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

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page

Shortcut: WP:RFD

Deletion discussions

Deletion today AfD yesterday Articles (by category) Templates Files Categories (active) Stub types Redirects Miscellany Undeletion Deletion review
Wikipedia deletion policy
Attack page Criteria for speedy deletion Deletion policy Proposed deletion Wikipedia is not a dictionary
Tools
Process – Log – Guide – Images – Admins

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

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

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

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

Centralized discussion

Proposals	Discussions	Recurring proposals
Proposal to require new users to have autoconfirmed status to create an article Proposal to rename Articles for Deletion to Articles for Discussion, include the discussion of mergers. Proposal for targeted flagging. Petitions to turn on, and not to turn on, the Flagged revisions extension. Discussion on adding language about schools to the organization notability guidelines. Discussion regarding the spam blacklist and reliability of sources Discussion of "self-promotion and indiscriminate coverage" in the Notability guideline. Discussion on retaining the restriction against using the string "bot" in usernames. Discussion on CfD speedy renaming criteria 6 (disambiguation fixes from an unqualified name). Discussion on refining Community de-adminship (aka Admin Recall) to formalize a RfC. Proposal for achieving infobox-template coherence of properties in Wikipedia(s) Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive • talk • edit • history • watch

1 Before you list a redirect for discussion...
2 The guiding principles of RfD
3 When should we delete a redirect?
- 3.1 Reasons for deleting
- 3.2 Reasons for not deleting
  - 3.2.1 Neutrality of redirects
4 Closing notes
5 How to list a redirect for discussion
6 Current list

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

...please familiarize yourself with the following:

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

[edit] The guiding principles of RfD

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

[edit] When should we delete a redirect?

Shortcut: WP:RFD#HARMFUL

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

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

Shortcut: WP:RFD#DELETE

[edit] Reasons for deleting

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

The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.
The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so it should be deleted.
The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion 10 may apply.)
The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange.
It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule is the "CAT:" shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space but in practice form their own "pseudo-namespaces". (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia.)
If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist or itself, it can be deleted immediately, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created.
If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then it needs to be deleted to make way for move.
If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject. In these cases, it is better that the target article contain a redlink pointing back to the redirect.
If the redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion 11 may apply.)

Shortcut: WP:RFD#KEEP

[edit] Reasons for not deleting

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

[edit] Neutrality of redirects

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

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

[edit] Closing notes

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

[edit] How to list a redirect for discussion

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

Flag the redirect.

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

{{rfd}}

#REDIRECT [[Foo]]

Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]
Save the page.

II.

List the entry on RfD.

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

Enter this text below the date heading:

{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~

For the template in the previous step:
- Put the redirect's name in place of "RedirectName", put the target article's name in place of "TargetArticle", and include a reason after text=.
- Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
Please use an edit summary such as:
Nominating [[RedirectName]]
replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating.
To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax:
- {{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
- {{subst:rfd2m|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
- .
- .
- .
- {{subst:rfd2m|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~

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

{{subst:RFDNote|RedirectName}}

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

Administrator instructions

[edit] Current list

[edit] January 2

[edit] Batsy

Batsy → Batman (links to redirect • history • stats)

Nonsense. I can't see any indication Batman has been referred to in this way. No mention in the target article, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] January 1

[edit] Murder of CIA personnel in Afghanistan

Murder of CIA personnel in Afghanistan → 2009 Attack on CIA base (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete. Unspecific, inaccurate description, unlikely search term. Cs32en 14:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I agree that this is not specific enough, but it seems likely enough right now (after all, somebody created the page under that name). —Кузьма^討論 08:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] 2000-2009 in fashion as 2010 is almost upon us

2000-2009 in fashion as 2010 is almost upon us → 2000–2009 in fashion (links to redirect • history • stats)

Very implausible search term; borderline CSD R3 Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 09:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete: Highly implausible, not helpful. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete - Ridiculously implausible, considering how 2010 actually is upon us now, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] December 31

[edit] Curse of 1969

Curse of 1969 → 1969 Chicago Cubs season (links to redirect • history • stats)

Article already nominated for deletion on Dec 13, 2008 [1], neither its current target nor an earlier target (Sports-related curses) make reference to it Me Three (talk to me) 13:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 'septu@dZInt

'septu@dZInt → Septuagint (links to redirect • history • stats)

Implausible. — The Man in Question (in question) 11:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Very implausible. Very strange, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just realized it's in (inaccurate) SAMPA. In which case, delete because SAMPA pronunciation is not a valid redirect (just as with all the IPA's below). — The Man in Question (in question) 19:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 'nunu 'aɫvɐɾɨʃ pɨ'ɾɐjɾɐ

'nunu 'aɫvɐɾɨʃ pɨ'ɾɐjɾɐ → Nuno Álvares Pereira (links to redirect • history • stats)
'pedɾu 'awvaɾiʃ ca'bɾaw → Pedro Álvares Cabral (links to redirect • history • stats)
'peðɾu 'aɫvɐɾɨʃ kɐβɾaɫ → Pedro Álvares Cabral (links to redirect • history • stats)
'sɐ̃tɐ 'kõbɐ dɐ̃ũ → Santa Comba Dão (links to redirect • history • stats)
'tɪldɘ → Tilde (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈaɪlənd → Island (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈfʁiːdʁɪç ˈvɪlhəlm ˈniːtsʃə → Friedrich Nietzsche (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈhɑːt͡ʃɛk → Caron (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈjuzɛf ɔˈlɛksɨ → Józef Oleksy (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈkwɑːləlʊmˈpʊər → Kuala Lumpur (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈkəmrɨn ɨn → One Wales (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈlɛx vaˈwɛ̃sa → Lech Wałęsa (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈmʏnçən → Munich (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈrɛdʒɛp ˈtɑːjip ˈɛrdɔːɑn → Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈskaʊs → Scouse (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈsɛgɛd → Szeged (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈvɛstə → 4 Vesta (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈɛvərɨst → Mount Everest (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈʃtʊtgaʁt → Stuttgart (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈai ka.ˈɾam.ba → ¡Ay, caramba! (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈbaraŋgaj → Barangay (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈgøːtʊdaɲ̊kst → Gøtudanskt (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈisɔ → Esau (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈjuzɛf ˈzɨx → Józef Zych (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈkætəˌlæn → Catalan language (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈkɪəkəgɑːd, ˈkɪɚkəgɑɹd → Søren Kierkegaard (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈmaɐ̯tiːn ˈhaɪ̯dɛgɐ → Martin Heidegger (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈpau̯lu ˈko̯eʎu → Paulo Coelho (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈsipɔɪ → Sepoy (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈsotɕɪ → Sochi (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈsɛlɛbiz → Sulawesi (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈzaːɐ̯lant → Saarland (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈɦaːt͡ʃɛk → Caron (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈʎejðə → Lleida (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈaɪl → Island (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈdɔːsɪt → Dorset (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈhaɪəlaɪ → Jai alai (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈjoːhan ˈkrɪsti.aːn ˈfriːdrɪç 'hœldərliːn → Friedrich Hölderlin (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈleɾiða → Lleida (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈmɒ:ɒnæˌʋiːˀsn̩ ˈjylænsˌ pʰʌsd̥n → Jyllands-Posten (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈpɔznaɲ → Poznań (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈsjest̪a → Siesta (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈsœːɐn ˈkʰiɐ̯kəˌɡ̊ɒˀ → Søren Kierkegaard (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈsɛptuədʒɪnt → Septuagint (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈɛlʲən ˈvanɪn → Isle of Man (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈɦorɲi: ˈbɛnɛʃof → Horní Benešov (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˈʎejðɛ → Lleida (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˌsɚpənˈtɛəriəs → Ophiuchus (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˌɡeɐ̯haɐ̯t fʁɪʦ kʊɐ̯t ˈʃʁøːdɐ → Gerhard Schröder (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˌɪndəˈniːziːə → Indonesia (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˌkɑrnɨgi ˈhɔːl → Carnegie Hall (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˌxɑːbəˈroʊni → Gaborone (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˌɡæbəˈroʊni → Gaborone (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˌɪndəˈniːʒə → Indonesia (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˌkɑrtəˈheɪnə deɪ ˈɪndiəs → Cartagena, Colombia (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˌɒfiːˈuːkəs → Ophiuchus (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˌɪndoʊˈniːziːə → Indonesia (links to redirect • history • stats)
ˌʁepʊ'bliːk ˌøːstə'ʁaɪç → Austria (links to redirect • history • stats)

IPA pronunciation is not a valid redirect. — The Man in Question (in question) 11:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with all these as well as virtually any IPA representation and wonder if we can treat this is a class action without having to include every instance explicitly. By sheer coincidence I came across one such article, ʁɛˈpublikɐ dɐ giˈnɛ biˈsau → Guinea-Bissau (not listed above), an hour and a half after this Rfd was posted, and discovered that User:Joseph_Solis_in_Australia had created a bunch of them. I started putting db-r3 on some until I realized that db-r3 requires recent creation and also discovered this Rfd, so I've reverted those. I think it would be unusual for anyone to try to look up information using IPA renderings, especially given that no one would expect articles to be findable this way, and that expectation is realistic given that almost no article is. This argument is a bit circular, but there you are. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that an IPA representation isn't helpful anyway unless the person looking up the word has the same pronunciation for it, the same accent, as was assumed by the person creating the redirect. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete as per above. Implausible, if not impossible, to type. Me Three (talk to me) 17:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete - What would possess someone to type IPA pronunciations when searching for something. Unless...are there keyboards using solely IPA characters? In that case it...no, no, ignore that, that's ridiculous. Delete, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete all per all above. Completely useless redirects. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] 'erbal essence

'erbal essence → Herbal Essences (links to redirect • history • stats)

Implausible redirect. — The Man in Question (in question) 11:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete as per above. Me Three (talk to me) 17:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete - The product is probably pronounced like this in some dialects of English. But it's never spelled this way, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly I pronounce it this way. That doesn't account for the apostrophe. Next we'll have 'our and 'eir and 'onor. — The Man in Question (in question) 21:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hence the delete !vote, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 11:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] 'fish out of wate

'fish out of wate → Fish out of water (links to redirect • history • stats)

Implausible typo + needless apostrophe. — The Man in Question (in question) 11:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete nonsense character omission and punctuation Me Three (talk to me) 17:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 'Zig'

'Zig' → All your base are belong to us (links to redirect • history • stats)

No mention in target article + needless apostrophes. — The Man in Question (in question) 11:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete as per above Me Three (talk to me) 17:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete - I did a Google search, and found that "ZIG" is some sort of starfighter in the video game Zero Wing. (see Zero Wing#Gameplay, it says "The player, a "ZIG" star fighter, has several ways to attack:"). But the apostraphes are needless. Searching Zig (without apostraphes) will bring up a DAB page, where Zero Wing will be suggested. This leads me to believe that the apostraphes were inserted to get round the already existing article, and create a redirect to zero wing. Did anyone understand a word of that? I'm not good with words, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 'The Well' created by Melvin Burgess

'The Well' created by Melvin Burgess → The Well (2009 television programme) (links to redirect • history • stats)

Implausible redirect. — The Man in Question (in question) 10:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete unlikely search term for title and author Me Three (talk to me) 17:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete - This article was originally named "The Well created by Melvin Burgess", as can be seen from the history. It was moved to the current title by User:PhilKnight, and so a redirect was born. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 'The Web'

'The Web' → Beast Wars: Transformers (links to redirect • history • stats)

No mention in target article. Use of apostrophes makes it unworthy of retargeting. — The Man in Question (in question) 10:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete as per above Me Three (talk to me) 17:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 'The Great White Hope'.

'The Great White Hope'. → Great White Hope (links to redirect • history • stats)

With apostrophes and period, implausible. — The Man in Question (in question) 10:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete as per above Me Three (talk to me) 17:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 'The Godfather 1901-1959: The Complete Epic''

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Shubinator (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

'The Godfather 1901-1959: The Complete Epic%27%27 → The Godfather Saga (links to redirect • history • stats)

Implausible search term. The final two characters are two apostrophes, not a quotation mark. As can be seen above, it is not even possible to link without special syntax. — The Man in Question (in question) 10:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete as per above Me Three (talk to me) 17:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete. My apologies. I made an error when I created this redirect, which should certainly be deleted. I should have figured out how to tag it to get it deleted. Thanks for your attentiveness! Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Does WP:G7 apply here? Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] 'One'

'One' → National Express East Anglia (links to redirect • history • stats)

One is far too broad a word to redirect to National Express East Anglia, and with the inclusion of apostrophes it is not worth retargeting to 1 (number) or One (disambiguation). — The Man in Question (in question) 09:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete The term "one"can mean anything Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 16:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete as per above. Better to add as a link to the One page, if at all Me Three (talk to me) 17:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 'New Year's Day' observed

'New Year's Day' observed → New Year's Day (links to redirect • history • stats)

Implausible + needless apostrophes. — The Man in Question (in question) 09:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete as per above. Me Three (talk to me) 17:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Division of Thai music

Division of Thai music → Naresuan University (links to redirect • history • stats)

Redirect created due to improper naming of an article, which was moved to Division of Thai Music, Department of Fine and Applied Arts, Faculty of Humanities, Naresuan University then deleted due to CSD A7 and redirected to Naresuan University. This redirect was subsequently re-redirected to Naresuan University due to the double redirect, but serves no navigational aid and is confusing, and so should be deleted. Paul_012 ^(talk) 08:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] J. Invest. Dermatol.

J. Invest. Dermatol. → Nature (journal) (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete. Completely misleading redirect for the Journal of Investigative Dermatology, which is published by the Nature Publishing Group. A redirect to the published (which was probably intended) doesn't make sense either, as the NPG publishes several journals. Delete for now. Recreate and target to Journal of Investigative Dermatology when that article isn't a redlink anymore. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 07:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete as per above. Me Three (talk to me) 17:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 30

[edit] Self titled album

Self titled album → Government Cheese (album) (links to redirect • history • stats)

Procedural nomination. Redirect was proposed for deletion with rationale: "generic album name. Not specific enough for a redirect". Taelus (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete Article was created because it was named after a band Government Cheese. I moved that to Government Cheese (album) and sorted out another link that was to another album. This article should either be deleted or turned into a DAB page for any album named after the band/artist noq (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Retarget to List of eponymous albums. — The Man in Question (in question) 21:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Retarget per The Man in Question. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Passengers of TWA Flight 800

James "Jamie" Henry Hurd III

Shannon Evan Lychner

Katherine Elizabeth Lychner

Andrew Krukar

Delete as non-notable passengers "known" exclusively for flying on TWA Flight 800. They are implausible search terms and anyone searching for one of these people are either searching for someone else, or finding a dead end as none of these people are discussed in the main article. Tavix | Talk 22:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Unnotable. — The Man in Question (in question) 20:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Rev (The Reverend Tholomew Plague)

The Rev (The Reverend Tholomew Plague) → Avenged Sevenfold (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete as an unneeded disambiguation qualifier making for an implausible search term. Possible retarget to The Rev. Tavix | Talk 21:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 'Entropy' Split One-Sided 12" with Javelins

'Entropy' Split One-Sided 12" with Javelins → Entropy (album) (links to redirect • history • stats)

Implausible search term. — The Man in Question (in question) 19:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Asa Seeley

Asa Seeley → West Baltimore (MARC station) (links to redirect • history • stats)

Per this AFD from a year ago, this was to be a redirect to West Baltimore (MARC station)#Presidential assassination attempt. However, with the perspective of time, discussion at Talk:West Baltimore (MARC station) shows there is consensus to not include the Asa Seeley information in the article. Therefore, the redirect should be deleted, as it is now useless and confusing. There was also an AN or ANI thread about this a while ago, which I haven’t found but will hunt for. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete, as it is dependant on information which was removed by consensus. --Taelus (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep - There is already consensus not to have a standalone article. I agree about that. But there is sourced information on the subject, and I am skeptical as to whether the information should have been removed from that article. This redirect meets none of the criteria for deletion under WP:R#DELETE and meets multiple criteria under WP:R#KEEP, most probably all of nos. 1-5. Sebwite (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
AN discussion: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive205#Defying an AFD decision. I explained my comment at User talk:Flatscan#On deleting a redirect: the redirect can be removed from article space, but a less common method of attribution must be used. Flatscan (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Pope Benedict XVII

Pope Benedict XVII → Pope Benedict XVI (links to redirect • history • stats)

Procedural nomination. Redirect was proposed for deletion with rationale: "There is no Pope Benedict XVII, so a redirect from that name is inappropriate." Page is tagged as a redirect from misspelling. Taelus (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The intent of the creator - me - was a redirect for mispelling. Hektor (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete I think a redirect should come from a plausible misspelling. When I type "Pope Benedict XVIII" into the search box, Wikipedia asks me "Did you mean: Pope Benedict XVI?" I get the same response when I type "Pope Benerdict XVI". Since the search engine can handle this properly, I don't see the need for this redirect. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete Because of our great search engine this very uncommon mispelling isn't necessary. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete I don't consider the wrong number to be a misspelling. Benedict XVII refers to possibly a future pope, not him, and I don't consider the redirect to be appropriate. The search engine will handle it. When a redirect like this does take one directly to Pope Benedict XVI's page, the user might not realize s/he was wrong about the number, too. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Benedict XVII

Benedict XVII → Pope Benedict XVI (links to redirect • history • stats)

Procedural nomination. Redirect was proposed for deletion with reason: "There is no Pope or Antipope Benedict XVII, so a redirect from that name is inappropriate." Page is marked as redirect from misspelling. Taelus (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The intent of the creator - me - was a redirect for mispelling. Hektor (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete I think a redirect should come from a plausible misspelling. When I type "Benedict XVIII" into the search box, Wikipedia asks me "Did you mean: Benedict XVI?" I get the same response when I type "Benerdict XVI". Since the search engine can handle this properly, I don't see the need for this redirect. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete Because of our great search engine this very uncommon mispelling isn't necessary. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete I don't consider the wrong number to be a misspelling. Benedict XVII refers to possibly a future pope, not him, and I don't consider the redirect to be appropriate. The search engine will handle it. When a redirect like this does take one directly to Pope Benedict XVI's page, the user might not realize s/he was wrong about the number, too. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Interweb

Interweb → Internet (links to redirect • history • stats)

Deletion on basis of WP:RFD#DELETE, no. 7 novel or very obscure synonym for an article name. Rapido (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep, lots of pagehits, not that obscure as it is used somewhat in popular culture. Whilst some may be comical searches, we cannot assume this for everyone. I see no harm in keeping this redirect as a navigational aid. --Taelus (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Ha! I honestly know people who refer to it by no other name than this. — The Man in Question (in question) 18:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep. We had an article on the subject of the term "interweb" at this location for several years, and there may be several external pages which link to it. Leaving the redirect in place leaves less of a scar than a deleted page does.--Father Goose (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
keep as pop culture reference. omg itz the interwebz!! Tavix | Talk 21:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gercockennoggin

Gercockennoggin → Rose Nylund (links to redirect • history • stats)

Improbable search term. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Negligible traffic and Google hits. — The Man in Question (in question) 18:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of words rose says in the golden girls

List of words rose says in the golden girls → Rose Nylund (links to redirect • history • stats)

Improbable search term. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete, firstly as unlikely search term, secondly as misleading title, thirdly as nonsense. Wikipedia will never collect indiscriminate information such as this. --Taelus (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Burma (now Myanmar)

Burma (now Myanmar) → Burma (links to redirect • history • stats)

Implausible search term. Minimal pageviews, no meaningful history, no links. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Implausible search term. No benefit. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 06:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Bombshells

Bombshells → Bombshells (M*A*S*H) (links to redirect • history • stats)

Suggesting redirection to Bombshell as the plural or the term instead of to the TV episode. Labattblueboy (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ it should redirect to the dab page Bombshell (disambiguation); NOTE - the dab page is under a WP:RM to move it to the primary name, see Talk:Bombshell (disambiguation) . 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment the dab page has now moved to the primary name Bombshell, so I now no longer oppose this retargetting, as it would target the dab page. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Wait for the result of the Requested Move. Personally I would redirect it to Bombshell, however that in itself may become a redirect as a result of the move request... Thus it is difficult to comment for now. --Taelus (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support change of target now that the requested move has been performed. Might be best to boldly perform this now? --Taelus (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Support now that the requested move has been performed. Should include {{R from plural}}. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Obamaism

Obamaism → Barack Obama (links to redirect • history • stats)

Page edited in dibs and dabs to either redirect to communism, socialism, or cover speaking gaffes. Not needed. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Sceptre's analysis of the facts. This is not a widely used term, unlike the similar, but far more notable Bushism. It's been abused by WikiWarriors, and as such should probably be deleted. Unit Anode 02:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I worked hard on that article. I did the AFD just to see if it was acceptable. The term pulls up about 200,000 google hits. The only reason it was blanked was for obvious political bias. Thank you Grs115 and Unitard for turning wikipedia into the opposite of conservapedia.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You'd do well to keep your "tard" insults in check, Saturn. Unit Anode 04:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a joke. Was referring to Unitard. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure you were. <roll eyes> Unit Anode 04:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have anything to do with a particular "bias" that William claims. It has everything to do with the fact that it was created only after his deletion nomination of Bushism (which was pointedly based on some "precedent" he claimed existed because a marginally similar article of Obama was deleted) resulted in the article being keep. Moreso, in a large majority of cases, a search for "Obamaism" returns links referring to alleged similarities to communism or socialism, not speaking errors as it does for Bushisms. There may be a plausible redirect target that I'll support if one is proposed. Grsz¹¹ 04:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Also note, I simply reverted to the previous redirect, and don't paricularly endorse Barack Obama as a legitimate target. Grsz¹¹ 04:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Fully permprot as a redirect to Barack Obama, #44. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete, do not redirect anywhere. This is a WP:OR neologism. A redirct to Barack Obama is simply a political smear on the bio subject by falsely suggesting a notable use of the neologism. LotLE×talk 19:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Soft redirect to Wiktionary?...
Did you mean: onanism
Er, nevermind.--Father Goose (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep This term gets tossed around enough to the point where it couldn't hurt to leave it. Tavix | Talk 21:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Pulitzer-winning columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote, "Fairness through leveling is the essence of Obamaism," which seems like a valid enough instance to merit a redirect. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of traps in the Saw film series

List of traps in the Saw film series → Saw (franchise) (links to redirect • history • stats)

Unlikely search term. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep as incredibly likely search term (one of our most requested articles!). Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

People merely click on it's red link on the most requested page, no-one is likely to type the words: "List-of-traps-in-the-Saw-film-series". Ryan4314 (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have used that search phrase before and I would imagine many others do as well. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Then the search engine should take them to Saw (franchise). I disagree that Wikipedia should be "assisting" search engines with this sort of thing, search engines should be able to work this out for themselves. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Random and implausible. Target article does not provide the information as a list or in any other format, anyway. The somewhat high flow of traffic (184 in November) is undoubtedly do to the links—none of which are in the mainspace. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I created the link as it was one of the most requested articles, but had been deleted at AFD. So the article was not going to exist, but pointing it somewhere relevant would serve the readers better than nothing at all. You know, the people this is all supposedly for - David Gerard (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete cannot see the point in this redirect. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Weak Delete, I appreciate that it is a search term that is used, however we simply do not have the relevant information on Wikipedia, and consensus in the AfD was not to compile it. Personally I feel that redirects such as these do more harm than good, as some users may get redirected, then look around all the blue links on the target page for a list they simply will be unable to find. It would be better to inform them right away that there is no such page on Wikipedia, rather than send them hunting for information that is not present. --Taelus (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep Yup... its a searchable term... at least for the large cult following of this franchise who have interest in this specific search parameter [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and many more. The redirect will at least take them to where the topic is covered and has notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

People who want to read a list of traps used in the Saw films should not be redirected to Wikipedia, because they will not find one here. Keeping redirects like this reorders Google search so that Wikipedia turns up earlier and often first when other sites, such as fansites, are much better equipped to meet the searcher's needs. This sort of redirect is actively unhelpful. — The Man in Question (in question) 20:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It's not a "searchable term." It's a complex search phrase of the type people put into Google, not Wikipedia, and for which there are an indefinite list of variations. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 07:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I fail to see what Schmidt means by "searchable term". — The Man in Question (in question) 10:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep per MichealQSchmit --Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 16:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete. We don't need to be: 1) priming default search results with non-existent pages, and 2) making pages with odd extended search phrases for titles that only redirect to a general article rather than sending people to what's promised. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] December 29

[edit] Hum. Mutat.

Hum. Mutat. → John Wiley & Sons (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete. Entirely unhelpful redirect for Human Mutation (an academic journal, not yet created). It makes sense to redirect to publisher when they are small publishers strongly associated with the journal, but JW&S is a publishing giant with hundreds if not thousands of journals. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 久下季哉

The result of the discussion was Speedy Deleted G1 by Materialscientist (talk · contribs). Tavix | Talk 21:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

久下季哉 → United Airlines Flight 93 (links to redirect • history • stats)

Foreign language redirect that has no use in the English Wikipedia. Tavix | Talk 18:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete as nonsense. There is no "93" in that redirect, and GoogleTranslate can't make something other than gibberish out of it. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Deleting this as "patent nonsense" was wrong. The redirect is on-topic: As a short Google search tells you, this is the name of a Japanese passenger of the flight (Kuge Toshiya). See also United 93 (film). Now I am not certain that we should have redirects for every passenger of that flight, but I think the Japanese ones are just as appropriate as the American ones. —Кузьма^討論 08:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Delta operated by Northwest Flight 253

Delta operated by Northwest Flight 253 → Northwest Airlines Flight 253 (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete as an implausible search term. Both Delta Flight 253 and Northwest Flight 253 work as redirects so I don't see why we need to specify this information, especially when it should be the other way around. (Northwest is a wholly owned subsidiary of Delta). Tavix | Talk 18:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Delete for an overly long, incorrect, and oddly specific term. - Chromatikoma (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Songs from The Wall

Category:Songs from The Wall → Category:The Wall (rock opera) (links to redirect • history • stats)

Empty, unnecessary category. Friginator (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Songs associated with The Wall

Category:Songs associated with The Wall → Category:The Wall (rock opera) (links to redirect • history • stats)

Empty, unnecessary category. Friginator (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Alexander R. Bolling"

"Alexander R. Bolling" → Alexander R. Bolling (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Algernon Sidney Gray" → Algernon Sidney Gray (links to redirect • history • stats)
"andrew jackson poe" → Andrew Jackson Poe (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Artur Shkurti" → Artur Shkurti (links to redirect • history • stats)
"bunt stephens" → Bunt Stephens (links to redirect • history • stats)
"cherrie knight" → Cherrie Knight (links to redirect • history • stats)
"christian ignatius borissow" → Christian Ignatius Borissow (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Domnall mac Cináeda" → Cináed mac Írgalaig (links to redirect • history • stats)
"douglas merrill" → Douglas Merrill (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Douglas Paulson" → Douglas Paulson (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Eddie Harmon-Jones" → Eddie Harmon-Jones (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Francesca De Grandis" → Feri Tradition (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Francine Gottfried" → Francine Gottfried (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Gerald Drucker" → Gerald Drucker (links to redirect • history • stats)
"hebe(s.h.e)" → Hebe Tien (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Henry Singleton" painter → Henry Singleton (painter) (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Herbert Crichlow" → Herbie Crichlow (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Howard Fried" → Howard Fried (links to redirect • history • stats)
"howard gerrish" → Howard Gerrish (links to redirect • history • stats)
'Howard Pyle' → Howard Pyle (links to redirect • history • stats)
"jack shea" → Jack Shea (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Jared Giesbrecht" → Jared Giesbrecht (links to redirect • history • stats)
"john alley" → John B. Alley (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Jonathan Michael Stone" → Jonathan M. Stone (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Juan Sordo" → Juan Sordo Madaleno (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Kristina Train" → Kristina Train (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Kurt Milton Baker" → The Leftovers (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Lawrence Corbridge" → Lawrence E. Corbridge (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Li Yeh" → Li Zhi (mathematician) (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Littleton Prince" → Littleton Prince (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Liza Donnelly" → Liza Donnelly (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Lowell J. Carr" → Lowell Juilliard Carr (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Mabel Leigh Hunt" → Mabel Leigh Hunt (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Natalie Bennett" → Natalie Bennett (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Nona Freeman" → Nona Freeman (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Nora Wall" → Nora Wall (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Orlando Marin" → Orlando Marin (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Otto von Riesenthal" → Oskar von Riesenthal (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Paul Carnegie-Jones" → Paul Carnegie-Jones (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Pedro de Alcántara Álvarez de Toledo y Palafox" → Marquis de Molina (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Peter Hales" → Peter Bacon Hales (links to redirect • history • stats)
"PV Kane" → Pandurang Vaman Kane (links to redirect • history • stats)
"rita atria" → Rita Atria (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Robin Midgley" → Robin Midgley (links to redirect • history • stats)
'Sauda' → Mirza Muhammad Rafi Sauda (links to redirect • history • stats)
"scott m. seaman" → Scott M. Seaman (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Sylvia Cecil" → Sylvia Cecil (links to redirect • history • stats)
"t. Winter-Damon" → T. Winter-Damon (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Tanu Roy" → Tanu Roy (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Themistocles Rassias" → Themistocles M. Rassias (links to redirect • history • stats)
'Tugba Unsal' → Tuba Ünsal (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Vishal Arora" → Vishal Arora (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Walter Fremont" → Walter Fremont (links to redirect • history • stats)
"will t. scott" → Will T. Scott (links to redirect • history • stats)

People's names put in quotation marks. What a bizarre and implausible concept. Furthermore, surrounding a name in quotation marks in Wikipedia search will turn up the same result anyway (for example, "United States" will turn up United States). (NOTE: Every article on this list is the name of a person, and the quotation marks are not around their nickname, but simply around their name in general, and around their entire name.) — The Man in Question (in question) 10:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep all, harmless, plausible type-in URLs. —Кузьма^討論 10:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete all as implausible. Why would someone want or need to type in a person's full name in quotation marks? Tavix | Talk 18:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete all What proposer says is true. WP will find the topic whether or not you enclose the term in quotation marks, so these redirects are of no value. Yappy2bhere (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete all Implausible and useless. Reywas92^Talk 21:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Willie" William Lidstone McKnight

"Willie" William Lidstone McKnight → Willie McKnight (links to redirect • history • stats)

Inappropriately worded redirect. Nicknames never go in front, in or out of Wikipedia. — The Man in Question (in question) 09:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree, the article title in question should be framed as William "Willie" Lidstone McKnight. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC).
Keep though Wikipedia does not place nicknames first, it does not mean that no one does. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not proper English, nor is it similar to any proper form in English. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete It's true, nicknames never come first. Yappy2bhere (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "reality" television show

"reality" television show → Reality television (links to redirect • history • stats)

Perhaps a critical commentary on the genre? Either way, a useless redirect because it is 1) implausible and 2) immaterial since Reality television will be the first result even if quotation marks are included in search. — The Man in Question (in question) 09:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "illegal" rezident

"illegal" rezident → Resident spy (links to redirect • history • stats)

Poor use of quotation marks + misspelled word = implausible redirect. — The Man in Question (in question) 09:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep Illegal rezident (Google Books) is not misspelt - I believe it is Russian in origin though it may now have been (improperly?) anglicised. Likewise the quotation marks are commonly applied in references (and on Wiki - see What links here page) They are applied to contrast with legal rezident CyrilThePig4 (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If it is Russian, then it's worth noting that Russian can be transcribed a variety of different ways. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete - article (unreferenced) does not use quotations. But quotatiosn superfluous in any event. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete per GraemeLeggett Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hairy hardon

Hairy hardon → Ubuntu (operating system) (links to redirect • history • stats)

DELETE please. Sorry, I don't get the joke here. No mention is made within the parent article. JBsupreme (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. While I do get the joke, this is potentially misleading. Erection would be a better target. —Кузьма^討論 10:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I don't think such a joke should be used to exclusively redirect to that article. Erection would be a better target then that, and even then it would still be bad.--Stinging Swarm ^talk 09:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] "chanistskali".

"chanistskali". → Chanistskali River (links to redirect • history • stats)

Completely implausible. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "True"-middle class

"True"-middle class → Middle class (links to redirect • history • stats)

With quotation marks and hyphen, implausible search term. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Three fookin' times!"

"Three fookin' times!" → Big Brother 2002 (UK) (links to redirect • history • stats)

No mention in target article + inappropriate use of quotations marks in mainspace. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete Target has no relevant content. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Penny Foolish"

"Penny Foolish" → Plant (links to redirect • history • stats)

Nonsense. Not worth retargeting because of the quotation marks. — The Man in Question (in question) 04:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "The Volunteer" Canal Boat at LaSalle Illinois

"The Volunteer" Canal Boat at LaSalle Illinois → The Volunteer (canal boat) (links to redirect • history • stats)

Written as a description, not a title + needless quotation marks. — The Man in Question (in question) 04:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Pagal" (translated in English as "Crazy")

"Pagal" (translated in English as "Crazy") → Laxmi Prasad Devkota (links to redirect • history • stats)

Presumably one of his works, although it is not listed on the page. Regardless, a weirdly implausible search term + quotation marks. — The Man in Question (in question) 02:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Liberty, Order, Progress"

"Liberty, Order, Progress" → Porfirio Díaz (links to redirect • history • stats)

No mention in target article. Use of quotation marks unhelpful and superfluous. — The Man in Question (in question) 02:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete - I think this was some sort of slogan of Gabino Barreda, a somewhat related figure. But there's no mention in that article or the target, so delete, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 11:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] "I Got My"

"I Got My" → Static Major (links to redirect • history • stats)

No mention in target article, no reason for quotation marks. — The Man in Question (in question) 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete No relevant content, no redirect. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete this and all other quotation mark errors here on RFD. Reywas92^Talk 21:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Retarget to Suppertime - "I Got My" appears to be some sort of musical composition by this Static Major. However, searching for it without quotation marks will take you to Suppertime, Static Major's debut album in which "I Got My" presumably appeared in. Individual songs are often written with quotation marks around them, for on Wikipedia itself, so I think this search term is plausible enough to keep. Well, not keep, retarget. But you know what I mean, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 11:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that with the quotation marks, it doesn't matter if there's some place it can be redirects. It simply shouldn't be kept. — The Man in Question (in question) 20:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] "Paddy" Brendan Eugene Finucane (Irish)

"Paddy" Brendan Eugene Finucane (Irish) → Paddy Finucane (links to redirect • history • stats)

Implausible search term. Subject's real name is Brendan Éamon "Paddy" FitzPatrick Finucane. Nicknames do not ever go in front, and the use of "(Irish)" at the end is just weird. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. Bizarre redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Apart from the strange word order, all of our Patrick Finucane articles are on Irish people, which renders the imbracketed suffix useless, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 11:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] "Occupied Japan" figurine

"Occupied Japan" figurine → Occupation of Japan (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Occupied Japan" figurines → Occupation of Japan (links to redirect • history • stats)

No mention in target article. Anyone searching for this will find no information here. — The Man in Question (in question) 00:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete No relevant content, no redirect. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete - I think this might (and this is only a might) be something to do with exported goods. According to this source, "Occupied Japan" was printed on pottery, porcelain, toys etc. which was made in Japan during it's occupation by America in the 40's and 50's. Still, I think the "figurine part" is too obscure and unlikely a search term, and Occupation of Japan (as far as I can see) gives no information on the subject, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 11:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] "No Shhh! Zone"

"No Shhh! Zone" → Harold B. Lee Library (links to redirect • history • stats)

No mention in target article. — The Man in Question (in question) 00:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The redirect's history shows that it used to be an article, which was redirected instead of just being deleted under CSD A7. Probably not worth keeping, but I don't see it doing any harm. —Кузьма^討論 10:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete It wasn't an article for more than a minute or two. The harm in redirecting to an article that doesn't mention the search term is the time wasted reading the article looking for the term, then the time wasted re-reading the article more carefully looking for the term that surely must be in there somewhere, then the time wasted cursing Wikipedia for wasting your time. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete - I did a Google search with both redirect and target article, and I think the "Shhh Zone" is some sort of area within the library. There's a connection between the two, but it's not really a plausible search term, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 11:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] December 28

[edit] "Mary Poppins" on Broadway

"Mary Poppins" on Broadway → Mary Poppins (musical) (links to redirect • history • stats)

A description, not a title + quotation marks. Implausible, unencyclopedic. — The Man in Question (in question) 23:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Implausible search terms. Not helpful. Cluttering of redirect lists that we try to keep organized. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Look to Norway"-speech

"Look to Norway"-speech → Look to Norway (links to redirect • history • stats)

With the quotation marks, hyphen, and lack of parentheses, an implausible search term. — The Man in Question (in question) 23:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Implausible search terms. Not helpful or needed. Cluttering of redirect lists that we try to keep organized. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "EntrezGene = 58155"

The result of the discussion was Delete. Non-admin closure. — The Man in Question (in question) 08:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"EntrezGene = 58155" → Template:PBB/58155 (links to redirect • history • stats)

Weird cross-namespace redirect. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] "Group" Definition and Development

"Group" Definition and Development → Social group (links to redirect • history • stats)

Another redirect written like a description instead of a title. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Implausible search terms. Not helpful. Cluttering of redirect lists that we try to keep organized. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "George" P.S.W. Bulman

"George" P.S.W. Bulman → George Bulman (pilot) (links to redirect • history • stats)

Nonsensical ordering of names. His name was Paul Ward Spencer "George" Bulman. In English a nickname is never put before the whole name in quotation marks. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Unlikely search terms. Not helpful. Cluttering of redirect lists that we try to keep organized. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep though Wikipedia does not place nicknames first, it does not mean no one does, and it is common to place nicknames into quotations. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not proper English, nor is it similar to any proper form in English. — The Man in Question (in question) 09:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Proper English" and usage have little in common. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Um…I cannot think how to reasonably respond to that nonsense. — The Man in Question (in question) 21:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] "FF.SS."ndashCioè: "...che mi hai portato a fare sopra a Posillipo se non mi vuoi più bene?"

"FF.SS."ndashCioè: "...che mi hai portato a fare sopra a Posillipo se non mi vuoi più bene?" → "FF.SS." – Cioè: "...che mi hai portato a fare sopra a Posillipo se non mi vuoi più bene?" (links to redirect • history • stats)

It has "ndash" in the name. Seriously implausible. 0 mainspace links, 0 pageviews. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete Seems like a typo to me. The creator likely was trying to replace the space-hyphen-space in the title with an en-dash. I moved it back to the original location, which left the redirect.—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 00:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Edwin F. Russell

"Edwin F. Russell → Edwin F. Russell (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Blessing the Children International → Blessing the Children International (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Las Meninas → Las Meninas (film) (links to redirect • history • stats)
"One Shot (Handle Me) → Danity Kane (album) (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Sabrina, the Teenage Witch → Sabrina, the Teenage Witch (TV series) (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Preservation Park: → Preservation Park (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Registered Disability Savings Plan → Registered Disability Savings Plan (links to redirect • history • stats)
"sapience → Sapience (links to redirect • history • stats)
"dog lead → Leash (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Xerodermi pilaire symmetrique de la face → Keratosis pilaris atrophicans faciei (links to redirect • history • stats)
"david clayton rogers → David Clayton Rogers (links to redirect • history • stats)
“Young Belarus (movement) → Young Belarus (movement) (links to redirect • history • stats)
'B-Stupid → Ivory Harris (links to redirect • history • stats)
'Best Friends → Best Friends (novel) (links to redirect • history • stats)
'Amos → Amos (links to redirect • history • stats)
'Coming Around Again → Coming Around Again (links to redirect • history • stats)
'Baimai Springs → Baimai Springs (links to redirect • history • stats)
'Daniel Bruhl → Daniel Brühl (links to redirect • history • stats)
'Bones → Pup Parade (links to redirect • history • stats)
'Breed: Book of Genesis → Breed (comics) (links to redirect • history • stats)
'Bloodline (song) → Daniel Brühl (links to redirect • history • stats)
'Danny → God Hates Us All (links to redirect • history • stats)
'Doncaster Shoppingtown → Westfield Doncaster (links to redirect • history • stats)
'Karel ende Elegast → Elegast (links to redirect • history • stats)
'Kincraig Lake Ecological Reserve → Kincraig Lake Ecological Reserve (links to redirect • history • stats)
'La Boîte à merveilles → La Boîte à merveilles (links to redirect • history • stats)
'Liverpool 29 → Liverpool 29 (links to redirect • history • stats)
'Magnetism! → Magnetism (links to redirect • history • stats)
'Photographic Center of Skopelos → Photographic Center of Skopelos (links to redirect • history • stats)
'Randal Óg → Randal Óg CLG (links to redirect • history • stats)
'Seclusion (psychiatry) → Seclusion (links to redirect • history • stats)
'The Raspberry Reich → The Raspberry Reich (links to redirect • history • stats)
'Très Belles Heures de Notre-Dame → Jacquemart de Hesdin (links to redirect • history • stats)

Clearly a mistake to use only one quotation mark. Implausible. Regardless, quotation marks do not affect searches in the search box. — The Man in Question (in question) 21:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Implausible search terms. Not helpful. Cluttering of redirect lists that we try to keep organized. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete - for simplification and reduction of clutter.MuffledThud (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "D" Is for DubbyndashThe Lustmord Dub Mixes

"D" Is for DubbyndashThe Lustmord Dub Mixes → "D" Is for Dubby – The Lustmord Dub Mixes (links to redirect • history • stats)

It has "ndash" in the name—seriously implausible. 0 mainspace links, 0 pageviews. — The Man in Question (in question) 21:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Implausible search terms. Not helpful. Cluttering of redirect lists that we try to keep organized. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Commune" a documentary

"Commune" a documentary → Black Bear Ranch (links to redirect • history • stats)
"Corwin" Documentary → Corwin (film) (links to redirect • history • stats)

Both do not follow any sort of Wikipedia standard, with the use of quotation marks and the use of the qualifying (documentary). — The Man in Question (in question) 21:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Not helpful. Cluttering of redirect lists that we try to keep organized. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Bakchha" Bhutan's first horror film

"Bakchha" Bhutan's first horror film → Bakchha (links to redirect • history • stats)

Bakchha is the name of Bhutan's first horror film, apparently. But to make a redirect of this sort—not to mention the quotation marks—is nonsensical and implausible. — The Man in Question (in question) 20:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Implausible search terms. Not helpful. Cluttering of redirect lists that we try to keep organized. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 5th dimension

5th dimension → Five-dimensional space (links to redirect • history • stats)
Fifth dimension → Five-dimensional space (links to redirect • history • stats)
Sixth dimension → Six-dimensional space (links to redirect • history • stats)
Seventh dimension → Seven-dimensional space (links to redirect • history • stats)
Eighth dimension → Eight-dimensional space (links to redirect • history • stats)
Ninth dimension → Nine-dimensional space (links to redirect • history • stats)

Sorry, I don't understand what you are doing here. 4th and 5th dimension are very different to the first 3 in physics (see third paragraph of Fifth Dimension: "In physics, the fifth dimension is a hypothetical extra dimension beyond the usual three spatial dimensions and one time dimension of Relativity. The Kaluza-Klein theory used the fifth dimension to unify gravity with the electromagnetic force; e.g. Minkowski space and Maxwell's equations in vacuum can be embedded in a 5-dimensional Riemann curvature tensor."). I want the article "Fifth Dimension to be restored! --Turul2 (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete all. Although created by move, the only reference to the redirect source is in an unsourced sentence in the lede. In each case, the sentence is incorrect, as it conflates the nth dimension with an n-dimensional space. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced? This is the kind of thing that is so obvious you don't really need to source it. This is like adding "citation needed" to the lead of 25 (number). 4 = 2 + 2 03:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep Although not acccurate they are the old names for the articles, so some readers may have the old names bookmarked or in their history and want to find them again. Someone someday will try and re-create the Sixth dimension. At least if there's a redirect there they will be fore-warned of the history of such endeavours and hopefully discouraged — or maybe inspired to create an article so good, on topics completely separate from Six-dimensional space, that it is kept. --JohnBlackburne (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't agree with the argument, I appreciate the reasoning. I expect less credible arguments from a certain 1-character editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The length of the username is no measure of its civility ;-). Keep, most people would probably type in "third dimension". They need to go to a page where they will probably find what they want, or a disambiguation page. 4 = 2 + 2 02:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And finally, did you know it is not possible to register such a username in the first place? I'm the same guy you met earlier at "Hexation" - I just changed my username. 4 = 2 + 2 02:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And, for that matter, its common sense in arguments. 4 = 2 + 2 02:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep or Retarget to Dimension or Retarget to some more appropriate place if one exists (I'm Neutral as to which option). The "nth dimension" terms (with just about any number) come up frequently in films and science fiction literature, so regardless of the accuracy of the terms, curious readers deserve some sort of explanation. — The Man in Question (in question) 19:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep all or create disambiguation pages. IMO, the real questions are if it takes a large percentage of readers to what they are trying to learn about and if the search term is substantially related to the desired search result. I think the answer to both is yes. A substantial percentage of people searching "fifth dimension" are obviously looking for information on "five-dimensional space", and in fact it's quite possible that a majority of ordinary people would probably use the former term when they're actually searching for the latter. And obviously if the pages used to be named this, there's a problem. Deleting these would not be helpful to ordinary readers who are visiting the page to learn about it to begin with. Either keep or change the redirect to created disambiguation pages that clarifies the intended search by the user. I don't agree with redirecting to dimension, because the fact that the user input something like "fifth dimension" in to begin with suggests that they were looking for something very specific, and most likely they were looking for "five-dimensional space." And as far as I can tell, the dimension page doesn't even talk specifically about any fifth dimension at all. So how is that useful? ====> Question: What are most ordinary persons looking for when they search for "fifth dimension" and how can we best get them to the information that they're after? YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I was going to reply to The Man in Question's comment, but you've just said everything I was going to say. 4 = 2 + 2 03:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it seems more likely that people looking for "fifth dimension" are looking for the band. As there's nothing that is or could be relevant to what these people might be looking for in the target article, the redirect should at least be retargeted. A DAB might be suitable if there were more than one marginally suitable target article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

OOPS, it appears I was wrong. There is something in the target article. It should be split out and returned to this article (Fifth dimension), as the concepts are only loosely related, ignoring the second sentence of the lede which is just wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

- There is already a disambiguation page: Fifth_Dimension_(disambiguation) (!) --Turul2 (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

- people looking for the band may ask: "What does the name mean?" --Turul2 (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep or make into DABs - I wrote keep earlier but DAB pages is another good option if there's anything else which could go on them. A good example is 11th dimension, although there's no 11-dimensional space the DAB page has both scientific and non-scientific links. A similar approach could be used here. It could of course be done later if the redirects are left in place.--JohnBlackburne (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep per JohnBlackburne. They *will* be re-created if deleted. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1st dimension

1st dimension → Dimension (links to redirect • history • stats)
2nd dimension → Length (links to redirect • history • stats)
3rd dimension → Depth (links to redirect • history • stats)
First dimension → Length (links to redirect • history • stats)
Second dimension → Length (links to redirect • history • stats)
Third dimension → Depth (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete and salt. Not the obvious targets. Note that the numerical ordinal numbers don't redirect to the same place as the words. Occasionally, a clearly inappropriate article about n-dimensional space is also included. As an alternative, create protected redirects to dimension from all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Retarget to Dimension. These "nth dimension" terms come up frequently in films and science fiction literature, and curious readers deserve some sort of explanation. — The Man in Question (in question) 19:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I would only agree with "protected" redirects to a page if it clearly results in taking almost everyone where they wanted to go. That would be the only justification, in my opinion. I'm not convinced that's the case here. What would be helpful are disambiguation pages that guide the user to what they are trying to search for. I don't think that redirecting everyone searching for nth dimension to the dimension page is a good idea at all. For one thing, as I mentioned above, I think it's quite possible that perhaps a majority of people searching for "five-dimensional space" would nonetheless input "fifth dimension" instead, and then never get the information they wanted to begin with, as the dimension page doesn't tell them the specific information they were trying to find out. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless "dimension" had sections on every dimension, which would result in a severely bloated article. I'm not sure that's what would be wanted. 4 = 2 + 2 04:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep the redirects, they originally pointed there. --4 = 2 + 2 01:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Dimension or a similar target. I strongly oppose the current redirects. They are inconsistent and give the wrong impression that spacial dimensions are privileged. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right, but most people searching for "third dimension" are looking for depth. Ditto for "first dimension" (they're looking for length) and "second dimension" (they probably want width, but that would create a double redirecct). I have made the current redirects consistent. Spacial dimensions are not privileged, yes, but we want users to get to the page they want. 4 = 2 + 2 03:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand but disagree. I don't think that's what users are really looking for, but if some sizable fraction are looking for that perhaps we need a DAB instead. Personally I still favor the Dimension redirect.

Cheers. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with a disambiguation. 4 T C 05:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep redirects as they need to point somewhere --Rumping (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Christmas Day bombing attempt

There are alot of bombings and bombing attempts in and around Christmas, to direct it to the underwear bomber is just WP:RECENTISM at work. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete redirect was created as the result of an ill-advised and improper page move. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 19:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Halutzim

Halutzim → History of Zionism (links to redirect • history • stats)

Target makes no mention of the term. UltraMagnus^speak 11:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Retarget to Halutz. "Halutzim" is the Hebrew word for "pioneers", and Halutz is a disambiguation page which mentions that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] "it's a small world"

"it's a small world" → It's a Small World (links to redirect • history • stats)

Same as previous, really Z S 10:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Whether or not you type quotes in the search box, you will get the same result (assuming redirects like the one above do not exist to get in the way). For example, searching "United States" in the search box will take you to United States. The same, of course, goes for Google. — The Man in Question (in question) 19:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep, if only for the fact the redirect is the official formatting. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

While I don't change my vote, you make a good point. — The Man in Question (in question) 10:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment. If this redirect is deleted, then “it's a small world” should be deleted as well. — The Man in Question (in question) 10:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "almanac of british politics"

"almanac of british politics" → Almanac of British Politics (links to redirect • history • stats)

Is this really a plausible redirect? With the quotes around the title? It's really bizarre and would be impractical for every article - besides, searching "almanac of british politics" would bring up the target page anyway. Z S 10:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This was made when I moved a newly created page to a better title. I've no objection to it being deleted. --h2g2bob (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Whether or not you type quotes in the search box, you will get the same result (assuming redirects like the one above do not exist to get in the way). For example, searching "United States" in the search box will take you to United States. The same, of course, goes for Google. — The Man in Question (in question) 19:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Deborah Martin

The result of the discussion was conversion of redirect to an article by nominator. Non-admin closure. Station1 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Deborah Martin → Sabrina Jeffries (links to redirect • history • stats)

deletion this is a redirect page with no content, I wish to post an article with the title Deborah Martin. ArtPubSource (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No need to delete this first. If you have an article that fits under the title, just edit Deborah Martin and put your article in there. (You probably want to add a hatnote to your article pointing to Sabrina Jeffries.) Station1 (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- I see this has now been done so will close this discussion. Station1 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] December 27

[edit] Great president

Delete: misleading. "great president" is a pretty generic phrase, and not really very much connected to the US or the 2004 elections. It apparently was an anti-Googlebomb to miserable failure at some time, but I would rather expect the phrase to redirect to someone like the Dear Leader. —Кузьма^討論 19:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Black man's pinch

Black man's pinch → Blood blister (links to redirect • history • stats)

Deletion on basis of WP:RFD#DELETE, no. 7 novel or very obscure synonym for an article name. Probably not recently created enough for speedy delete. Rapido (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Definitely used: [10][11][12][13][14][15]. It sounds familiar to me. — The Man in Question (in question) 18:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete Never heard of the term used in this pusillanimous form, but "n*gg*r's pinch" was fairly common in mid-20thC engineering practice for this fairly common minor workshop accident. So either spell it with an N as being historically accurate and WP:NOTCENSOR (please, I'm not advocating continued use of it) but don't water it down into an invented PC neologism. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There are no hits on Google for "nigger's pinch", which suggests "black man's pinch" is much more widely known. — The Man in Question (in question) 19:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep - TMIQ's evidence seems to prove it's used. Bear in mind (for "Nigger's Pinch") that it was only common in mid-20thC, at which time Google didn't exist, 86.140.58.247 (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User box

User box → Wikipedia:Userboxes (links to redirect • history • stats)

Inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. — ξ ^xplicit 09:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Such redirects can be pretty handy for someone who does not know what a userbox is. — The Man in Question (in question) 18:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete, nothing that people should search for :) [fortunately I only became an admin after The Great Patriotic Userbox War). —Кузьма^討論 19:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Strong Keep I was searching for wikipedia userboxes and came across this redirect which of course didn't work because someone has stuck a template on it. Very useful when people are looking for information on wikipedia user boxes. Jdrewitt (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Information about Stitch's cousins

Information about Stitch's cousins → List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch (links to redirect • history • stats)
Information about stitch's cousins → List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch (links to redirect • history • stats)
Facts about doctor who → Doctor Who (links to redirect • history • stats)
Facts about eggshells → Eggshell (links to redirect • history • stats)
Facts about finland → Finland (links to redirect • history • stats)
Facts on Pericles → Pericles (links to redirect • history • stats)
Facts on skin cancer → Skin cancer (links to redirect • history • stats)
Facts on Dallas, Texas → Dallas (links to redirect • history • stats)
Facts on West Virginia → West Virginia (links to redirect • history • stats)
Information about comets → Comet (links to redirect • history • stats)
Information about Dolakha Town, Nepal → Dolakha Town, Nepal (links to redirect • history • stats)
Information on Edgar Allan Poe → Edgar Allan Poe (links to redirect • history • stats)
Information on the SPCA → Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (links to redirect • history • stats)
Information on william dampier → William Dampier (links to redirect • history • stats)

Not a suitable Wikipedia entry. Wikipedia is not made to answer such questions, anyway. Silly, pointless, implausible, unhelpful, and very likely hindering. Misses the point of Wikipedia altogether. Furthermore, a search such as "Information about West Virginia" (not one of the redirects above) on Google brings up the "West Virginia" Wikipedia article anyway. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete whole list. Although I realize entries are usually listed separately, I believe that all redirect entries that start with someone like "information about" or "facts on" are pointless and unhelpful clutter. When non-adept computer users type stuff like this in, the Wikipedia search engine gives a list of suggestions in search results anyway. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A miserable failure

A miserable failure → George W. Bush (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete. Obvious reasons. Like all presidents, he's been called a lot of things. That doesn't justify redirecting a phrase like this directly to his page. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE Please note that since the RFD was created the redirect has been returned to its original traget Political Google bombs in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election.--76.66.181.142 (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep Entirely reasonable search term for the proper target. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BLP and WP:SOAP. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep as redirect to Political Google bombs in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election. A vandal had redirected that page to George W. Bush, and a bot dutifully "fixed" all the double redirects. I hope I have reverted all of the other Googlebomb redirects to the correct target. (Great President is another one of those, and I'll go and nominate it for RFD as it is not half as notable). —Кузьма^討論 19:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] You betcha

You betcha → Sarah Palin (links to redirect • history • stats)

Deletion. Obvious reasons. She didn't invent the phrase and it's not a nickname for her. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Whatever the case, it should not redirect to Sarah Palin. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete Isn't there a speedy process for obvious cases like this? Colonel Warden (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] John+mccain

John+mccain → John McCain (links to redirect • history • stats)

Unlikely typo that is not recent and therefore not candidate for speedy deletion. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Implausible. — The Man in Question (in question) 00:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep, plausible that people type this in as URL, and I can't see how it can be harmful. —Кузьма^討論 08:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete as it does not seem to me to be any more or less plausible than a redirect with a missing or extra space or one with some other character in place of the plus sign (e.g., John-mccain, John}mccain, John%mccain), both of which will usually be deleted. The redirect has no significant incoming links or page history and it receives, on average, approximately 10 pageviews per month. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete as implausible. I'm just not seeing Kusma's logic. Tavix | Talk 18:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New pope

New pope → Pope Benedict XVI (links to redirect • history • stats)

Deletion. No utility. He's not new anymore, and after he's replaced it would cause a false redirect. Searching for "pope" by itself takes the user to a page that links to the current pope. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to Papal conclave (the selection of each new pope). — The Man in Question (in question) 01:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Retarget to Papal conclave, since it's the papal selection process. 76.66.195.80 (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 26

[edit] JoeSixPAC

JoeSixPAC → Sarah Palin (links to redirect • history • stats)

Deletion. Obvious reasons. The term is spelled incorrectly and written as one word. It also doesn't identify Palin. She didn't invent the phrase, she just used it during a debate. And she did not identify herself with this phrase, but rather someone else, so it's not appropriate to associate the term with her biographical page. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This entry is also apparently poking fun at Palin's associated political action committe, SarahPAC. In other words, it's a double play on words that someone thought was clever and humorous. I probably should have nominated it for speedy deletion instead. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Needless camel-case, misspelled. — The Man in Question (in question) 11:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Fina d'Armada

Fina d'Armada → Miracle of the Sun (links to redirect • history • stats)

Deletion proposal. The entry "Fina d'Armada" has never had any original content aside from a redirect command. d'Armada is a person/writer. The page originally redirected to a page called "The Fatima UFO Hypothesis", which itself now redirects to another page, "Miracle of the Sun". Later on, the redirect was changed to point to the page "Jacques Vallée" where d'Armada isn't mentioned on the page. Most recently, the d'Armada entry was changed again to redirect to "The Miracle of the Sun", a page where d'Armada isn't mentioned, even in the references. As far as I can tell, none of the pages that "Fina d'Armada" has redirected to were ever appropriate. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I recommend that the redirect remain for now. I will put a little information in there when I get the chance. It is my opinion that the article about The Fatima UFO Hypothesis was redirected without following the proper process and that it is based on research into the original historical text unlike the work done by other skeptics. The redirect is a minor thing but it would be better to let it remain than to replace it again at a later date. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You were the creator of this entry. IMO, the entry on this person should not have been created to begin with if there was no original intent to create a biographical stub on this person. Creating an entry on a person only to redirect to an article that happens to reference him as an author usually isn't appropriate. Wikipedia already has a search engine that displays results for mentions of a person's name within a page where no main article is found on a person. If you create an entry on a person only to redirect, you actually prevent persons who input this person's name into the search box from finding other pages on Wikipedia where this person may be mentioned. Moreover, when readers click linked names in articles, they expect the links to take them to a biographical page on that person. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Joaquim Fernandes

Joaquim Fernandes → Miracle of the Sun (links to redirect • history • stats)

Deletion proposal. The entry "Joaquim Fernandes" has never had any original content aside from a redirect command. Fernandes is a writer. The page originally redirected to a page called "The Fatima UFO Hypothesis", which itself now redirects to another page, "Miracle of the Sun". Later on, the redirect was changed to point to the page "Jacques Vallée" where Fernandes isn't even mentioned on the page except as an author to a book listed in the reference section. Most recently, the Fernandes entry was changed again to redirect to "The Miracle of the Sun", a page where Fernandes isn't even mentioned at all, even in the references. As far as I can tell, none of the pages that "Joaquim Fernandes" has redirected to were ever appropriate. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I recomeend the redirect be maintaned for now for more see Fina d'Armada proposal just above. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You were the creator of this entry. IMO, the entry on this person should not have been created to begin with if there was no original intent to create a biographical stub on this person. Creating an entry on a person only to redirect to an article that happens to reference him as an author usually isn't appropriate. Wikipedia already has a search engine that displays results for mentions of a person's name within a page where no main article is found on a person. If you create an entry on a person only to redirect, you actually prevent persons who input this person's name into the search box from finding other pages on Wikipedia where this person may be mentioned. Moreover, when readers click linked names in articles, they expect the links to take them to a biographical page on that person. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] J. Urol.

J. Urol. → Elsevier (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete. Entirely unhelpful redirect for the Journal of Urology (not yet created). It makes sense to redirect to publisher when they are small publishers strongly associated with the journal, but Elsevier is a publishing giant with hundreds if not thousands of journals. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. I don't think it's appropriate to create entries for a journal only to redirect to the publisher (where no substantive information is found about the journal on the publisher page), for the same reason that it's not appropriate to create an entry for millions of published books only to redirect to the publisher for the book. All it will do is annoy the reader who may spend a few moments of his time scanning the publisher page, expecting some information on the journal or book that's not even present. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom and YouWillBeAssimilated. We should not send our readers on fruitless searches. It is better to be honest about the fact that we do not have an article about this topic rather than to hint at one detail through a redirect. The redirect is made even less useful by the fact that it is not the full title of the journal but merely an abbreviation. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 08:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg

J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg → Elsevier (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete. Entirely unhelpful redirect for the Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery (not yet created). It makes sense to redirect to publisher when they are small publishers strongly associated with the journal, but Elsevier is a publishing giant with hundreds if not thousands of journals. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. I don't think it's appropriate to create entries for a journal only to redirect to the publisher (where no substantive information is found about the journal on the publisher page), for the same reason that it's not appropriate to create an entry for millions of published books only to redirect to the publisher for the book. All it will do is annoy the reader who may spend a few moments of his time scanning the publisher page, expecting some information on the journal or book that's not even present. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Firecracker incident

The result of the discussion was speedy delete under criterion G7: creator requests deletion. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Firecracker incident → Northwest Airlines Flight 253 (links to redirect • history • stats)

The name of this redirect is overly generic, there have been many "firecracker incidents" over the years, and it isn't even clear yet whether there were firecrackers involved in this suspected bombing. 70.29.211.9 (talk) 08:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree to got rid to this redirect, due to incident was not really a firecrackers. Thanks. --B767-500 (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Information about Agriculture,Farming,lumber and Fishing in Manchukuo and Mengchiang lands

Information about Agriculture,Farming,lumber and Fishing in Manchukuo and Mengchiang lands → Economy of Manchukuo (links to redirect • history • stats)

Silly, pointless, implausible, unhelpful, and very likely hindering (the "information about" part) + poorly spaced, capitalized, and worded. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Not helpful as a page title. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Facts about Parthenogenesis (reproduction without sex)

Facts about Parthenogenesis (reproduction without sex) → Parthenogenesis (links to redirect • history • stats)

Silly, pointless, implausible, unhelpful, and very likely hindering. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete as an implausible search term with no significant incoming links or page history. The page history indicates that the contents of the page were merged into Parthenogenesis, but a look through the page history of the target article offers no evidence of such a merge ever taking place. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 20:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete Implausible at its finest. Tavix | Talk 21:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Austrla

Austrla → Australia (links to redirect • history • stats)

Nonsensical misspelling. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete could also be a misspelling for Austria. 70.29.211.9 (talk) 07:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to mention that in the nomination…oops. — The Man in Question (in question) 16:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete, confusing. —Кузьма^討論 10:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Au country

Au country → Australia (links to redirect • history • stats)

Nonsense. Not to mention it could just as easily pass for a redirect to Austria. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete could also be a redirect for various gold mining regions 70.29.211.9 (talk) 07:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Corée du Sud

Corée du Sud → South Korea (links to redirect • history • stats)
Coree du Sud → South Korea (links to redirect • history • stats)

The French title for South Korea has no meaning here. Unhelpful. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep as a redirect - Names of things in foreign languages are inherently acceptable as redirects. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Black Falcon has said "redirects from alternate language translations should be used only when there is a direct connection between a topic and the language in question", as have others. I don't mean to put him/her on the spot—I simply mean that not everyone feels the same as you do. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, is his view consensus? When I go to Wikipedia:Redirect, an editing guideline, it says at Wikipedia:Redirects#Alternative_names_and_languages that one can use a redirect to link a name in a foreign language to the English name of a subject. It does not say that one should not, say, redirect the French name of a Japanese subject to its English name. If there was a consensus to not have these redirects, then the editing guideline page should say so. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

See below for my commentary on his rationale. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete French is not a language of South Korea, nor has South Korea been a French colony, nor is South Korea known by its French name in English. 70.29.211.9 (talk) 07:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if French is not a language of South Korea- A foreign name of a place gets redirected to its English name, no matter what language it is in. There is no prohibition against what I explained in the Wikipedia:Redirects guidelines. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  - Comment you seem to be a Wikipedian with several years of usage and many edits. If you feel that way, perhaps you should hang around WP:RFD for a while, since this sort of redirect routinely gets deleted here, for the kind of reasons that I point out. Personally, I think this sort of information should be listed as part of the article, in a section about the topic's impact and influences in non-English languages that are not the native language of the topic. 70.29.211.9 (talk) 08:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
    - Comment: I do have several years of experience. I mainly focus on the editing side of things and I generally only get involved in RFD if an article I have worked on is discussed in some manner on RFD. I have observed several RFDs, but I have not encountered any cases where a redirect like this was deleted. In 2004 created a redirect where the German word Australien points to the English Australia - and this has survived for a long time.
    - 1. I would like to see the RFD cases being referring to. I would like to see how the cases ended up.
    - 2. If there a consensus to delete these kinds of redirects, this consensus needs to be noted in the guidelines page here: Wikipedia:Redirects#Alternative_names_and_languages - If a certain decision occurs again and again by consensus, it needs to be reflected in Wikipedia's documentation
    - WhisperToMe (talk) 08:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
      - Comment: Except "Australien" is also a misspelling of "Australian", so is a reasonable redirect for that reason. If it were a solely German word without confusing it with a mispelt English word, I think someone might have nominated it for deletion already. 70.29.208.10 (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete per my quoted comment, which I view as an extension of the principles expressed in Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The Wikimedia Foundation has a dictionary project, Wiktionary, which does attempt to include multiple translations for each word or phrase, but Wikipedia is a different project. Also, past RfD discussions have almost always resulted in deletion of alternative-language redirects where there is no direct connection between the topic of the target article and the language of the redirect. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 07:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary does not apply to this case. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is meant to dissuade people from creating articles about words that only describe what the word is (i.e. what a dictionary entry would be). Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary makes no comment about redirects of any manner. I do not see anything in Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary that suggests that this principle is supposed to be applied to redirects.
As for your second point about past RfD discussions, do you have any links handy? I would like to see the discussions.
If there is a consensus against doing what I described, then Wikipedia:Redirects#Alternative_names_and_languages needs to be updated to explain this.

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I know that WP:WINAD does not mention redirects, and that is why I consider my position (it's actually not just my position and I wasn't even the first one to suggest it) to be an extension of the principles expressed at WP:WINAD and not a direct application of them. My point was that Wikipedia is not and should not act as a multi-lingual dictionary: allowing generic alternative-language redirects from any language, regardless of the relevance of that language to the topic of the target article, does exactly that.
Sure! In fact, I probably should have linked to some prior discussions in my original comment... In any case, there are numerous examples of redirects being deleted because there is no connection between the topic of the target article and the language of the redirect (see e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4) and of redirects being kept because there is a connection between the topic of the target article and the language of the redirect (see e.g., 1, 2, 3).
Wikipedia:Redirects#Alternative names and languages provides technical information about what templates to use on alternative-language redirects... it neither encourages nor discourages their creation. I certainly wouldn't object to updating Wikipedia:Redirect to reflect what is, in my experience at least, mostly-consistent precedent on this issue, but I do want to note that foreign-language redirects only rarely appear at RfD (which could be the reason the guideline doesn't mention them specifically).

–BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 08:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:Redirects does provide technical info, but it is also labeled as an editing guideline. It generally outlines what people should do when they redirect and when redirects should be created.

Redirecting foreign words to English words is the process of disambiguation, ensuring that people go to the article they are looking for. The act of redirecting foreign words to English words is not trying to simply make a listing of words in another language (the role of a dictionary) - Its trying to steer non-English users to the right place (disambiguation).

Going through the discussions, it seems like they all took place in 2009, so this was a pretty recent phenomenon. In one discussion that ended in a delete someone mentioned that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages was proposed, but it never became a guideline - it simply became an essay.

I think that there needs to be a wider guideline/policy level discussion about this so the community can decide whether there is a consensus about this issue

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The only reason that the linked discussions are all from 2009 is that I only checked the archives for the past few months. I assure you that the phenomenon is neither new nor limited to this year (see e.g., 1, 2).

The task of "steer[ing] non-English users" to "the article they are looking for" is carried out by interwiki linking. Creating redirects from generic non-English translations partially duplicates that function and partially assumes the role of the Wiktionary projects.

I have no objection to a wider discussion, but consistent outcomes at RfD to delete or keep alternative-language redirects based on whether there is a connection between the topic of the target article and the language of the redirect is a pretty good indicator of consensus. After all, guidelines should generally reflect established practice and not attempt to dictate new behaviours. (For what it's worth, I would have opposed making Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages into a guideline simply because the issue does not come up that often at RfD--maybe 10–20 times each year. When it does come up, however, the outcome is consistent.)

–BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 20:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Ah, I see. So there were maybe two in 2008.

2. While interwiki linking fulfills some of the "steering," EN needs to also have the "steering" work within its own system; i.e. if someone enters a foreign word of an English name on EN, the person should be redirected to the proper place. The person should not be given the opportunity to create a duplicate article or to mistakenly think for some reason that EN doesn't have an article on the subject. This is generally why I create redirects. Also interwikis cannot cover all bases since some terms may not have articles on other language Wikipedias. In addition some terms which are unamiguous on EN may be ambiguous in other languages, and vice versa.

And "steering" does not possibly assume any role of the Wiktionary projects. Listing all of the possible foreign names of a subject on its Wikipedia page would be assuming part of Wiktionary's goal; Wiktionary does list all possible foreign names of subjects. Having redirects set up does not assume any of Wiktionary's goals.

3. I understand that a guideline is not a way to make hard and fast rules so much as to simply reflect established practice. However the guideline ought to clarify which foreign languages are typically used if there is a consensus that only some foreign languages may be redirected.

4. There is a difference between this discussion and the others. In the previous discussions there wasn't a whole lot of in-depth debate about this particular issue. It seems correct to say that wider debate/discussion/arguments didn't occur because this came up infrequently. Now I am doing the following: advocating for a wider discussion and debate and examination of arguments about this, establishing a binding consensus about the issue, and trying to facilitate examination of one another's arguments and rationales to help establish consensus.

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I started Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#Clarification_of_foreign_language_redirects to get a wider audience. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

No, there were more (e.g., 1, 2)—I believe that there are about 10 to 20 each year—but I gave just two examples because I was only trying to show that the principle is not 'recent'.
Re: Interwiki linking - I suppose that we just disagree on the degree of steering that is necessary and/or appropriate. I will comment at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. Re: Wiktionary - I do not dispute that there is a difference between including translations on a list in a single page and including translations via tens of individual redirects, but that's why I said that this type of steering partially overlaps the role of Wiktionary.
I agree that adding a few sentences in Wikipedia:Redirect to address foreign-language redirects would be useful and am happy to see that you started a discussion on the talk page.
See #3.

Cheers, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion Users commenting here may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Clarification of foreign language redirects. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Useful, possible search term. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep, harmless. While this kind of redirects shouldn't be mass-created, they don't need to be all deleted. —Кузьма^討論 08:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- If we reject deletion of this type of redirect in individual cases, what is to prevent or discourage anyone from mass-creating them? Thanks, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 20:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete, French doesn't help the English Wikipedia when the term in question has nothing to do with anything francophone related. Tavix | Talk 21:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete: It's not harmless and causes confusion. The question is whether there's proof that the term is in use by English speakers. The answer is no. And it's not harmless, either. The foreign language sections of Wikipedia are nowhere near as popular and established yet as the English Wikipedia. Almost all the people who would input this term would be looking for an article in French, and leading them to an English article is not desirable. If anything, any redirect should go to the French Wikipedia's article on South Korea, if that's even possible. But what's best is that no article come up at all if someone inputs such a term. The practice of translating words and then redirecting them "directly" to the English article for the translation of the word is NOT a practice we should be getting into or adopting. It's okay when noting the origin of a foreign word on a disambiguation page. See for instance the search term "España", which is what Spanish speakers say for Spain. It leads the English speaker to a disambiguation page, not directly to the Spain page. However, if you input this same term, "España, into the Spanish Wikipedia, it takes you directly to the Spanish page on Spain. That's the way it should be, IMO. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: In regards to: "See for instance the search term "España", which is what Spanish speakers say for Spain. It leads the English speaker to a disambiguation page, not directly to the Spain page. However, if you input this same term, "España, into the Spanish Wikipedia, it takes you directly to the Spanish page on Spain. That's the way it should be, IMO." - That already happens here. The outcome of this discussion will not interfere with this process. In this case "Corée du Sud" unambiguously refers to South Korea. This discussion affects cases like "Corée du Sud."
- "The question is whether there's proof that the term is in use by English speakers." - The intended point of these redirects were to redirect non-English speakers to the right place on EN itself.
- "The foreign language sections of Wikipedia are nowhere near as popular and established yet as the English Wikipedia." - Which is why, IMO, it helps to redirect non-English speakers to the right place on EN.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete per my comments at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages. A redirect from a French name such as Belgique → Belgium is worth having because French is a language associated with the topic (and similarly for the Dutch België and the German Belgien). But there is no clear connection between the French language and the topic South Korea. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Nathan Zone

The result of the discussion was Speedy deleted as vandalism/nonsense. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The Nathan Zone → North Korea (links to redirect • history • stats)

A hoax in its purest form. + disparages the subject. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] North Korea/History

North Korea/History → North Korea (links to redirect • history • stats)

Old, but no traffic, no links, and subpages are no longer Wikipedia policy. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP #4 70.29.211.9 (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Land of angels

Land of angels → England (links to redirect • history • stats)

Not a term in use. A novel synonym. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete it is the land of Angles, not angels 70.29.211.9 (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete or possibly retarget. I thought this term referred to Los Angeles? Tavix | Talk 21:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete - There is a book titled The Land of Angels, but neither the book nor its author have Wikipedia articles, and Los Angeles is the City of Angels (in theory, at least...). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 00:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Englandland

Englandland → England (links to redirect • history • stats)

Nonsense. 13 pageviews in November. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Adding "land" to a country name is common practice in some YouTube circles, such as Americaland etc. Even when the country already has a "land" suffix. --Billpg (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean they are using it in a serious enough context that someone might actually think they are referring to a real place. Not everyone kind of argot should be a redirect. — The Man in Question (in question) 21:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly enough to vote keep. I'm just saying there are communities of people who use this name. If that should count for anything or not, I'll leave up to people who do feel strongly enough. --Billpg (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, when we use "Englandland", we mean exactly "England". --Billpg (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep looking up "Englandland" into Google has come up with obvious reasons why this one should stay. 71,000 uses in Google is far to many to be implausible. Tavix | Talk 21:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Note that use of "Englandland" in a video (on YouTube or otherwise) would not appear in search results. --Billpg (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 25

[edit] Will Mistrot

Will Mistrot → Santa Claus (links to redirect • history • stats)

Nonsense. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete - I can't find any usage anywhere. Probably vandalism, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Wintumber

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wintumber → Christmas (links to redirect • history • stats)

Nonsense / hoax. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep per a Google search. I don't really know the origin of the word, but it looks like it is used frequently. Tavix | Talk 21:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"Wintumber" appears to be a term solely connected with RuneScape. Also, a closer examination of Google search shows that there are only 185 valid results. — The Man in Question (in question) 00:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete Switching vote per Black Falcon. Tavix | Talk 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete: According to the article Calendar on RuneScape Wiki, "Wintumber" is the last month in the RuneScape calendar. While RuneScape would be a better target for the redirect, targeting the redirect there would direct readers searching the term to an article that has no information about the term. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 00:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Crimmuh

Crimmuh → Christmas (links to redirect • history • stats)

Nonsensical bastardization. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete - I see some very limited usage on Google, but I don't think it's really common enough for a redirect when combined with the low amount of traffic, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 16:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Dianhua

Dianhua → Telephone (links to redirect • history • stats)

Nonsense. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Diànhuà appears to be the Mandarin translation of "telephone", but there is no special connection between the language of the redirect and the topic of the target article. So, delete per precedent based in Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 07:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mexichaun

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Mexichaun → Mexico (links to redirect • history • stats)

Nonsense. For some reason it resembles Leprechaun—perhaps disparaging. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete - It is, in fact, a combination of 'Mexican' and 'leprechaun',[16] and probably intended to be disparaging, but it does not appear to be a widely-used phrase. The redirect has no significant incoming links, no significant page history, and very little traffic. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 07:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete Mexicans can't be leprechauns! Tavix | Talk 17:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Beao

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Beao → Bear (links to redirect • history • stats)

Implausible typo. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete - No significant incoming links, no significant page history, very little traffic, and not a plausible typo, at least on any common keyboard layout. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 07:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Godless killing machines

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Stephen Colbert (character)#Characteristics. Non-admin closure. — The Man in Question (in question) 19:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Godless killing machines → Bear (links to redirect • history • stats)

Nonsense / hoax. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

See Stephen Colbert (character)#Characteristics. However, we should retarget to Stephen Colbert (character) in order to direct readers to the place where the phrase is actually mentioned. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree, since it's mentioned in the article. — The Man in Question (in question) 19:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Africay

Africay → Africa (links to redirect • history • stats)

Nonsense. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I had added it since I know people who pronounce it like that (albeit not "officially"), and a Google search does reveal some isolated incidents of spelling it that way, albeit more in novels or poems rather than as an actual spelling. --Mrdie (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep - It appears to be used enough times.[17] –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 07:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep - I have never heard of it being pronounced or spelled this way. But apparently it has, albeit mostly in the 19th century, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Afr'an

Afr'an → Africa (links to redirect • history • stats)
Afran → Africa (links to redirect • history • stats)

Nonsense or novel synonym. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete - AFRAN is the acronym used by the African Association of Nephrology and the African Research on Ageing Network, neither of which have Wikipedia articles, but there seems to be little reason to point the redirect to the article about the continent. I see that the creator of the redirect has been notified of this discussion, and I would be interested in his thoughts on the matter. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 07:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Potentially misleading, as stated above. It looks as if Afr'an might be some sort of alternative pronounciation, given the apostraphe. I'm not sure. I would also be interested in the creator's opinion, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Fukuoka Junior High

Fukuoka Junior High → Fukuoka University of Education (links to redirect • history • stats)

Redirect too vague -- there are dozens of junior high schools in Fukuoka City and Fukuoka Prefecture with this name in whole or in part. armagebedar (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Fukuoka junior high is an "associated primary school", according to the article. But to be honest, I don't think it has close enough ties with the university for a redirect. The school probably has enough individual notability to have an article of its own at some point, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Barton's Constant

Barton's Constant → 999 (number) (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete. There is no such thing as Barton's Constant (see the old prod for −999 (number), currently a redirect.Protactinium-231 (talk) 04:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WKPL (disambiguation)

WKPL (disambiguation) → WKPL (links to redirect • history • stats)

dab page moved to primary name because no article is naturally at the primary name (and to end an small edit war). Redir not useful, and should be deleted. DES ^(talk) 04:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. There are a lot of disambiguation redirects that have (disambiguation) postfixed. If this nomination has any tenability, deleting this redirect has the potential to set precedent. — The Man in Question (in question) 18:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment I can't speak for thsoe others, but this one has no useful edit history or inciomming internal links, and does not seem to be very likely in ading a user's search. It deos no particular harm, however. DES ^(talk) 22:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh and I thought wikipedia deletion processes, at least in theory, did not recognize precedent anyway, hence WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. DES ^(talk) 22:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  - Unfortunately, actions speak louder than words. Many, many Wikipedia editors vote based on the results of former deletion discussions, regardless of policy. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Redirects from Foo (disambiguation) to the disambiguation page for "Foo" are generally useful. They allow searching explicitly for the disambguation page without having to guess whether it is at a disambiguated title, they improve the search autosuggestion in particular, and they allow easily linking to a disambiguation page explicitly, among other benefits. Deleting such redirects is harmful to the encyclopedia. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep, potentially useful for deliberate links to disambiguation pages (per WP:R), no harm demonstrated. —Кузьма^討論 08:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep per Gavia immer. -- allen四names 18:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hidefumi Kimura

Hidefumi Kimura → Kiddy Grade (links to redirect • history • stats)

This redirect could be targeted at any of several articles including Gemini Knives, Uta Kata, and Kishin Taisen Gigantic Formula. allen四names 03:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Stubify with what's mentioned here. 70.29.211.9 (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

If notability can be shown I would be willing to withdraw this nomination. The Japanese article (きむらひでふみ) has a source but I can not read Japanese. -- allen四names 18:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Stubify - Article is on the Japanese WP, so there's likely some notability (though we will have to find sources at some point. Perhaps this or the IMDb page could be of some use (probably not, but it's all I can find so far)? Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] December 24

[edit] Wikipedia (Encyclopedia)

Wikipedia (Encyclopedia) → Wikipedia (links to redirect • history • stats)

Unneeded disambiguation qualifier. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia but it doesn't need the extra disambiguation. Tavix | Talk 23:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom as an unnecessary search redirect. Even now, a search for Wikipedia (encyclopedia) brings up the article Wikipedia as the first result. If there is consensus to have this redirect, then let's at least have it at the proper capitalisation: Wikipedia (encyclopedia). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 21:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of anime films

List of anime films → Category:Anime films (links to redirect • history • stats)

Old redirect that currently links to category. We shouldn't be directing someone searching for a list to a category. 陣内 _Jinnai 18:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

While I generally agree that we should not redirect "List of..." pages to categories (they are completely different creatures and it does not help to blur the lines in this way), this one does seem to be used quite a bit. I am undecided, but also curious about the sudden jump in traffic to this page in late October from ~10 pageviews per day to ~80 per day? –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 21:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Fatside

Dr. Fatside → Benjamin Franklin (links to redirect • history • stats)

Hoax. 24 hits on Google. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment, just because something is not on Google does not mean that it is a hoax. Tavix | Talk 23:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I was saying it is a hoax and it gets only 24 hits on Google (therefore not a notable hoax). — The Man in Question (in question) 18:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Looks like vandalism more than anything else, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 11:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Censorious

Censorious → Benjamin Franklin (links to redirect • history • stats)

"Censorious" is a an English word, and as such belongs in Wiktionary (where it already is), not as a redirect to (?) Benjamin Franklin. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete Nonsense redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Vandalism, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ⇧

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Arrow (symbol). Non-admin closure. — The Man in Question (in question) 20:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

⇧ → Spain (links to redirect • history • stats)

Nonsense. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Retarget at Up or Arrow (symbol) perhaps? Tavix | Talk 23:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Retarget - To Arrow (symbol). But Spain?! What the $%^!? Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:REVERT vandalism - this would have the same effect as a retarget to Arrow (symbol). --Allen3 ^talk 14:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Yekutiel

Yekutiel → Moses (links to redirect • history • stats)

No mention in target article. Google does not seem to offer any connection between the names. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment This could be a dab page, as it seems to be a Hebrew name meaning "God (will) feed" and occurs as both a surname and a given name in Israel. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete or DAB - I can't see any connection to Moses. If more "Yekutiel" articles can be found, a disambiguation would work, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I can find Gal Yekutiel, Yekutiel Adam, Yekutiel Gershoni, and Yekutiel Ben Ya’acov. Is the name Yekusiel related at all? Because Yekutiel Yehuda Halbertsam and Yekutiel Yehuda Teitelbaum both redirect to a Yekusiel, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Contents

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

[edit] The guiding principles of RfD

[edit] When should we delete a redirect?

[edit] Reasons for deleting

[edit] Reasons for not deleting

[edit] Neutrality of redirects

[edit] Closing notes

[edit] How to list a redirect for discussion

[edit] Current list

[edit] January 2

[edit] Batsy

[edit] January 1

[edit] Murder of CIA personnel in Afghanistan

[edit] 2000-2009 in fashion as 2010 is almost upon us

[edit] December 31

[edit] Curse of 1969

[edit] 'septu@dZInt

[edit] 'nunu 'aɫvɐɾɨʃ pɨ'ɾɐjɾɐ

[edit] 'erbal essence

[edit] 'fish out of wate

[edit] 'Zig'

[edit] 'The Well' created by Melvin Burgess

[edit] 'The Web'

[edit] 'The Great White Hope'.

[edit] 'The Godfather 1901-1959: The Complete Epic''

[edit] 'One'

[edit] 'New Year's Day' observed

[edit] Division of Thai music

[edit] J. Invest. Dermatol.

[edit] December 30

[edit] Self titled album

[edit] Passengers of TWA Flight 800

[edit] The Rev (The Reverend Tholomew Plague)

[edit] 'Entropy' Split One-Sided 12" with Javelins

[edit] Asa Seeley

[edit] Pope Benedict XVII

[edit] Benedict XVII

[edit] Interweb

[edit] Gercockennoggin

[edit] List of words rose says in the golden girls

[edit] Burma (now Myanmar)

[edit] Bombshells

[edit] Obamaism

[edit] List of traps in the Saw film series

[edit] December 29

[edit] Hum. Mutat.

[edit] 久下季哉

[edit] Delta operated by Northwest Flight 253

[edit] Category:Songs from The Wall

[edit] Category:Songs associated with The Wall

[edit] "Alexander R. Bolling"

[edit] "Willie" William Lidstone McKnight

[edit] "reality" television show

[edit] "illegal" rezident

[edit] Hairy hardon

[edit] "chanistskali".

[edit] "True"-middle class

[edit] "Three fookin' times!"

[edit] "Penny Foolish"

[edit] "The Volunteer" Canal Boat at LaSalle Illinois

[edit] "Pagal" (translated in English as "Crazy")

[edit] "Liberty, Order, Progress"

[edit] "I Got My"

[edit] "Paddy" Brendan Eugene Finucane (Irish)

[edit] "Occupied Japan" figurine

[edit] "No Shhh! Zone"

[edit] December 28

[edit] "Mary Poppins" on Broadway

[edit] "Look to Norway"-speech

[edit] "EntrezGene = 58155"

[edit] "Group" Definition and Development

[edit] "George" P.S.W. Bulman

[edit] "FF.SS."ndashCioè: "...che mi hai portato a fare sopra a Posillipo se non mi vuoi più bene?"

[edit] "Edwin F. Russell

[edit] "D" Is for DubbyndashThe Lustmord Dub Mixes

[edit] "Commune" a documentary

[edit] "Bakchha" Bhutan's first horror film

[edit] 5th dimension

[edit] 1st dimension