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 hov 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		 MediLexicon Search - Search the Web, Wikipedia, Dictionary and More
MediLexicon Search - Search the Web, Wikipedia, Dictionary and More
medilexicon.com		 The Wikipedia Project
The Wikipedia Project
nigeriaphysio.org		 wrangler Discount wheelchairs, chairs la wikipedia wheel chair
wrangler Discount wheelchairs, chairs la wikipedia wheel chair
electropedicbeds.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]]
This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Administrator instructions

[edit] Current list

[edit] November 8

[edit] Immaculate conception seminary

Delete: the page this redirects to is about a school in New Jersey, but all the pages that link to the redirect are talking about a seminary in New York. The one in New York does not have an article, as far as I can tell. Auntof6 (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Soccer Championship

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I created the redirect by accident - I'd like a Speedy Delete. Nfitz (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Aerial combat engagements between cyprus and turkey

Moving this here from AfD, where it was nominated for deletion by Socrates2008 (talk). The rationale was "Pointless redirection of a long, orphaned article name." I am neutral. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Vichy liberalism

Moving this here from AfD, where it was originally sent by The Four Deuces (talk · contribs). Rationale was "The term was used by a writer in an article. It does not refer to liberals in the Vichy Republic but is a sarcastic reference to American liberals. Not notable." I am neutral. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep If anyone searches for the term, it makes sense to just use the redirect. Redirects are not the same as articles -- all they are is road maps which say "detour" hence they do not need any notability at all. The usual reason for objecting to a redirect is where there is an actual articl being bypassed. Collect (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The term was used by LK Samuels in an article The Arrogant Self-Righteousness of Vichy Liberalism at LewRockwell.com. There he states:
Except for the "classical liberals" who still adhered to the traditions of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, most modern liberals embraced the redistribution of wealth, larger government agencies, and a bureaucratic society dependent on the largesse of the political system. They have legislated womb-to-tomb economic policies reminiscent of 1930s–40s national socialism in Europe, embodied in the Vichy regime in France – hence my term "Vichy liberalism."[1] (my emphasis)
The suggestion that someone would search for the term is unbelievable. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete The term is an OR coinage not as yet used by anyone other than the creator. The objection to this redirect is not that an article is being bypassed, rather that the concept of "Vichy liberalism" (whether equatable to Social liberalism or not) does not exist, certainly not to Wikipedia standards. Declan Clam (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Miss World 2011

Delete the "Miss World 2011" article. The event is too far away in the future to have some verified facts included, other than the assumption that it will take place in 2011. Joey80 (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Miss International 1982

Delete the "Miss International 1982" page. The redirect goes to the person, the winner of the said event but the "Christie Claridge" article does not contain extensive info about the event. The "Miss International 1982" is currently linked via the "Miss International" template. However, no attempt has been currently made to write about the actual event since by looking at the template (and the fact that the link is colored blue instead of red when the article is non-existing), one might be led to the assumption that the 1982 article is already in existence and complete. Joey80 (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ivan Grabovac

deletion. No mention on article to explain why redirect exists, Google search couldn't confirm Boleyn2 (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 7

[edit] Thomas goggin

Unnecessary redirect Jezhotwells (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. While redirects such as this one may be unnecessary, deleting them is even less necessary. They don't do any harm. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep it';s definitely necessary, I never bother capitalising either letter of names I tpye in the search box and neither do many people.--Patton123 (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: if you don't capitalize in the search box you will still find the correctly capitalized article in the results. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Unless WP adopts a policy forbidding such - there are a lot of them. Collect (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Like Jezhotwells said. There is no need for capitalization when you use search box.  Ilyushka88  talk  17:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Agüeira

Agüeira is the name of a river in Galicia, Spain, no reason to redirect it to a Portuguese village Jezhotwells (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mad at the world (disambiguation)

Unnecessary redirect Jezhotwells (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. While redirects such as this one may be unnecessary, deleting them is even less necessary. They don't do any harm. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep As noted above, WP has no policy that I know of opposing such redirects. There are enough misleading ones to remove that deleting this is insignificant. Collect (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jam hot

Unnecessary redirect Jezhotwells (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - I don't mind the deletion, I don't even recall what circumstances led to my creation of the redirect in the first place. -- Atama頭 19:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep it';s definitely necessary, I never bother capitalising either letter of names I tpye in the search box and neither do many people.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Patton123 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Capitalization in search-box does not not matter. Searching for List of UniversitiEs and colLeges In GuangXi takes me to List of universities and colleges in Guangxi, but linking with wrong capitalization doesn't. In my opinion this should be deleted though. If someone links to the article, they should see themselves if the link works.  Ilyushka88  talk  22:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Good old boat magazine

Unnecessary redirect Jezhotwells (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. While redirects such as this one may be unnecessary, deleting them is even less necessary. They don't do any harm. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's what's known as an "implausible" redirect. The value of the article itself is highly questionable in any case. Deb (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of fatal, unprovoked shark attacks in Australia

Unlikely redirect Jezhotwells (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Siratal Saif International

Unnecessary redirect, anyone typing in first two words will find article Jezhotwells (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The name Siratal Saif International sounds like the organization that teaches it and Siratal Saif is the actual art itself. I don't see a need for article about organization to be directed to the article. --Vishnu2011 (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009–10 Coupe de France 5th through 7th Rounds

Unlikely redirect Jezhotwells (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't create page. Rounds 1 through 6 usually feature only amateur and semi-professional clubs. The seventh round is when the tournament gets professional. That's why it's on the main page. Joao10Siamun (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Daily fail

Redirect actually a sarcastic nickname for the paper NellieBly (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Redirects from insulting nicknames should be avoided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Sarcasm ill-suits redirects. I suggest the "Daily Heil" redirect also be removed for the same reason. Collect (talk) 11:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete There should not be insulting/sarcastic redirects in Wikipedia. I don't think anyone searches for Daily fail if they want to see article about Daily Mail.  Ilyushka88  talk  15:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 6

[edit] F.I.R.-Fairyland in Reality (F.I.R. album)

Delete. Redirect is left over from a page move made because the article name was unnecessarily disambiguated. The old name is not a likely search argument, and I have cleaned up all links that used the redirect. TJRC (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gorka José Unda Velasco

A non-notable player who plays for the Real Madrid's third team (Real Madrid C). This article should have been deleted in the first place instead of made into a redirect. Geregen2 (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 81 points

Delete. Redirect has nothing to do with the linked article except the number of points that Kobe Bryant scored in one game. I don't believe it belongs. Manway (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Useless redirect. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Otherwise we'll need a redirect for 0 to 9999 for every possible point score. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:42, 6 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)

[edit] Battle of Dore

Delete. The recent AfD found a strong consensus that there was no evidence of a Battle of Dore, and the outcome was that the article was deleted. However, the admin deleting it recreated the page as a redirect to Dore, explaining here that "An entry that makes the creation of duplicate articles less likely by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term. Evidently somebody thought there was a Battle of Dore because there is a memorial stone in the village. By creating the redirect, we prevent others from making the same mistake, and we help people who also think there was a battle to find the relevant information." But this is not a misnomer, and there is no evidence of any kind of such a battle. The "memorial stone in the village" makes no claim of one. As stated at the 2nd para of this page, "Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia". I see no difference between Battle of Dore and Synod of Dore, Palace of Dore, Bishop of Dore... they are all fictional and by existing can only mislead and (in the first case) encourage the recreation of an article we have decided to delete. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Agree. Seems an eccentric action on the part of the admin. This was all sorted at AfD. There is no Battle of Dore, either in history or in conjecture; it was simply fancy or misunderstanding on the part of the original article's creator. Giving the notion any sort of credence on wikipedia flies in the face of this. Declan Clam (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 5

[edit] Wheel of Fortune Wheel Configuration

Same as below. The article on the Wheel's configuration was removed. I'm sure JTRH wants to get rid of this too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wheel of Fortune (The wheel's configuration)

Same as below. The article on the Wheel's configuration was removed. I'm sure JTRH wants to get rid of this too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wheel of Fortune (List of puzzle categories)

No such list exists at the target article; and it shouldn't since the list was consentually deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wheel of Fortune wheel configuration

The wheel's configuration isn't mentioned in the article, and it shouldn't be because there would be no way to source it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an outdated link to a sub-article which I created and which was AfD'd quite some time ago. Rm away. JTRH (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Speedy delete by Dragonflysixtyseven, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quarters of Krumbach (Schwaben)

Cross-namespace, not-speediable redirect. User should not be directed to a template where s/he expects an article. Pgallert (talk) 08:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] November 4

[edit] Google cache

Suggest deletion unless anyone considers the Google cache to be notable and wants to fill in a stub. As raised on Talk:Web cache, the Google cache is not mentioned in that article, leading to confused readers (like me). It's also not really a web cache in the sense that that article defines it (automated things like Squid caches that are transparent to the user) - if anything it's a temporary variation on the web archive. Old Man of Storr (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Manuel Pérez Rodríguez

Should be deleted. All the sources I could find refer to him as Rodrigo, not Rodriguez. There was a stray article that listed him as Rodriguez, then both Rodrigo and Rodriguez articles got merged into the Rodriguez one, creating a mess. I cut-n-paste-moved Rodriguez article back to Rodrigo, keeping the redirect for now. In the end only Rodrigo article should stay. Geregen2 (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Emily Booth (disambiguation)

I think this should be deleted, it does not redirect to a disambiguation page; there is only one article on WP on an Emily Booth. was PRODded and prod2ed before anon rv and made this a redirect to only target. Boleyn3 (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Neutral weak keep as the editor who made the redirect from a dab page with only one blue link. Redundancy of a redirect is not a reason for deletion, but since there appears only one article named Emily Booth, with or without disambiguation, leaving the redirect as-is would not cause harm to Wikipedia as it simply redirects to the one article of that name, and should another Emily Booth merit a standalone article, a disambiguation page would then be worthwhile. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. True, leaving it would cause no harm to WP, but the whole purpose of the RfD is to clean up clutter. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete there is only one Emily Booth on Wikipedia, why disambiguate when there is no ambiguity? Declan Clam (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Boyer (disambiguation)

I think this should be deleted, it does not redirect to a disambiguation page, so could cause confusion. Was PRODded before anon rv and made this a redirect to only target. Boleyn3 (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Neutral weak keep as the editor who made the redirect from a dab page with only one blue link. Redundancy of a redirect is not a reason for deletion, but since there appears only one article named Phil Boyer, with or without disambiguation, leaving the redirect as-is would not cause harm to Wikipedia as it simply redirects to the one article of that name, and should another Phil Boyer merit a standalone article, a disambiguation page would then be worthwhile.
  • Delete as per nom. True, leaving it would cause no harm to WP, but the whole purpose of the RfD is to clean up clutter. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] David Broome (disambiguation)

I think this should be deleted, it does not redirect to a disambiguation page, so could cause confusion. Was PRODded before anon rv and made this a redirect to only target. Boleyn3 (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment as the one who removed the prod tag, I must state that at the time I saw the page, it was formatted as a dab page that had only one entry. Thus it was a malformed redirect - I simply applied WP:REDIRECT to correct the format... and prods do not apply to redirects. On this one I am neutral as to the issue of deletion. Redundancy is not a reason to delete a redirect, but if one claims that this is simply housecleaning, it would make sense. Also, an argument could be made that since this has significant edit history, that WP:AfD of a more viable (but recent) version of the dab page would be more appropriate. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. "Housecleaning" is the whole purpose of the RfD process. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 3

[edit] G-loading

The result of the discussion was Article converted to disambiguation page (non-admin closure) --Taelus (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

G-loading can refer to other subjects such as physics therefore it should not direct the reseacher to one article. THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 15:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Convert to Disambig then, listing each possible usage. This will still allow inbound links from external sites to be useful, as the reader can find the topic it was referring to. --Taelus (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not certain how to do it, could you please? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 00:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Joseph Squitti

Delete this redirect. This person is only notable for having been mayor of Alleyn-et-Cawood, which prompted an AfD previously and led to it becoming a redirect. Now that he no longer is the mayor, all notability is gone and there are no references to him in the target article. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - No articles target this redirect. -- allen四names 09:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix

Delete, as per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 25#2011 Australian Grand Prix. This one must have been missed from the bulk RFD. Falcadore (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GLAM

Copied from AFD placed by Gimme danger (talk · contribs) with rationale: "Misleading redirect. No mention of "GLAM" on LAMP page, only link is from glam (disambiguation) where it is defined as an unrelated acronym. To find mention in the page one must go back to 2006. The term is now used in a Wikipedia space essay recommended to new users, making it even more in violation of the principle of least astonishment." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 05:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wayback Machine/redirects

This redirect is on a sub-page of Wayback Machine and is unlikely to be of any use. allen四names 03:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, highly unlikely to use used. The fact it redirects to its main article page also makes it redundant. --Taelus (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - there's no point in having a redirect that advertises that it is a redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 2

[edit] Jak 4

This related to video games-- "Jack" is a main character in a running series. However, a game of this name was NEVER made and its title was changed to what it is to be sold as in the near future before any verifiable claims came along, and the current game name already has its slew of redirects and the like. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, that newbie received four deletion notices in 11 minutes for the same article / redirect. I am not completely sure what name changes the nomination refers to but I get quite a few Gits for Jak 4 referring to the actual sixth game "The Lost Frontier" as it succeeds Jak 3, so it seems to be a perfectly valid search term to me. Keep as redirect to the series where any ambiguity can be clarified. Not being part of the official title isn't a reason to delete. On the other hand, the fact that someone tried to create an article on an existing game there is a reason to have a redirect. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ila (mythology)

I moved Ila (mythology) to Ila (Samoan mythology) as character Ila appears in Hindu mythology too (see Ila (Hinduism)). This redirect is not needed. All links to Ila (mythology), relinked. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Ila to avoid breaking old page revisions more than necessary. — Kusma talk 10:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Ila, tagged with {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. --Zundark (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Ila disambiguation page. Redundancy of redirects is not a reason for deletion; in this case, the (very highly likely) search item having a redirect to a dab page makes Wikipedia a bit more user-friendly than simply deleting a worthwhile redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:IMP

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 15:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really useful; only 8 hits the last month. Can mean Wikipedia:WikiImp, Wikipedia:Importance or Wikipedia:Impersonation Pmlineditor ∞ 10:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - shortcut is not mentioned at all on target page and the connection between "IMP" and "Username policy" is so well hidden that it could be considered "confusing". 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:57, 5 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 hov pdf wiki shop video 



↑ top of page ↑about thumbshots