Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion Information & Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion Links at HealthHaven.com
advertise
add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
Bookmark and Share

search wiki for    ?
web dir firms image gallery news pdf wiki shop video 
about
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
Featured Results:
Tubal Reversal Information on Wikipedia
Tubal Reversal Information on Wikipedia
tubal-reversal.net		 wrangler Discount wheelchairs, chairs la wikipedia wheel chair
wrangler Discount wheelchairs, chairs la wikipedia wheel chair
electropedicbeds.com		 SAPHO Syndrome Wikipedia - Orthopedics, Orthopedic Surgery & Orthopedic...
SAPHO Syndrome Wikipedia - Orthopedics, Orthopedic Surgery & Orthopedic...
orthopaedicweblinks.com		 MediLexicon Search - Search the Web, Wikipedia, Dictionary and More
MediLexicon Search - Search the Web, Wikipedia, Dictionary and More
medilexicon.com		 
Skip to Table of Contents. Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page
Shortcut:
WP:RFD
Deletion discussions
Wikipedia deletion policy
Tools

Process – Log – Guide
– Images – Admins

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

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

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

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

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

Contents

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

...please familiarize yourself with the following:

[edit] The guiding principles of RfD

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

[edit] When should we delete a redirect?

Shortcut:
WP:RFD#HARMFUL

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

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

Shortcut:
WP:RFD#DELETE

[edit] Reasons for deleting

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

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

[edit] Reasons for not deleting

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

[edit] Neutrality of redirects

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

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

[edit] Closing notes

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

[edit] How to list a redirect for discussion

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

I.
Flag the redirect.

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

{{rfd}}
#REDIRECT [[Foo]]
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]
  • Save the page.
II.
List the entry on RfD.

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

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For the template in the previous step:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of "RedirectName", put the target article's name in place of "TargetArticle", and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating.
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax:
    • {{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
    • {{subst:rfd2m|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
    • .
    • .
    • .
    • {{subst:rfd2m|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.
  • It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the redirect that you are nominating the redirect. To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect. For convenience, the template

    {{subst:RFDNote|RedirectName}}

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

Administrator instructions

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

[edit] Current list

[edit] November 22

[edit] Anal-oral contact/history1

Delete - Redirect page unlikely to be useful. Seems to be the result of some very old trials. Did not use CSD as the page is not recent  Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  • It looks like was merged to another article[1], but it's unclear where it was merged to (assuming that it was merged, and not just redirected) and whether the history is still needed. It should probably be moved to the talk namespace as it isn't a suitable title for an article. snigbrook (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete: Is that a subpage which is a redirect in the mainspace sending itself back to its parent? I think I may have just gotten a headache. ...Not even the talk page? Normally (if something like this were at all "common" this might be looked at as some archive or old version, but those should be put in userspace, if at all, since they can be found via diff later anyway. Actually, don't we just never practice such silliness within one article anyway? I just can't think of one sole guideline to cite that would have saved myself some rambling time. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Los Angeles Steelers

Delete, all implausible redirects NeilN talk ♦ contribs 15:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete all, unclear why these have been created, and they can probably be speedily deleted (CSD R3) as implausible misnomers. snigbrook (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Wait The Vikings one likely refers to such as [2]. Also found mentions online for 49ers and Jaguars -- seems maybe they are less implausible than seems at first glance. Collect (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Unless it is appropriate to mention these names in the articles, they are still implausible. Most of them appear to be based on speculation, without evidence of serious proposals. snigbrook (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 21

[edit] K55KN-D

Delete as "7. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful." This name was the ITU broadcast callsign for a six-watt broadcast translator or repeater which had been installed to receive the KUSA (TV) signal from Denver and rebroadcast it to a very small area in Cortez, Colorado on UHF TV channel 55. These tiny transmitters are numerous, particularly in the Rocky Mountains or other geographically-difficult regions where direct over-the-air broadcast reception is marginal. This transmitter was operated by a municipal-level group, and the numbered callsign is based on the channel number plus two letters which are simply sequentially assigned by the FCC. The redirect is plausible as long as K55KN-D still exists as a licensed transmitter on that channel, but it does not. Channels 52-69 are being reassigned to land-mobile and cellular use, so http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?call=K55KN-D draws a blank. Presumably the transmitter has been given some other numbered callsign on some other channel (good luck guessing which one, maybe the Southwest CO TV Translator Association - a small local group - knows) but a historical callsign for a six-watt rebroadcaster which originates nothing on a channel which has been reassigned to Qualcomm for its MediaFLO product is historically entirely forgettable. If the new callsign can be determined, redirect those calls to KUSA (TV), but this redirect is of no further use. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What i would recommend is if someone in the Cortez, Colorado area could confirm if they still recieve KUSA's programming, and if so, on which channel. After that, it woudl be trivial to find out what the station's new call letters and channel are. We simply need someone with a local perspective to assist us. Alternately, contacting whoever owns the transmitter could possibly confirm the information for us. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 20:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that would just give a virtual channel number; http://www.swcotv.org/DigitalTV.htm lists "channel 24.1" to KUSA with the other digital subchannels on the same transmitter allocated to competing network affiliates. If the virtual channel happens to match the physical channel number for this site, then K24CH-D is the most likely candidate. Redirecting K24CH-D → KUSA (TV) makes no sense though, unless KUSA were the only station being rebroadcast on UHF DT24 Cortez. Redirecting K24CH-D → Southern Colorado TV Translator Association also fails as a municipal-level rebroadcaster, originating no programming of its own, would not be notable enough for an article. The redirect from the defunct UHF 55 translator calls is useless in any case. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Condi

She is not known as "Dr. Condi" so a redirect of this sort is not helpful. Tavix |  Talk  18:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Speedy close

Delete redirect; term "speedy close" is regularly used in discussions with meanings other than "speedy keep"; examples include FA and featured picture discussions [3] [4], though there are many more. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree that they are not the same, although if guidelines exist I would expect them to be similar to WP:SK. Are there any guidelines for FAC/FPC/GAN? If there are, it should be redirected to a more appropriate target, or made into a disambiguation page; if not then something (either an essay or proposed guideline) should be there. snigbrook (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Daily Propaganda

Redirect a sarcastic nickname for the newspaper and not encyclopedic. NellieBly (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as attack page/implausible redirect. I can't find any evidence that this name is ever used. snigbrook (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete with request that an admin examine whoever is creating this stuff. Collect (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Daily Wail

Redirect a sarcastic nickname for the newspaper and not encyclopedic. NellieBly (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Daily Hate

Redirect a sarcastic nickname for the paper and not encyclopedic. NellieBly (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Judgemental

and

[edit] Judgementalism

Both redirect to Discourse on judgmentalism which is a "Major event in Jesus' life from the Gospels". As opposed to what i strongly think it should be, and that is an article about judgmental people: "Stop judging me.", "You can't judge me." "I would tell him but he would just judge me for it." or something, too which people could very possibly be looking for. Yet for some obscure reason it goes to a biblical page. Surely you can understand why this should be changed. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Edit redirect & Address spelling issues on first at least. Hm, haven't decided on the second. "Judgmental" and "Judgemental" really need to be going to Judgmental language since the idea of the logical fallacy is part of Wikipedia guideline interpretation and is not in any way whatsoever religious... it's inexcusable. Sadly, there might be a hundred different spellings to correct, for how this contributor seems to like to cover every imaginable misspelling of things. That's normally great, but when it needs changes it's a mess. Well, this is a start. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Edit redirect. The word "judgmental" has a number of meanings beside "judging other people" (including legal and, yes, religious meanings), and I suggest it be redirected simply to "judgment". Leave the spelling alone, as both "judgment" and "judgement" are perfectly acceptable regional spellings. --NellieBly (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: There are an additional 13 variants of these two terms, of varied spelling. See (Special:WhatLinksHere/Discourse_on_judgmentalism&hidelinks=1&hidetrans=1) for more information. --Taelus (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Unlinking the "special" page above, I am unsure why but its refusing to let me link to it without giving errors. --Taelus (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 20

[edit] Daily Heil

Redirect actually a sarcastic nickname for the newspaper. NellieBly (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete just like the RfD for the Daily fail. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete with request that anyone making all these up be examined by an admin. Collect (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:GOODBYECRUELWORLD

The result of the discussion was delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This is just tasteless with an awful, almost condescending view of what it redirects to. Redirect serves no real purpose with nothing linking in. Any single visit is possibly dangerous. One-in-a-billion, I know, but still not enough to make this "encyclopedic" content and serves no "useful" purpose. I know the creator is an experienced contributor, and I completely believe it was done in good faith as the use of internet slang for general surrender on any forum. It just doesn't redirect to something to those ends, nor can I think of anywhere that would be fitting without additional risk of insult. Play it safe, kill this orphan redirect please. ((though I admit my POV on the matter is rather IAR, so discussion is welcomed)) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep: Not convinced by the nominator's rationale. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
It's your redirect, so I'm not at all surprised. I seriously trust your good faith on this and I admit a humor article could probably be made of it. How about this as a compromise, since Wikihumor does seem to exist for this already. "For use and humor in Wikipedia discussion, see Wikipedia:Grief". WP:GRIEF being the redirect (there are humorous examples at the top). That way the entire issue would be confined within the Wikispace of content in the line of satire and not the serious end of the spectrum actually relating to policy and "official" decisions. Opinion? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete This seems overly glib for such a serious matter. I also don't see the value of such a long and unlikely redirect. Unless I am mistaken there are already other redirects for this page that are shorter, easier to remember, and not as glib. Chillum 20:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree on all those fronts, and if you'll look the page hits are essentially zero. WP:GUILT was the existing article that came up in Wikispace after a search for the thing, hence my compromise. Humor should redirect to humor, but humor should not redirect to suicide. That's pretty disgusting. Do you have a problem per say about the redirect change? It is kind of a meme which is the only reason I give the compromise at all. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete (or change target to Wikipedia:Grief, though that seems unnecessary). I think MZMcBride needs to at least attempt to justify the existence of this redirect if it's to be kept. I'm not sure what the thinking on creating it was, but to say that it seems to be in poor taste is putting it mildly. Obviously a lot of suicide threats and the like on Wikipedia are not genuine, but then again probably some are (or at least could be) and it is something we take seriously as should be the case. All it would take would be one incident where an editor reports a suicide threat on ANI and some wag replies, "for starters see Wikipedia:GOODBYECRUELWORLD on how we proceed", and then for something bad to actually happen with the person who threatened self-harm. Maybe a one in a hundred million chance, but clearly not worth even that level of risk. Moving from the common sense to the policy front, there simply is no purpose for the redirect, and it's understandably not even listed as one of the shortcuts to Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. WP:VIOLENCE and WP:SUICIDE serve that purpose nicely, and no one is ever going to employ this redirect for anything useful. It would be nice if MZMcBride could just admit that, regardless of why it was created, having it is not a good idea, That would allow us to avoid further discussion, which would be good since deletion of this is pretty inevitable. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per concerns raised above. I am just unsure it is beneficial in any way, and has the potential to be harmful, thus delete as net negative to the project. --Taelus (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] The Evil Empire

The result of the discussion was early close; was already boldly retargeted to existing dab Evil empire (disambiguation). –xenotalk 19:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This should be a disambig page if anything, and I'm not convinced that would be appropriate either. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Change the target of the redirect. Which I just went ahead and did as it's essentially impossible, even for a patriotic Yankees hater such as myself, to argue that typing The Evil Empire should only lead a reader to the page on the Yanks. Evil empire (disambiguation) lists several instances of the phrase "Evil Empire" or "The Evil Empire" in historical or cultural references (we also might some day have an article on this book which we'd need to add to the list) so it seems obvious to me that the phrase needs to redirect to the already existing disambig page since we won't know what readers are looking for. I'm sort of short circuting the RfD discussion here but I can't imagine anyone would have much of a problem of this. Incidentally there's probably a couple of things that don't belong on that disambig page, but at least four do. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Hamish Hamilton (disambiguation)

Redirects to article, not dab, which could cause confusion and is a useless link. Boleyn3 (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete A link to a disambiguation page should lead to a disambiguation page, not a specific article. That's common sense. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ''

(Sorry, but, not coincidentally, this redirect breaks the syntax of the rfd template.) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia covering the usages of the real world, not the Wikipedia world. The mixing up of the two in this redirect (created by a user blocked for vandalism) almost seems akin to CSD R2 (though that obviously does not apply). If a user is asking for an encyclopedic treatment of '', they should not be served up Italic type. If there were a disambig page for '', it even seems questionable whether the MediaWiki syntax usage would make the cut for inclusion. The redirect should be deleted with no replacement in my opinion. Wareh (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Let me try to simplify the above: There seems to be no Wikipedia article (or treatment in an article) on the subject of MediaWiki syntax. Until there is, this redirect as its creator intended it can serve no function. Wareh (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I believe I've gotten the headers to work properly by hand-hacking them; I've also added a second, very similar redirect. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete both. These are unneeded self-references (redirects from wikimarkup) that don't even work as self-references because they redirect to general concepts without explaining the connection between the redirect and the target. On top of that, they cause breakage in wikilinks or pages with any wikitext at all. They are not needed and not helpful. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete both Serves no useful function and ultimately is merely a pain in the neck. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Conus (company)

Doesn't seem to make sense. The Continental United States is not a company. Brougham~96 05:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Looks like vandalism or other foolishness. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete: Company... redirecting to a geographical area? That's far stranger than what a lot of cross-namespace redirects might be. I've never heard the term used geographically before; but have in old political science courses as CONgress of the United States so it matches POTUS and SCOTUS as quick reference to all 3 branches of government here. However! You're reminded me that I wanted to start an article on a different CONUS-named process, so thanks :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Z

No longer useful - single-letter shortcut to a useless historical page. Several hits (presumably only from curious users). Retarget? — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment Retarget to what? No sense fixing what ain't broke. GlassCobra 14:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete although I'm unsure of what to retarget to. Hmm. I'll try to think of something and come back. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Up Against The Wall Ft. The Dream

Delete. Was originally created as an article claiming that it was a single from JoJo's next album, but quickly converted to a redirect. However, searching for the song title and "The Dream" on Google yields nothing that even shows it exists, except for sites quoting Wikipedia. --GVOLTT How's my editing?\My contribs 01:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong delete R3 speedy was declined. That doesn't change the fact that this redirect has no basis in reality and is a highly unlikely search term. It should be deleted thus. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thanksgiving turkey

Write article, possibly repoint, otherwise delete. Redirect is broken and simply points to Thanksgiving which has become more or less a disambiguation page and makes no mention of turkeys. The redirect could be repointed to the section's new home, which appears to be Thanksgiving (United States)#Traditional_celebrations, but I think this would be POV unless the USA is the only place where a turkey is part of the traditional celebration. (The Canada article makes no mention.) In addition, I think that the history of the turkey feast itself, as well as nuanced related topics such as "pardoning the turkey", deserve an article of their own. Greg Ravn (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Repoint to Thanksgiving dinner#Turkey. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Support change by and per SarekOfVulcan... the turkey itself isn't a celebration so much as a common part of the meal, and claiming specific importance to the event with the turkey on top is even more American-centric than it already is. We'd have to start digging in to how Thanksgiving is celebrated by different places and cultures (as with the 500 interpretations of Christmas), but that seems over-the-top just for mention of a dead bird. Semi-related, how is Turducken NOT in that Thanksgiving article under turkey "alternatives"? Boo. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 19

[edit] List of British Army Ships

This redirect is inappropriate as the target article (recently converted from a list to an article and moved to Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank) only refers to a specific type of vessel, and does not encompass all ships operated or utilised by the British Army. I have been unable to locate an appropriate target for this redirect. -- saberwyn 06:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit redirect to List of ship names of the Royal Navy, perhaps? Agree that the current destination is incredibly inappropriate, but I think I know what the intent was. Different countries separate affiliation of their naval vessels, others don't, and most I have no clue of. The United states has had several lines of ships that were built directly assigned to the US Army List of ships of the United States Army, but these are purpose-built. A few of this ship type in this class were at one time transferred to the British Army for. They were not built for or of the British Army, and there's no evidence anywhere that any still exist and have zero affiliation of the Navy and only that of the Army. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Owner of microsoft

Not plausible redirect. "microsoft" is lowercase & I don't believe anyone would be looking for the "Owner of Microsoft". Founder would be the more appropriate term, but this redirect doesn't help much. Also, this page was created as a possible hoax, as the founder was a NN person that has nothing to do with the founding of MS. Netalarmtalk 04:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I thought Bill Gates and Paul Allen were the co-owners of the company? That's what I have always believed anyway. ArcAngel (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply Yup. But this hoax claimed it was some "Michael" that founded the company. Netalarmtalk 04:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Reply I recommend deletion. It serves no purpose and should have been deleted when it was still a hoax. Mabeenot (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 18

[edit] Flannagan

No reason for redirection -- Walt Flanagan is not solely known as "Flannagan". Fattonyni (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Redirect to the disambig page Flanagan. Maralia (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to John Flannagan. This was the original target of the redirect, and the two John Flannagans are the only persons with articles on Wikipedia whose surnames are spelled in this manner. The disambiguation page should certainly be included as a hatnote on that article. Neelix (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kaashmir

Incorrect transliteration of the name "कश्मीर". Two 'aa's in a row is only acceptable if the vowel आ (which would make the name काश्मीर) is used, as it is, this redirect should be deleted as no one who speaks any language in that region would consider it to be Romanized as "Kaashmir". GSMR (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep as a plausible misspelling. Spacepotato (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep this is the enWP, and English misspellings by those who do not know the languages of the region are what counts. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, plausible search term for those who are not speakers of the original language. --Taelus (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, per general leniency of spelling, grammar and translation of non-native speakers-- English speakers in the case of this Wikipedia, so of course we wouldn't be native or fluent speakers :) Agreement with above editors. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] East Asian Mainland

Seems like a rather bigoted redirect. Mongolia, North Korea, and South Korea are on the East Asian mainland too (and so is Russia!) I think it should be retargeted to East Asia. GSMR (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Agree with nom - redir to East Asia  7  01:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with proposed. As someone living in the Upper mid-western central temperate low-altitude semi-urban north contiguous agricultural section of the Great Lakes region of the mid-latitudes of the central Northern Hemisphere between 85W and 95W, I feel such subjective geographical divisions are rather silly. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Shok site

Typo "shok" redirecting to "shock site". Delete as I don't think that this is covered by WP:RCAT's mispelling policy (as "shok" is simply is not a spelling error for any English speaker older than 10; it is a typo.) GSMR (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep as a plausible misspelling. You'd be surprised at how badly people can spell. Spacepotato (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep stats say up to 10 hits a month.  7  01:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Not going

Serves as a pointed statement instead of a useful alternate name for the target. Potentially confusing given the wide range of places that most Wikipedia readers are "not going" to. --Allen3 talk 13:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - I can find no RS which support this as a valid nickname or phrase used by the corps. Tough to ignore the POV expressed by the title.  7  14:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete what about US Vietnam War draft dodgers who were going into the regular army? 76.66.197.2 (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as something entirely nonsensical, and even if I did understand the reference I have a nasty feeling it'd be political commentary on prolonged US military actions over time. Probably could have been CSD-G1'd, though I guess I prefer an explanation from the creator before those... though it seems they have not been active in some time. Perhaps user who closes this might want to leave a message on the talk page of the IP editor of the redirect that blanked and point them to an XfD page? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Singing Chipmunk

The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#R3. (non-admin closure) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I can find no confirmation that this rapper goes by this nickname.  7  09:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Note - Maybe I was AGF-ing too much, because I just noticed that the author has had their final warning for vandalism of related articles. Would appreciate a passing admin closing this as a speedy R3 / G3.  7  09:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] November 17

[edit] Innanamut

Created as dictionary definition for "inanimate" with the article name misspelled. I redirected the page for the time being, but this should be deleted as a redirect for an uncommon typo. Mm40 (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete: I can't see this being a common typo (Google knows of three instances, including the article, one some badly OCR'd German text.) Gonzonoir (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject help desk

Makes no sense; one would expect this to point to a project about the help desk, but it leads to the computing reference desk. Unuseful and misleading redirect; retarget to WP:HDPATROL. Intelligentsium 00:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Be bold and retarget. I'm not sure why anyone would want this to be kept where it is; its usefulness could be improved. — This, that, and the other [talk] 09:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Advances in Space Research

Delete the misleading redirect. Advances in Space Research is an academic journals, completely unrelated to the comity. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 16

[edit] Famous authors and their autobiography/biographys

The result of the discussion was deleted under CSD R3: Recently created implausible redirect. --Taelus (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a real unlikely search term--and why it would redirect to Dahl is not clear to me. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like whoever created the page meant to make a wiki link instead of a redirect. Ferrantino (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] List of extinct animals of the British Isles

Delete This redirect incorrectly points to "List of extinct animals of Britain". The British Isles is a different area that just Britain, and the redirect is incorrect as it excludes Ireland. HighKing (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep and rename article correctly. Originally this article was called List of extinct animals of the British Isles. Then an anti-British Isles POV warrior managed to get it renamed, despite the fact that the article lists animals extinct from Ireland as well as other parts of the British Isles. This is yet another example of the drive to rid Wikipedia of British Isles at all costs, even if it means introducing inaccurate and downright incorrect information. LevenBoy (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As a suggestion, perhaps this article should become a placeholder article which lists relevant articles. Although there is not an article listing the extinct animals of Ireland, it might encourage someone to create it. --HighKing (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Article-ize - just remove what is still extant somewhere in the archipelago from the list for Great Britain (island). 76.66.197.2 (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment: If there were sources, the article would exist about the British Isles. The problem here is that the "redbook" for Britain solely deals with Britain, and nobody has looked at a similiar redbook for Ireland to create an article. What you suggest is WP:OR - what needs to be done, really, is a similar article on Ireland. If you're up to the task, I'll support you (I would, but I'm not an expert). It's all very well knowing what to do, but it's another thing to find someone who will do it. My concern is that the current redirect is wrong. If nobody is prepared to make it right, it should simply be removed without bias on an editor recreating an article in the future. --HighKing (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment it's easy to set up an incomplete list for the British Isles, that's not OR, just list animals known to be extinct everywhere in the world that are on the Great Britain list, and tag it with {{listdev}}. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep or Convert to disambig/article per suggestion by HighKing. It shouldn't be deleted as it is a plausible search term, and as it is a result of a page move deletion may break a number of external inbound links. It doesn't strike me as terribly misleading either. --Taelus (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree it's a plausible search term, but redirecting it just to point to Britain is wrong, as it omits Ireland. As I've point out above, the redirect should be deleted without prejuduce to an editor recreating an article in the future. Just because it's a valid search term doesn't mean we should have to put up with an incorrect redirect... --HighKing (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Takamoto Megumi

Takamoto Megumi (Megumi Takamoto) is real person and not other name of fictional character Winry Rockbell. Megumi Takamoto worked in many other anime serias besides Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. -- Alex Spade (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you planning to create an article or do you think the person is not notiable enough for an article and want it deleted. If it is the former a new article can be created without the use of an RFD.--76.69.171.159 (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
No and no. Megumi Takamoto is also known as Ushio Kazama from Sasameki Koto and Misaki Sawakura from White Album for examples. Why Windy Rockbell is in such priority. Alex Spade (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 15

[edit] Making money

This is a misnomer. In the usual sense, "making money" refers to "gaining a profit from an enterprise" or "earning a salary from a job," not "manufacturing currency." King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If kept, it should definitely link to Making Money rather than either manufacturing currency, gaining a profit or earning a salary. Sideways713 (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination as misnomer. I do not think retargeting it would be beneficial as it would then be a redirect from capitalisation, thus the search box will handle it, and the fact the retarget would be a different topic from it's current use means any existing external inbound links would be redundant anyway. --Taelus (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Laura Kirkpatrick

New user has been creating dozens of stub articles about non-notable people. Many of them are competitors in a TV contest, others are minor cast members in TV shows. In each case the article tells us nothing or virtually nothing beyond the person's name and the TV show in question. Some of these have been speedy deleted, others are tagged for speedy delete and waiting, while others have been converted to redirects. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 14:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep I believe (but am not positive) this is usually the case with minor cast members of TV shows. Also, I don't see where the original author has created several of these articles, as this is their first edit since August. Finally, as a note, I'm the one who declined the speedy deletion nomination and redirected the article. TNXMan 15:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment I will withdraw if she will win this season of America's Next Top Model. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 04:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete The convention is to not create such redirects for ANTM. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Common Sense (paper)

R4: It is bizarre to redirect a paper to its editor. It is listed on the page Common sense (disambiguation) page too. Should probably be a redlink in the McGingle article, as suggested by R4.

Split. On consideration, a good half of the McGinley article is about the paper, and should be split to there. The two articles both would be stubs (or start class), though. I dunno whether formally I should propose a split having already listed for deletion. Si Trew (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you list it for deletion? If so where? I would have no problem, with someone creating this as an article, even stubby. The only reason for the redirect at the time, was that people were looking for references to the newspaper itself. The redirect was only to let them know that we did have details on the paper and it's editor. So please go right ahead and create the article.Wjhonson (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
No, I did not list it for deletion while it is here for discussion. As above, I think a split would be best. I will wait until this expires (tomorrow) then go ahead and split it into the paper and the editor. (Doubtless with some minor overlap) and of course link each to the other. Si Trew (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] الشيعه

Delete. Improperly applied PROD tag says the following: "Not Encyclopedia. Translated text =

Shia: "They are a group of people consider themselves Muslims, and Ncio by Abdullah bin Saba, a Jew from Yemen, have extremist ideas sanctification Ali bin Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, and this group was the most dangerous to Islam than the Jews and the Christians themselves, they seek every effort to destroy Islam, They are Aimiton represent Islam. The spread of this community, mainly in Iran and Iraq, and southern Lebanon and minorities in Bahrain, Kuwait and eastern Saudi Arabia and a minority in Syria, called `Alawis or Alnasirien. Not permissible for a Muslim marriage, especially of the Alawite sect, or who Nusayris Iolhon Ali bin Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him."

Since prods are for articles only, I'm bringing this redirect here for deletion discussion. I do not see any utility whatsoever for this redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

When I added the prod it was an article, not a redirect. It got edited into a redirect somwhere between me starting the prod and finishing it w/o me ever getting an edit conflict message. When i see something in another language, before i tag it for translation I try to run it through a basic translator myself, to see if it is anything... off-putting. This seemed off-putting.Vinithehat (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:Use English. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as this is Arabic for "Shia" (according to GoogleTranslate) so is a perfectly correct redirect from the original language. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Can we keep with protection as there wont be further need to for editing and the original text that was attached to this article seemed a bit disparaging?Vinithehat (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 13

[edit] Template:Cats needed

We have tenths of redirects to Uncategorised. We don't need this one. This may also confuse new users. too much Wikipedism with this "cats" for "categories" Magioladitis (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep as plausible redirect. I am unsure I grasp why it would be confusing to new users, it seems to do what it says on the tin, it tags an article as requiring catagories... Seems harmless enough. --Taelus (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep From the edit history results that the original redirect is around since 2006 so it is quite possibly useful to somebody. The title invites lolcat jokes that have been userfied to User:Mazca/Cats needed, but it is unlikely to confuse users.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cafe Fear

The result of the discussion was Delete. Implausible typo that occurred during disambiguation.Tikiwont (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete per implausible typo. Would probably qualify for speedy deletion, but wasn't recently created. WildCowboy (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. The name "Cafe Fear" is just at typo thats not widespread. I do not know why this page was created. --Triadian (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] HP Data Protector

The result of the discussion was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete per Rfd#D4 and WP:RDSPAM: This redirect makes no sense as it send peoples who seek information about a software product with this name to an irrelevant article which has no information about the given software and causes confusion and annoyances. I suspect this redirect is also a promotional redirect (one of the undesirable types of redirects) as seeks to promote a subject without providing notability evidences. Fleet Command (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as misleading redirect. Whilst I don't think it quite breaks WP:RDSPAM, it is still a harmful redirect as the target article contains no relevant information to the product. --Taelus (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Keming

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 15:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

'Keming' is a joke word invented by David Friedman, see here. When the redirect was created the target article referred to the joke, but it's since been removed due to lack of coverage in any reliable source so the redirect doesn't serve much purpose any more. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] November 12

[edit] Sara Markovska

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 15:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

deletion, because target article has no content on Sara Markoska Vanjagenije (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Template:$

Deleted at RfD, overturned at DRV because of an unfortunate edit that distorted two comments. The original nomination by Geschichte reads: "This has been deleted before, through TFD, so it has not been deleted as a redirect. It was nominated as something else, then changed to a redirect during the debate, and then deleted. However, I feel that the reasons stated in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6#Template:$ apply for this redirect as well. There are many types of $, so redirecting to US (or any specific kind of) dollar represents bias (if US dollar: even systemic bias). Either way, it's preferred to specify the type of dollar in article text." The other distorted edit is this objection.[5] Procedural listing, but noting that retargetting to {{Dollarsign}} is a possible alternative. Tikiwont (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've informed the participants of the previous RfD.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Like it or not, the use of $ without prefix is generally recognized internationally as referring to the US dollar. "Bias" which represents the actual state of affairs in published works is not something which can be eradicated at all, and trying to start with deleting this redirect is beyond WP's policies. It would be akin to searching for every usage of the word "dollar" on WP, and substituting "United States Dollar" as that is exactly what the import wold be. Collect (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The issue here is one of convenience. WP:CURRENCY mandates that prices are given in US dollars in addition to any applicable local currency so as to provide a convenient frame of reference for the majority of en-WP's native English speakers. As {{$}} was unused, as part of a general cleanup of our currency templates I redirected it to {{USD}}. This makes it trivial to convert existing articles to use the template if they aren't currently formatted, by simply adding in the pipe and angle brackets. This is not a case of "US bias", as this isn't an article: this is completely different to redirecting dollar to US dollar or the like. As for whether to redirect it to {{Dollarsign}}, a future goal is to merge all the currency-specific templates such as {{£}}, {{euro}}, {{yen}} into the unified codebase at {{Dollarsign}}, but that's another matter entirely. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to {{Dollarsign}}. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as being excessively biased, per the TfD discussion, or redirect to {{dollarsign}} should it prove to be kept. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    Erm, rationales? Not a vote, folks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    The TFD discussion, - there are statements of why this is biased there. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 06:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per the first discussion. Geschichte (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Media Hound

The result of the discussion was deleted per consensus Skier Dude (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Absolutely no information whatsoever about a company of that name on the linked page (and neither was I able to find any sources with Google). Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Assiduous searching finds no basis for this redirect at all. Collect (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just slightly more inventive to create a spam redirect is all. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion"



Product Results (view all...)

search wiki for    ?
web dir firms image gallery news pdf wiki shop video 



↑ top of page ↑about thumbshots