation, The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. There is no "Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma" listed as a Tribal Entity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeyoteMan (talk • contribs) 06:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC) See updated comment. PeyoteMan 04:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a great article or redirect. Royboycrashfan 05:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This should go to redirects for deletion. — Rebelguys2talk 06:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created this redirect because Jack Abramoff was listed as lobbying on behalf of the tribe, and that was the wording of the name on the legal documents. And what are these: [8][9][10]? This is a redirect for a commonly used and synonymous name. KWH 07:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per WP:RFD; it is a perfectly valid redirect. --MJ(☎|@|C) 08:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above. AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even if this particular supposed branch of the Cherokee Nation doesn't exist, it's a reasonable service to the reader to go to the article he or she (presumably) wants to visit. --Aim Here 16:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Modify/Merge - OK, I apologize for marking the page. The BIA only lists one Nation. BIA organizes tribes as Nations, Bands, and tribes. Bands were created under the 1934 Indian Welfare Act and they are simply chain handout welfare systems. Tribes and Nations must be created solely by Congress by a special act. Congress organized the Cherokee Tribe as "The Cherokee Nation", not "Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma". There's only one Cherokee Nation recognized by the US government. The other two groups are not Nations but bands, and do not hold Nation status (meaning their membership is limited and they are constrained by blood quantum restrictions). Nations are in fact Sovereign entities. Bands are welfare handout systems. They are very different entities. Some clarification needs to be made here. PeyoteMan 03:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was delete – Sceptre(Talk) 10:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
====Criticism_of_Ataturk → Atatürk's reforms==== -- Implausible redirect, the page redirected to is not related to criticism either in content or title. Pti 14:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like a POV redirect. Royboycrashfan 20:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Deleted by Mikkalaias(redir to deleted page). -- JLaTondre 11:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was no longer a redirect. — Apr. 2, '06 [19:24] <freakofnurxture|talk>
====Cultural intelligence --> Race and intelligence.==== User:Proto created the page and redirect after a question at the reference desk, with the mistaken assumption that cultural intelligence was linked to race. The two topics are, in fact, completely unrelated, as this google search demonstrates (cultural intelligence is an organisational psych/ management theory about how people of different cultures relate to each other, and cultural diversity within organisations). I reverted the redirect and requested that the page be speedied (as it was then blank) and was directed here. I will be happy to request that the article on cultural intelligence be created once it stops redirecting to something totally inappropriate. Natgoo 22:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've written a stub on the topic, the issue's now fixed. Natgoo 18:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was This is page is for redirect deletions - not merges. However, I'll redirect EMI Manhattan RecordstoManhattan Records as the first is a subset of the second. -- JLaTondre 18:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider converting Little Johnny Taylor to a stub instead of deleting it if you know about these things? ~ Veledan • Talk 21:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know anything about Little Johnny Taylor except that he isn't Johnnie Taylor. An indepth internet search could find more but that is conjecture. --Roisterer 15:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit I don't know anything about him, Blues or Soul either, but I've used info that was common to half a dozen sites I found to convert it to a minimal stub with enough information to make sure there is no more confusion between the two singers. I'm not sure what the correct etiquette is in this scenario — it wouldn't have made sense to leave the {{RfD}} tag in place now that it's not a redirect, so I've removed it. Is that OK with you? ~ Veledan • Talk 18:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Oops, my bad, I speedied it as an implausible typo (created by pagemove error) and forgot to say so. I got sidetracked trying to figure out why the hell the target article had an &emdash; instead of a hyphen. — Mar. 30, '06 [12:37] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Weak delete. Sorry, I just don't see anyone spelling Indiana with two I's. Royboycrashfan 06:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Joe 06:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Redirected to SPL.Spl was changed to an article on sound pressure level. Since there is already a sound pressure level article, this was redudant. The easiest solution was to redirect SpltoSPL which has sound pressure level as one of the disambig destinations. I recognize closing a nomination you've been involved with is against protocal, but given it matches the recommendations of both responders & is the easiest way to deal with the nomination being replaced with a duplicate article, I'm going to be bold. -- JLaTondre 13:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spl → Brent Corrigan -- Redirect based on initials of an actor's real name. Initials (with the exception of ones like JFK) are an unlikely search term and are too generic to point to any one individual. -- JLaTondre 02:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, not likely search terms. Royboycrashfan 21:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. No good reason not too. The redirects are not misleading, and by the off-chance that someone does make the inaccurate mispelling, they would be helpful. There is no good reason to delete "unlikely misspellings" of article titles unless they are misleading. Johnleemk | Talk 13:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. No good reason to keep them, either. I realize redirects are cheap, but that's not an excuse to create arbitrary misspellings. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? We aren't endorsing the misspellings. I quote from the top of this page: "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." Johnleemk | Talk 20:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Keep, reasonable English renderings of his name.Kusma(討論) 22:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a reasonable English version would be simply missing the diacritics, but this one is a gross misspelling--"i" instead of "y", and missing "cz". Appleseed (Talk) 22:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are helpful redirects. Anyone trying to spell the name only having heard it rather than seen it is quite likely to use an I. They are not doing any harm are they? ~ Veledan • Talk 16:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on Kusma's talk page, the misspellings are so flagrant and bizarre that there's no way someone would be able to reproduce them. There are many easy ways to find the page if you don't know how to spell the article name or the name of a dozen of its more valid redirects: the Polish monarchs template, categories, and other articles. Appleseed (Talk) 16:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The misspellings aren't terribly bizarre; "i" for "y" is pretty common Anglicisation, as is the omission of the "cz". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Hoort 21:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted, looks like an ugly encoding error. — Apr. 2, '06 [19:21] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Keep, reasonable English version of his name.Kusma(討論) 22:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a reasonable English version would be simply missing the diacritics, but this, too, is a gross misspelling; it adds an "i" and is missing an "e". Appleseed (Talk) 22:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google seems to agree with you; this misspelling is only found on Wikipedia mirrors. Kusma(討論) 23:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Keep as possible (even if implausible) misspelling. Unusual misspellings should be deleted only if they result in confusion, as per policy. Johnleemk | Talk 10:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
02:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
| File:Lfucg-flag.gif 
16:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
