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		 Doctor Eugene Lipov, M.D. - Biography and Wikipedia Entry
Doctor Eugene Lipov, M.D. - Biography and Wikipedia Entry
eugenelipovmd.org		 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

[edit] Current list

[edit] December 2

[edit] Ace candy

This redirect was recently speedily deleted; then an attempt at an article was quickly turned back into a redirect (with one editor claiming it to be a "hoax"). Nowhere is "Ace candy" mentioned in the target. Since the original redirect was deleted without an RfD discussion, it seems that WP:CSD#G4 cannot apply (if I read the template correctly). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:CSD/Quick reference

Cross-namespace redirect. Receives little hits according to the page view stats and seems like an obscure search term. — ξxplicit 03:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete has a history, but it's basically a list of CSD (and thus administrative), not an article. Not used. Josh Parris 06:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Norman-238

Implausible search term, no relation between the term dude and title of redirect. — ξxplicit 03:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete rapidly, as a silly variant of doing an article on one's name. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete has a history, but it's repeated attempts to get the syntax of a redirect right. Not helpful. Josh Parris 06:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] *******, Austria

Delete this vague bowdlerisation of redirect as 7 stars don't give any context for this. The village doesn't use the 7 stars, nor can I find a reliable source that uses them (searches on Ask and Google turn up zero hits). With a similar justification, I also add ****ing, Austria for deletion consideration. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Peter Johnsen, Provost Bradley University

Delete as the title is a most improbable search item; Johnsen's name is nowhere to be found in target; redirect too old to tag for speedy deletion. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, I wonder why Eubot created it, avoiding redlinks perhaps? Josh Parris 02:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] F*****

Delete - this nomination in the wake of F--- has the same justifications (Wikipedia is uncensored, redirect is ambiguous, etc.), plus the 5-star variant is even more oblique than the three hyphen variant. In addition, I also nominate the 5-hyphen variant, F-----, for deletion consideration. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete very few hits back in 200803, a fair number today, but I think that's all down to internal report links. Josh Parris 02:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:What The Fuck? Oh My God! Too Many Damn Three Letter Acronyms. ARRRGGGHHH!!!!~!@!~1`2

"Short cut" that is not a short cut has been deprecated since mid-2009. There's humour... and there's belabouring a point. This is hardly a search item that even hints at probability of its use (even the template on the redirect page suggests a different shortcut for linkage: WP:WOTTA).

I also nominate the following ultra-long "short cut" for discussion for the same reason, save this one doesn't have a "deprecated" template on it:

147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 1

[edit] Interior Decorator (Curb Your Enthusiasm)

It is unlikely that somebody will search for a Curb Your Enthusiasm episode by title because the show seems to place little to no emphasis on each episode's title. Also there are very few CYE episodes with their own pages which I think is also a basis for deletion as there is no precedence for it. A notable episode may warrent a redirect to the episode list but this one isn't even particularly notable. Although there are some page stats I would assume most of that is down to the article being linked from the CYE episode list until today. raseaCtalk to me 20:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep and refine target to List of Curb Your Enthusiasm episodes#Season 1: 2000 as the episode title is indeed listed on the page (and with a synopsis), thus making the nominated redirect a useful one.147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per reasons given above. Boleyn2 (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as not going to block the creation of an article Josh Parris 23:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and keep all the other ones also. We always do this as a minimum for episode names when we includes any mention of them at all in the larger article. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Porno Gil (Curb Your Enthusiasm)

It is unlikely that somebody will search for a Curb Your Enthusiasm episode by title because the show seems to place little to no emphasis on each episode's title. Also there are very few CYE episodes with their own pages which I think is also a basis for deletion as there is no precedence for it. A notable episode may warrent a redirect to the episode list but this one isn't even particularly notable. Although there are some page stats I would assume most of that is down to the article being linked from the CYE episode list until today. raseaCtalk to me 20:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Pants Tent

It is unlikely that somebody will search for a Curb Your Enthusiasm episode by title because the show seems to place little to no emphasis on each episode's title. Also there are very few CYE episodes with their own pages which I think is also a basis for deletion as there is no precedence for it. A notable episode may warrent a redirect to the episode list but this one isn't even particularly notable. Although there are some page stats I would assume most of that is down to the article being linked from the CYE episode list until today. raseaCtalk to me 20:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Ida Funkhouser Roadside Memorial

It is unlikely that somebody will search for a Curb Your Enthusiasm episode by title because the show seems to place little to no emphasis on each episode's title. Also there are very few CYE episodes with their own pages which I think is also a basis for deletion as there is no precedence for it. A notable episode may warrent a redirect to the episode list but this one isn't even particularly notable. raseaCtalk to me 20:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:U2

The current target is an inactive WikiProject. I propose retargeting to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#U2, as other CSD abbreviations already redirect thus. For example, WP:G2, WP:A2, WP:R2, WP:T2, etc. Retarget. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Given this seems like a reasonable idea, within the hour I'll be finished bypassing the 90-odd links to this redirect. Josh Parris 00:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Job done, heavy server lag slowed progress. Nothing links to the nominated article. Josh Parris 02:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ōwakudani/redirects

Redirect that advertises that it is a redirect was caused by a temporary page move. Like so many we've managed to eliminate in the past few months, this is a most highly improbable search item that has served its purpose and should be eradicated. With the same justification, I also nominate

147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as housekeeping Josh Parris 23:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per previous RfDs. Unlikely search term, not beneficial. --Taelus (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Glick (author)

Delete Glick does not seem to even be mentioned in article. Boleyn2 (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - this was originally an article that went through AfD, whereupon it was closed as "merge into Criticism of Bill O'Reilly"; then the new target itself was merged into Bill O'Reilly. Along the line, this redirect lost all relevance to its target(s). Deletion is desirable as there is another Jeremy Glick unrelated to this one. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, no context Josh Parris 23:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Joeydauben/Joey Dauben

The result of the discussion was CSD G8, target was deleted. --Taelus (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

R2: Cross Namespace redirect Adam in MO Talk 11:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  • User to Mainspace is not banned, as it won't show up in any search terms. Whilst the target for this redirect no longer exists, it is up to the user whether they keep them as it is within their userspace. They cause no harm where they are currently, and are not visible via searching. --Taelus (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete CSD G8 - redirect to a nonexistent target. Tagged (as are the next two below). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] User:O. O. Anumati

The result of the discussion was CSD G8, target was deleted. --Taelus (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

R2: Cross Namespace redirect Adam in MO Talk 11:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  • This would strike me as potentially confusing, but I cannot find anything in WP:USERPAGE that says they may not do this. Only user talk pages have rules about redirecting. Additionally, this doesn't fall under R2, as that only applies to redirects coming from the mainspace. --Taelus (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] User:Odubenu

The result of the discussion was CSD G8, target was deleted. --Taelus (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

R2: Cross Namespace redirect Adam in MO Talk 11:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  • This would strike me as potentially confusing, but I cannot find anything in WP:USERPAGE that says they may not do this. Only user talk pages have rules about redirecting. Additionally, this doesn't fall under R2, as that only applies to redirects coming from the mainspace. --Taelus (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Variedad Nehari

Non-admin contested WP:CSD#G6. Article is a redirect from a foreign translation of the title. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment I removed the speedy tag — I don't see any speedy criterion met by this redirect. I also don't see any point in deleting it — it's accurate, not misleading or ambiguous, not POV, it doesn't insult anyone, etc etc. I would never have bothered to create such a redirect if it weren't there already, but I don't understand why bother to delete it either. --Trovatore (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment the term "Variedad Nehari" gets 2ghits outside of WP. Josh Parris 23:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Butkus Stallone

Delete: Butkus was Sylvester Stallone's dog and appeared in the first two films but he is not mentioned in the target article. AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak retarget to Rocky II. He's not mentioned in the parent article, but (with a different spelling), the dog's name appears in the "Cast and Crew" section of the Rocky II article (not in the article for the first one), but since the name of the dog is so trivial to the movie, deleting the redirect and removing the redlink in Rocky II is just as "good." 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Butcrease Stallone

Delete: Butcrease was Sylvester Stallone's dog (withe his actual name or the film dog's name); he appeared in the first two films but he is not mentioned in the target article. AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - not mentioned anywhere in any Rocky article. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per reasons given above. Boleyn2 (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, typo Josh Parris 23:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 30

[edit] 215 (number)

Delete pointless redirect to a article on different number that recently had a section deleted (per WP:SELFREF) that had mentions of other numbers that did not have Wikipedia articles (Full Disclosure Department: I was the one who removed the self-references). With the same rationale I also nominate

147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Ambulance Chasers

Delete; disparaging and unhelpful. R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - while I could see this as a valid article redirect, keeping this as a category redirect is pointless as "ambulance chaser" is a derogatory term for lawyer. Since this is a category redirect, it should be deleted. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 23:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse Convoy

The result of the discussion was retargeted to Megatron, more suitable target for disambiguation. --Taelus (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No mention of term in targets of the disambiguation page, thus unsure where to retarget this to. Any suggestions for what the actual target should be? Or should this simply be deleted as misleading? Taelus (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, ironically the article which mentions it is not on the disambiguation page. I am unsure why but when I googled it I didn't really find anything relevant, perhaps I was using dodgy search settings. I will retarget to Megatron as it is a more suitable target, skips a double disambig that way, and I will add the article you mentioned to that disambiguation page. Thanks, will close this when done. --Taelus (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Done, updated the relevant disambiguation page to contain relevant links. Thanks for research again! --Taelus (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Escape from Grandma's House

No mention of term in target page, uncertain of relevance. Potentially misleading for readers? Taelus (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. A fictional game appearing in the episode "Bart Gets an F" [4]. Whether the fact that there is a connection merits its inclusion seems doubtful, especially since versions of the game appear in other episodes, according to the above source. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 11:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Super Slugfest

No mention of this term in redirect target, unsure of its relevance. Potentially misleading for some readers? Taelus (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Intraocular lens

Appears to contain an invisible byte-order mark or other Unicode control character at the beginning (as confirmed by the URL). Completely random and implausible. Indeed, the creator appears to be unsure why the redirect is needed in the first place. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] V.F.D. Snails

At no point are snails mentioned in A Series of Unfortunate Events. Ergo, at no point are snails mentioned in connection with V.F.D. At no point are any creatures which in some small way resemble snails mentioned. Redirect clearly created as a joke. Currently redirects to a page which, naturally, makes no mention of snails. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 03:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  • The page used to redirect to "Other V.F.D. Animals". It seems the redirect was created because of the last paragraph in this revision: [6] It was not "clearly created as a joke", but as the page no longer contains references to snails, the redirect no longer makes sense. Pacaman! (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmmm. The paragraph in question must then have been the joke/vandalism. Discussion of Volatile Fungus Deportation is limited in the series, and does not reference snails. I meant no offense against you. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 07:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, not helping Josh Parris 04:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The definition of america is rock and roll

Pointless redirect. Not a phrase in use. No articles link here. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 03:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rock and roll.

Pointless typo. No reason for period. No articles linked here. No one would add a period in search. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 03:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rock Music Racism

Improbable search item. Originally redirect to another article (Racism in rock music) which now also redirects to Rock and roll. Pointless redirect. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 03:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete both as misleading and incorrect. The target Rock and roll#Race is not about racism in rock and roll, it is about race in rock and roll—not the same thing. For what it's worth, Racism in rock music should probably be deleted for the same reasons. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 04:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, not helping Josh Parris 04:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Every child is special

Misleading redirect, no mention of term within article. However, it seems to be subtext in the image of a publicity poster, however it seems odd to redirect it here because of its minor use in publicity. There are many other advertising campaigns that no doubt use this term, yet not in a notable way which will be covered at wikipedia. Thoughts? Taelus (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, unrelated Josh Parris 04:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The redirect has no relationship to the target as far as I can tell. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 04:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabify. So far I see three notable uses of the phrase that recur in a Google search: 1) "Every child is special" appears to be the English translation of the Hindi title of Taare Zameen Par; 2) "Every child is special" is a long-standing slogan used by Easter Seals (U.S.), most prominently in their current stamp campaign; 3) "Every Child Is Special" appears to be a monologue on an album by George Carlin, It's Bad for Ya. Of the three, the first dominates in Google hits. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep it, I created the link because it was the title I saw on the box of the DVD. See for example: http://www.cinecynic.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/taare_zameen_par_poster.jpg Some people like me think that this is the official English translation and therefore they may use it to refer to the movie. Diego Torquemada (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hypercity

The result of the discussion was retargeted to HyperCity --Taelus (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Misleading/irrelevant redirect. "Hypercity" is not another name for Sky City 1000. "Hypercity" is not discussed in the article on Sky City 1000. The article from which I reached this redirect (Metropolitan area) stated that a hypercity was a city with a population of over 20,000,000. Someone the Person (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] November 29

The result of the discussion was Deleted as G6/author agreed to deletion Cenarium (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Barack Obama/Article probation

Also: Barack Obama/article probation/logs, Barack Obama/Article probation/Logs and Barack Obama/Article probation/Requests for enforcement
Those are unecessary cross-namespace redirects which show up in searches for probation, readers shouldn't be confronted to this kind of content. [[WP:]] redirects can be used to access the pages quickly. Cenarium (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think they can be speedily deleted under G6 / general housekeeping. I forget exactly why I created them - I think they are products of a page move during an effort to figure out the best way to organize them. They are not in use: nothing of any substance links to them. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. These are useful for people monitoring the appropriate actions on Barack Obama, at the expense of confusing any of our readers who is simply searching for "Barack Obama" or "Probation". Cross-namespace redirects like this are bad. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - straightforward as the page should be in Wikipedia space; this was created by error and am not sure why it hadn't been picked up on until now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, unsuitable cross-namespace redirects which will show up in searches. --Taelus (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] TheWillToPower

Ancient (yes, ancient!) page, from February 2001. It pains me to say this about an old CamelCase redirect, but really, this is not useful anymore. No-one is going to search for a title like this. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  • delete -- I'm guessing, but I wouldn't be surprised if all six of those visits were from random article, What links here, etc. Although there is no "blocking" flaw, the presence of junk like this just encourages more of it (the broken windows theory. Matchups 03:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    How is this redirect comparable to a broken window? No one sees it. And what "crime" or further troubles could it possibly lead to? And, after all that: the broken windows article makes it clear that "fixing broken windows" may or may not have correlated benefits for bigger problems - i.e., testing the theory has shown... not much. Josh Parris 11:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    Obviously someone saw it and posted it here. And it shows up on Allpages, What Links Here, etc. It could lead to people creating more non-useful redirects like WizardOfOz or BarackHusseinObama. Matchups 04:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    There's a difference: we no longer use CamelCase linking, but we also try to maintain Wikipedia's history to deter link rot. (Thanks to Rossami for that lesson!) 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP #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. This is exactly on point here... 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Faculty of Engineering

Procedural nomination; originally prodded by Philtro (talk · contribs) but redirects are not eligible for prods. Concern was: "No need to redirect. There are many 'Faculty of Engineering' around the world. Else, place all the Faculties of Engineering here (it will serves as a list)." Tim Song (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete and salt This is excessively vague, and many faculties of engineering have articles [7] ; this verges on advertising for this particular faculty. A list would not work, since there are ever so many of such faculties around the world, a category would serve for the container of articles that exist on Wikipedia, but the list would be misnamed, if not excessively broad in any case. 76.66.194.154 (talk) 08:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Engineering, or delete works too. Josh Parris 09:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt per suggestion, or convert to disambig although it would likely be a very large and not very useful disambig, since people can just put the location into the search box and end up where they want to be. Retargetting to Engineering isn't very helpful as it is not directly related to the term. --Taelus (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Engineering college and semiprotect - while the target is imperfect (I have just added a {{globalize}} tag to it), a semiprotected redirect might just alleviate most problems with the current redirect. Unfortunately, there is no mention of faculty in the target, but in some arenas "faculty" and "college" are synonymous. The only other worthwhile option is to delete and salt, but a semiprotected redirect would be more constructive. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment "Engineering college" isn't a faculty of engineering, or even close, I don't think it's an appropriate target. For one thing, the definition listed already excludes universities IN ENGLAND, where the article "Engineering college" is about. Everything on the list is a high school, apparently. 76.66.202.219 (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hence the {{globalize}} tag. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hence it would still be wrong after "globalization" because in England, it would not refer to Faculties of Engineering, because it would be about highschools in England. 76.66.203.178 (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fredrick neechee

Silly redirect from implausible typo. Name is pronounced "nee-chə", not "nee-chee". Not recent (2007), so does not qualify for R1. Seems to get hits; I can't imagine why. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Fredrick_neechee has been viewed 32 times in 200910, so I reckon keep it, clearly it is a plausible typo. Josh Parris 10:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but we don't know if the viewers were looking for the article on Nietzsche. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment While in academic circles the name is often pronounced "nee-chə", most casual speakers of English say "nee-chee".[8] It's the Fredrick that bothers me. That's not even how the English cognate is usually spelled. Neechee seems like a decent redirect, though. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 07:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - the phonetic pronunciation of the last name I can see as a plausible search item; the misspelling of the first name is similarly plausible... but to expect someone to search based on both? I think not - the combination (plus the irregular capitalisation) clearly lands in the "implausible search item" territory. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep since this is for searching and not linking, the miscapitalized second word is not a problem because the searchbox automagically matches upper and lower case forms. As for "Fredrick", that is also not a big problem, since "Fred*" has many different spellings, and it is quite conceivable that an English-speaker would not know a German form, but would thinkk it were an English form of the name. 76.66.202.219 (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Al Bryant

Delete in the hope that an article on the comic writer will be created (as linked to from Bill Ward (comics)). Albert Bryant, Jr. has quite a few speculative redirects pointing at it, and two or three articles, so this redirect is a little greedy on the part of the current target article. Josh Parris 05:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fresno, CA Police Department

Redirect has no links and unlikely ever will. emerson7 01:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Avb

The result of the discussion was Retargeted to AVB by The Man in Question (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This redirect was bad practice when there is an existing disambiguation article for AVB, particularly since this target is not the most obvious meaning of the abbreviation. Michael Johas Teener (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Be bold and retarget to AVB. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 07:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] November 28

[edit] Chris Taylor (porn star)

The result of the discussion was Deleted per CSD G10. While not an intentional attack page (it was created by bots fixing double redirects to a deleted disambiguation page), it does violate negative unsourced BLP. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Redirects to a similarly named award-winning screenwriter, not the non-notable porn actor who doesn't have an article. Not needed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFAIN'TSOURCEDANDTHISISSOOOOOBVIOUSIFYOU'REAFAN

Too long to be a plausible shortcut, tagged deprecated for months and only linked from less than 5 pages. Kimchi.sg (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete granted, it's historical, but in this case, the links are truly irrelevant (bluelink or redlink doesn't matter here: it was presented to make a point in a discussion at WP:ANI). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:06, 30 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, no obvious still-useful page this could point to. Kimchi.sg (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, not much point having a project space redirect which needs disambiguation. --Taelus (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, so that when there is a good target in the future, there will be no confusion about whether it's okay to create the new redirect. Matchups 03:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Los Angeles Saints

Delete improbable, speculative redirect, on same basis as similar deletions made at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 22#Los Angeles Steelers.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 27

[edit] Lord Byron

Urge retargetting to Baron Byron, per WP:NCBRITPEER convention #3: "An honorific such as Lord Normanby may refer to any of the holders of the associated title, so can redirect to a page about the title itself." There have been 12 "Lords Byron" in the past, each the sole "Lord Byron" of his incumbency; there is one alive today, with sole current claim to the title; but Wikipedia is pointing to one of the dead men instead. Not even this Admiral: With Lord Byron at the Sandwich Islands in 1825. Suggest reading the bios in the Baron Byron series if you doubt that the title referred to each of them. Also see prior conversation at Talk:Lord Byron. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep. Quite frankly, the target article should be at Lord Byron, per both basic common sense and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), which actually says to use the most common name in English whenever there is one. The person is question is both most commonly known as "Lord Byron" and also the person most commonly known as "Lord Byron". Outside of a few very formal lists of peerages, he is not ever known by the title of the current article. Making it difficult for people looking for the famous Lord Byron to find him is Just Plain Wrong. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Gavia, you omit the all-important IF that follows the portion of WP:NCROY you cite: "use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem." And one of the criteria is disambiguation. You'd have the article on one man use the same title that also pertains to 12 other men (one of them living), with not even a number to tell them apart, no disambiguation, so WP:NCROY would frown on that right there. Secondly, the more specific section there is 5. British peerage, which is what I cited above as WP:NCBRITPEER. Notice the naming formats used in examples: Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington; William Wedgwood Benn, 1st Viscount Stansgate — personal name, numbered title. This is followed in George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron, and the other Baron Byron articles.

British peerage naming conventions long antedate Wikipedia, so fortunately we needn't struggle to invent rules from scratch, just follow the existing conventions. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

President Obama is most commonly addressed as "Mister President", and is at this time the one person most commonly so addressed. The reason we don't redirect Mister President to point solely to him is that the honorific pertains to his office and not to him as an individual; there were others before him, and will be others after him, who share the same honorific; no matter how notable that individual himself is, the reader is better served by having the honorific redirect to an explanation of the term than to the individual's article. All these considerations apply to the "Lord Byron" redirect. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Leave alone Gavia said it better than I could. I fixed up the hat-notes a bit at the target, so if anyone was confused by this redirect they will find their way to Baron Byron more easily. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The hat-note at the target was not the problem. In fact, the hat-note at the target was itself a recently added title disambiguation note, which now has been made somewhat murkier by bringing up claims about ownership of the Barony itself, which is not what a dabnote is intended for.

The problem with saying "commonly known as Lord Byron" about just one of the Barons Byron is that each of them was commonly known (and addressed) by that honorific during their incumbency as Baron, between succeeding to the title and dying themselves, as is the present Baron Byron today.

I mentioned above the book about the voyage to Hawaii commanded by the poet's cousin and successor "Lord Byron". The poet's great-uncle and predecessor, the "Wicked Lord" or "Devil Byron", is also referred to as "Lord Byron" throughout his own article.

I think it would be a capital mistake, inducing confusion, to encourage people to lean upon such a shared term ("Lord Byron") rather than his distinctive individual name ("George Gordon Byron"), to identify the poet. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: mistake, you are technically correct, but that horse left the barn door ages ago. Here's an analogous situation: When you say "Buddha" to a non-Buddhist who is not familiar with Buddhism, what's the first thing that comes to his mind? Probably Gautama Buddha, which is where Buddha redirects. What should come to mind in a perfect world is either Buddhahood or List of Buddhas, two things that probably come to mind to most practicing Buddhists. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
You make a good argument for correcting that particular mistake, or at least interceding a very good disambiguation page to explain those differing concepts, so the reader can proceed a little better informed (if s/he was not already).

Should the term "Mister President" redirect to George Washington, or Abraham Lincoln, or ____________, because he's the President we think of first, never mind all the other Presidents there have been, or the one there is now?

Wikipedia's reliance on consensus over expertise unfortunately gives us a vulnerability to perpetuating common misconceptions, but I think — having identified one — we ought to try not to perpetuate it, rather to counteract it as best we can. Our job here is to preserve and spread information, not misinformation. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

How redirects are handled is a matter of style not objective fact. While we can't have an article that says "the earth is flat" even if 80% of the world thinks it is, we can have a naming convention that says we will use common names even if they are not the "official" names or are not coherent with long-established but little-used-outside-specific-fields-of-study naming conventions. However, this discussion is turning into a broader discussion than just this one redirect - it's turning into a discussion about how we should handle cases where a specific convention, such as WP:NCBRITPEER, are based on an authority outside Wikipedia and are used by experts in the field, but where the world outside of scholars or another relatively small group has adopted a common name that doesn't fit in with this convention. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why you think the term "Lord Byron" as pertains to the 6th Baron Byron "doesn't fit in with this convention". Of course it does. That is the honorific that accompanies the title. Every Baron Byron, from the 1st through the 13th, has been addressed as "Lord Byron". If the poet George Gordon Byron had not inherited the baronial title, he would not have been known as "Lord Byron", merely by his full name or as "Byron". He is called "Lord Byron" for the same reason that every other Baron Byron is called "Lord Byron". He has no greater claim to the title than any other of them; and in the present day, no claim equal to that of the living incumbent (13th) Baron. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Lord Byron", used without context, nearly always refers to the poet. WP:NCROY does not and should not address every possible situation, and so when we have a subject who is known for activities other than his nobility, we can and should fall back on WP:UCN. Powers T 16:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible that the above "nearly always" unconsciously draws upon the context of poetry and literature, which would naturally tend to focus attention on the poet and writer? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Anything's possible. But my point is more that someone who asks "Have you heard of Lord Byron?" is far more likely to be speaking of the poet than the current title holder. Powers T 01:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
That depends on whether they're "far more likely to be speaking of" Regency literary history than other periods between the English Civil Wars and the present; or of Romantic poetry than other topics such as current affairs, politics, legal news; the living Lord Byron isn't huddled up in a cave, you know. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Baron Byron - We should have redirects to where they belong. If someone knows "Lord Byron" as George Gordon Byron, then they can figure it out on the Baron Byron page. It is like claiming that since people would know Obama as President of the United States that the page on President of the United States should somehow redirect there. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep this is a general encyclopedia and that person is what is almost universally meant. Anything else is pedantry, and people should not have to figure it out on a disam page for very famous people. The various presidents of the US are much more nearly known than the various Lord Byrons. The correct analogy is the Obama redirects to Barack Obama because that is what is almost always looked for. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I would say that Lord Byron definitely refers to the title more commonly than anything else. The fact that George Gordon Byron would be shortened to Lord Byron is pride on the fact that he was Baron Byron. Thus, the short naming of him would show that the common use of Lord Byron would be referring to the title Baron Byron. President Obama is called President Obama instead of Barack Obama because of the title. It is not his name, but a short form of the status. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
By the way, throughout Byron's life, Lord Byron referred to William Byron, 5th Baron Byron, whose fearsome reputation cast quite a bit upon Byron's own life. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
«The correct analogy is the Obama redirects to Barack Obama...» — And that dabnotes Obama (disambiguation), acknowledging that even a relatively exotic name like "Obama" has many other referents. As for the far more common Byron (name), well, see that list. But specifically "Lord Byron" is not a family surname, it's an honorific pertaining to a title of British peerage; it should redirect to that title. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Ideally, per wikipedia's common name policy the article on the poet should be at Lord Byron. While there are other peers with the same title, hardly any of our readers are interested in those Barons. The idea of Redirecting to something vague like Baron Byron hardly sounds like something we should even bother considering. We should always work toward serving our readers. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
«something vague like Baron Byron» — That's not at all "vague"; it's defined by Letters Patent, and there's been only one at a time since 1643. They're specifically numbered to distinguish them, "1st Baron Byron" through "13th Baron Byron". Whereas you'd prefer a vague, unnumbered "Lord Byron" — a term by which each of those men was in turn addressed — as the title for an article on just one of them. Go figure.

And we could redirect President of the United States to Abraham Lincoln (or pick the polled favorite); "while there are other Presidents with the same title (Millard Fillmore, Rutherford B. Hayes), hardly any of our readers are interested in those Presidents." — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Except, of course, that the latter is obviously not even remotely true. Powers T 01:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Apologies. I meant unclear rather than vague. Unclear because readers expecting to see an article on the poet would end up in an article on Baron Byron instead. Since, overwhelmingly, readers typing Lord Byron are seeking the poet, we should take them straight to the article on the poet without fuss. For the few who might be looking for one of the other barons, the hat note on the poet's article does the job more than adequately. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 05:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "Lord Byron" refers to the poet (at all) because he was a Baron Byron, one of the Barons Byron, and refers to him no more than to any of the other Barons Byron. There's the sticking point. We're not discussing the redirect of the plain surname Byron here; that already redirects to the poet. But the honorific "Lord Byron" pertains to the title "Baron Byron", and to that the poet's only claim is that he too was one of the Barons Byron; he has no more claim to it than any other Baron Byron. Fame may have left him peerless in recognition by his surname. But (in this one case) "peerage" means just that — those who preceded and succeeded him in his peerage were his peers in rank and respect as "Lord Byron", not his lessers in any way whatsoever. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    • This is not about who claims the title, as it is not up to Wikipedia to adjudicate such claims; this should solely be about what the majority of readers expect to find when they put "Lord Byron" into the search box. Powers T 13:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Here's what a search finds, but we're discussing a redirect. A "Lord Byron" redirect that goes to Baron Byron will show George Gordon Byron several times, including his face and (more than once) the description as "English Romantic poet", while anyone looking for any of the other Lords Byron will also see their targets listed. Thus all the redirect users will be served, not just "most" of them. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • .... According to the usage of The International Byron Society, a resource listed at the foot of "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron, they refer to him up top as "Lord George Gordon Byron", and thereafter "Lord Byron" (or more often just "Byron") for short, but if you use the "Societies" tab at left, they indicate the British Byron Society's President is... Lord Byron. No name specified there, because they mean the living one. They know the poet's neither the sole nor the primary claimant; the title's living holder is. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
    • As the nominator, I don't think you need to reiterate your position with a bolded recommendation. Powers T 01:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Point taken, and thank you. Bolded bit accordingly removed. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. As I've already said at Talk:Lord Byron, most readers who type "Lord Byron" into a search box are looking for George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron (but very few readers will know to type that exact title into a search box). There's no reason to send them to a disambiguation page. Those readers who are looking for a different Lord Byron (a much smaller number, I'm sure), can get to Baron Byron through the hatnote at the top of George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron. Incidentally, if you look at the incoming links to Lord Byron, many of them, probably most by a fair margin, are for the poet. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Some of them time travelers, no doubt: Richard Molyneux, 2nd Viscount Molyneux (1620/23?-1654) links to Lord Byron from considerably before the poet's birth. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. (Although arguably the article should not refer to "Lord Byron" at that point, since he was only created Baron after the battle referred to.) --Akhilleus (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible Keep. The poet is only referred to as Lord Byron in most literary references, and the disambig is exactly what is needed so that users who only know him as "Lord Byron" can find his article easily. Arguing that some barely-remembered historical character once referred to someone else as "Lord Byron" is irrelevant: the poet is the only Lord Byron to have any significant notability in the real world. Removing or redirecting this to "Baron Byron" would be confusing and pedantic. --NellieBly (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
«the poet is the only Lord Byron to have any significant notability in the real world» — Have you actually read the other biographies in the Baron Byron series? I might have thought somewhere, among those men who served loyally and with distinction the Crown that ennobled them, you might have found at least one as notable as an expatriate profligate who spent his last years in exile seducing and abandoning other men's wives. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
And you will note that everyone knew William Byron, 5th Baron Byron as Lord Byron, too. The poet lived under the "Wicked Lord"'s shadow. Those who bought With Lord Byron at the Sandwich Islands in 1825 likewise were under no delusion they'd be reading about a man who'd died in Greece in 1824. The above article Akhilleus fixed was set in the English Civil War between Charles I and Parliament, during which the first Lord Byron's baronial title was created. The International Byron Society, of all groups in the world the one most inclined to focus first on the poet, concedes primacy in the title to the living Lord Byron in the very way they list him, not having to specify his name first, as they do when speaking of "Lord George Gordon Byron". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The distinction is "everyone knew". — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 11:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, vs. present tense, the living, current, incumbent, (13th) Lord Byron, who incidentally is listed as President of the British Byron Society. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Right now, very few people know of George Gordon Byron - he is rarely taught in schools and people would know him by his name or full title (as per statements referring to both Norton and Oxford editions of poetry which are used when teaching Byron). "Lord Byron" might have been a title known by a select minority of people and popularized, but it is far from being mainstream or the common use. As of right now, Byron isn't mainstream or common, so there is no real common use. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's the thing, TMiQ: George Gordon Byron was addressed as "Lord Byron" because he was 6th Baron Byron. Those other Barons Byron were each also addressed as "Lord Byron" because each was also nth Baron Byron. He has no greater claim to the title than any of them, and certainly not equal claim to the living incumbent when spoken of in the present tense. Set the specific context to Regency literary history / Romantic poetry in order to disambiguate, and that would be another matter. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep as is, or even better, move the article to this title. This is about as clear an application of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as anyone could wish for. We are not concerned with who has what "claim" to the title, only with how many readers are likely to be looking for what topic (and whether they recognize the article title as referring to the topic they seek).--Kotniski (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Reverse redirect. Worldwide, the bulk of the references to a person named Lord Byron pertain to the poet (I would say that it's between 80 and 90 percent). So it's the primary use of the topic (as virtually every English language source mentioning poetry and other works by this person refers to him as "Lord Byron" and rarely addended with his given name or title). Thus this should be the name of article, not the redirect... with hatnotes for Baron Byron and Lord Byron (disambiguation) (the latter a sorely needed disambiguation page for all the other Lord Byrons as much of the world would not connect the word "Lord" with "Baron" - there are also Wikipedia articles named Lord Byron (Thomson), Lord Byron (chronology), Lord Byron of Broadway (film), among others). While Wikipedia is often accused of Americentrism, the arguments for deletion are clearly Anglocentric in nature - both ignore the rest of the word that Wikipedia reaches. (NOTE: the list of roughly 519,000 Google hits of the search of "Lord Byron" in quotation marks shows only pages dealing with the poet until Page 5 of the results... on which there are two mentions of the Hotel Lord Byron in Rome and the opera Lord Byron by Virgil Thomson. Clearly there is one dominant use of the name here).147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Union Avoidance Consultants - The Burke Group

Sounds like advertising, and an implausible search. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember why I put that up. I mean, TBG specialises in getting unions out/preventing unions getting into a workplace. I don't really mind if you delete it. Wikidea 16:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Advertisement redirects, eh? — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as spam. Josh Parris 22:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikistalker

The result of the discussion was Redirect to Cyberstalking and add hatnote to Cyberstalking pointing to Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. Non-admin closure with 100% consensus. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It should be deleted as it is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space to the Wikipedia namespace.  Merlion  444  04:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: The following is copied from this edit of User talk:Davidwr:

“ I'm okay with the consensus of the Wikistalker redirect. Please close the discussion.  Merlion  444  04:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC) ”


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

[edit] Mordova

Mordova is a misnomer for Moldova (Moldavia) and/or Mordovia. Neither Mordovia nor Moldova have such spelling variant. Some people, especially in Russia and CIS, mix up Moldova and Mordovia, some of them misspell it as Mordova. — Chesnok (talk • contribs) 20:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Interesting point. Is there a precedent for handling "typo disambiguations"? For what it's worth, since 2006 this has been a redirect to Mordovia. Not that this makes automatically Mordovia the preferred target. Perhaps restoring it to Mordovia but putting a hatnote at the top of Mordovia saying "Mordova redirect here, for the country of a similar spelling, see Moldova." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Possible solution: Change it to point to Moldova (disambiguation), which starts off "Moldova or Moldavia may refer to:" and put a hat-note at the top of the dab page saying "Mordova redirects here. You may be looking for Mordovia" or something similar. Pointing it to the DAB page covers a lot more articles, even if it changes 3 years of history. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabify - as this seems to be likely misspellings for both places, a dab page would seem like a good idea. 76.66.194.154 (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia have a rule that incorrectly spelled redirects must be speedily deleted. Now I will submit it to speedy deletion once again. — Chesnok (talk • contribs) 10:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no such rule - see WP:CSD#Redirects, in particular "redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful." Speedy declined. JohnCD (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, the speedy criteria specifies recently created redirects. This does not qualify. The speedy was declined and I endorse the declining - better to discuss than speedy in a case like this even if it did qualify. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Where did you get the idea that misspelt redirects must be deleted?? Have you not noticed the contents of WP:RFD? There are many kept misspellings from this XfD. 76.66.202.219 (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, the speedy deletion rule actually only applies to mispellings that are both recent and implasuable. Simply being a misspelling has never been a speedy deltion criteria. For example having Herison Fhourd redirect to Harrison Ford would probabally qualify.
I can't count the redirects I've created to catch common misspellings (or mispunctuations, miscapitalisations, etc.) and pass readers along to the right articles. Our job here isn't to test readers' spelling skills and block them from reading articles if they fail. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 26

[edit] Assassin's Creed III

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Assassin's Creed III Articles for deletion/Assassin's Creed III (2nd nomination)

Reasons for deletion: R9 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. The target article contains very little information on the subject, not even fully asserting that it will definately exist yet, as it is a long way in the future. (WP:CRYSTAL) Was speedy kept at AfD and converted to redirect, so I thought it would benefit from some discussion here to gain concensus on whether it is better off as a red link, or a redirect currently. Taelus (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Note to those coming from the AfD, which I also took part in. I am not asserting that the AfD result was wrong and that deletion is the only option, I merely thought the scenario would benefit from a "Redirect for Discussion". I would be quite happy to leave it as a redirect, but would like to discuss the consensus on redirects that are by nature crystal balling in advance of solid release information. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - On a general note, R9 is for topics where we want to encourage a possible article. Which we currently don't want to in this case, as is clear after after two Afds in a month already. The second confirmed (in my opinion) correctly what was already suggested in the first: While we don't want editors to gaze into crystal balls, readers are entitled to search for speculative topics and the redirect leads them to the place where we have it. If that information is little or nil, this conveys the state of affairs and allows for cautions expansion or discussion. Most of which can easily be handled locally by interested and knowledgeable editors. A red link on the other hand gives enthusiastic fans the message that this is still missing in wikipedia. And we go on with AfDs, RfDs, protection, unprotection request, DRV and the like. So to conclude again in the general: With respect to possible successors or future periodical events, WP:Crystal is rather a reason for having a redirect than for deleting one, as long as it leads all interested editors and readers to a a place where they can add a paragraph and / or discuss when it is ready to be branched out. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Good points, I see that it would indeed benefit the majority in its current state. Whilst some readers might follow the redirect and be disappointed at the lack of relevant information, I suppose it is indeed currently the best we can offer them. Thanks for your input. As I said previously, I do not mind the article being kept as a redirect, however since this forum is "for discussion" rather than "for deletion" I thought it couldn't hurt for a bit of discussion! --Taelus (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Per above.--Pookeo9 Say What you Want 19:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete unannounced future game per WP:CRYSTAL. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 00:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and refine target to Assassin's Creed (series)#Future as the section mentions the series creative director mentioning his intentions of an Assassin's Creed III entry being the last of a trilogy. While there is not enough yet to justify a standalone article, this is a case in which the existence of a redirect would be helpful to the readers of Wikipedia and help prevent accidental linking to a possible premature article on the not-yet-existing game. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:HPIM0006.JPG

The result of the discussion was - Speedy Deleted (R3). one of the consequences of moving a file and forgetting to clean up afterwards. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not useful - redirect to file on Commons - doesn't work properly. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete, it does indeed appear not to work. For my browser at least, it won't redirect, it always loads the image on that page as a transclusion. Usage of it can be cleaned up manually or by a bot for articles it is used in to bypass this 'redirect'. --Taelus (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And deleted (CSD#R3) - I missed that I'd previously renamed the file, when I moved it to commons - Peripitus (Talk) 10:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] November 25

[edit] Child sexua lity

This redirect is recommended for deletion - it's an implausible typo with a completely random space in the middle of a word. It's not an abbreviation or alternate spelling. There are no incoming links to the redirect page (other than one where I asked about how to do this listing), so no links will be broken when it's deleted. Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional info -The first version of the page when it was originally created was a nonsense page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tikiwont (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • DeleteKeep Child_sexua_lity has been viewed 8 times in 200909 which astonishes me. How does that happen? Anybody? Josh Parris 10:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Having had time to consider, I don't think anyone's going to miss this. Josh Parris 22:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    If any other articles had redirects with random spaces inside the words, you'd see traffic for those also, it's an easy typo. How many people have typed "wikiped ia" when they intended wikipedia? Redirects are useful for common misspellings, but they're not intended for catching random typos. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. As originally created, the redirect was vandalism, before it was redirected to the target article. However, there is no plausible reason for this redirect which would legitimize keeping; the only internal link to this redirect is on a talk page and pertains to this RfD, as indicated. --Kinu t/c 18:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
    I figure there's got to be a broken incoming link out there on the interwebs. People need this redirect to get to the right article. Josh Parris 21:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
    I've always felt that the need to maintain such redirects for links from outside of Wikipedia applies when the redirect is reasonable; for example, the "Attorneygate" example provided at WP:R#HARMFUL, or some other plausible typo, misnomer, etc. In this case, I would argue that the redirect isn't something people "need," per se, to get to the right article. --Kinu t/c 21:59, 29 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)
  • Stubify per above discussion. It is clear that the voice actor works with many pseudonyms, and receives a fair amount of coverage in independent media. Should the redirect be deleted instead, I urge a listing in WP:RA as the subject clears the WP:BIO notability bar. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:48, 23 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) 06:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Please note that if an article is created it should be at Megumi Takamoto and not at Takamoto Megumi. The reason is that the WP:MOSJA states anyone born after the Meiji period (1868 onward) should be listed by given name and then family name and I doubt that this VA is over 130 years old. --70.24.181.217 (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
It wouldn't matter, since the reversed order name would have to exist as a redirect, because that is how they are named in Japan (when rendered into Latin lettering) 76.66.194.154 (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the statement was a reference to the suggestion to create a stub for the person is question. The article does noy yet exist so it was being pointed out that if or when the article was created that it should go with the given then surname order and that the new article should not be created under the name Takamoto Megumi.--70.24.176.195 (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Common Sense (paper)

The result of the discussion was Delete. You are free to recreate it as a stub. Ruslik_Zero 12:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

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)
  • Delete as "Common Sense (paper)" can be confused with Common Sense (pamphlet), the far more commonly-cited context of the term (Common Sense (newspaper) might be a more appropriate name for an article about Conde McGinley's periodical, though). Retargeting the redirect to the dab page that lists the redirect directly is not helpful. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:56, 23 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) 06:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with IP 147.70.242.54; as a disambiguator, Common Sense (paper) doesn't actually disambiguate. Since there's no actual article, there's no reason to keep it. Having said that, I endorse having some clearer redirect like Common Sense (newspaper) instead. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Belmez

Think that is should be redirected to a disambiguation page, which would includes Bélmez, Bélmez de la Moraleda and Bélmez Faces. I could make this page. Smarkflea (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Be bold and create a disambig page here. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what you meant by here, but I created Belmez (disambiguation). I think I fixed the redirect, too. Did I make the disambiguation page correctly? Thanks...Smarkflea (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Someone has deleted that disambig page ("obviously unnecessary disambiguation page" - a bit harsh!). But, seeing as there are so few pages, it looks like we're better off with hatnotes. I notice that Bélmez Faces has not been linked into the tree yet. It may be add a hatnote to Bélmez, pointing to Bélmez Faces, and improve the prosodic linkage in the Moraleda article. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Jackson/Temp

Delete - another of a long series of "temporary" redirects, this time from 2006. The article itself is at the target, and the "/Temp" makes the name of this a most highly unlikely search item. We have pretty much cleared out the "/redirect" redirects over the past several months; the redundant "/Temp" redirects should disappear, too. To this end I also nominate

147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete article - The Paraguayan Guaraní language temp article can be deleted. It had been created by User:Kwamikagami back in August as a temporary storage palce, but later he must have been unable to delete it. All the relevant content, history, and discussion are now included in either Paraguayan Guaraní or Guaraní language, so this article is completely useless now. Pasquale (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  • As long as these are orphaned, and there is no relevant history on these pages, they can be speedily deleted under criterion G8. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant criterion G6. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as they've clearly served their purpose. Note: there's history. Josh Parris 10:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] F---

The result of the discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirect from "censored" version of this word. No pages link to F---, and the redirect target is ambiguous at best. No similar redirects seem to exist for other words characterized as profanity (yes, I checked). As Wikipedia is not censored, there is no reason for anyone to link to f--- in an article when a link fuck will suffice. --Kinu t/c 00:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Side note - it is interesting to see that WP:F*** exists as a short cut to Wikipedia:Profanity. Just an observation - I have no recommendation on the nominated redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Redirect is so bowlderised as to have lost any meaningful connection to the target. May cause confusion due to F--- also corresponding to a(n intentionally exaggerated) bad school grade. --Allen3 talk 13:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Allen3. Doesn't use it as redirect per WP:CENSORED. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 14:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - unlikely search, and slightly ironic, considering the target of this redirect. Intelligentsium 23:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep F--- has been viewed 14 times in 200909, so at the very least outsiders are coming here via that term. But, why that is I can't guess at. Bowlderisation? If Allen3 thinks it may cause confusion: change it to a dab page. Josh Parris 10:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
    I would surmise that there are any number of reasons for a page view... perhaps when a Wikipedia article is copied by certain mirrors, the software counts this as a page view? Who knows. Maybe someone actually wanted to know why their teacher gave them an F---. :P --Kinu t/c 18:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
    Perhaps it's a form of Rickrolling? Josh Parris 22:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I wonder how it compares with its 3-star variant F***... The 5-star (F*****) and 5-hyphen (F-----) variants have been nominated for deletion today. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] November 23

[edit] Bitch cunt

The result of the discussion was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no need for this redirect. Even if these two words are strung together, they hardly produce a vulgarity - they're just two words (one obscene, one not) strung together. This is also the only redirect of an "obscene" term that points to vulgarism. It just seems strange to me - one would expect it to point to cunt, bitch, or if you want to get scientific about it canine reproduction, but in reality it doesn't really need to point to anything - are people really searching for "bitch cunt" on Wikipedia? NellieBly (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as vandalism. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 00:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as an unknown phrase/word. Wikipedia is not a place to try to justify the existence of your favorite insult. Even then, we very rarely just have slag terms as articles unless there's some larger societal context. A redirect needs to be of something notable as well, if it's redirecting into something on the larger scale. This is... not. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, it has multiple possible targets, yet it wouldn't be suitable as a disambig page. It isn't a likely search term either. --Taelus (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, Taelus' points are the most convincing. I don't think this is vandalism, but if a delete doesn't happen I think redirecting to canine reproduction would be a most... appropriate... outcome. Josh Parris 10:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Tard Blog

The result of the discussion was Delete. Possibly misleading. Tikiwont (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be an offensive, pejorative, POV nickname for the blog. The subject of the article doesn't call his blog "Tard Blog" anywhere on his website. NellieBly (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - while it appears to have been created in good faith in 2006 (see initial edit comment in history), it does not appear to pertain to the target. There is a "Tard Blog" that is often mentioned in a Google search (www.tard-blog.com - about 60,000 Ghits), but we have no article about such a blog... and no indication of having one here in the foreseeable future. Thus we have a redirect with no valid target. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete not helping the target article. Josh Parris 10:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] DevCybiko.us

The result of the discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like an advertising redirect. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 22:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, no edit. Oddly, I must have missed this being posted here... but did find this and did a detailed check on its PROD validity resulting in a prod-2 placed. Included in my opinion was this suspicious advert redirect demonstrating questionable intentions. The article page also contained a circular redirect to this, with the RfD discussion being the only reason it was stopped (I removed the wikification of these in the article). ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete According to the edit history it seems to have been created as community site and then was redirected, so not necessarily problematic intentions but no useful content underneath either.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Wikipedia:Cases

Delete without prejudice to recreation. These redirects all point to WP:Notability_(law), which is a proposed draft of a guideline or policy. There is no consensus around it, and progress and discussions around it seem to have stalled for at least four months. However, in at least one AfD discussion, the page has been cited to as an authority, apparently under the misapprehension that it is an actual policy or guideline. I think assigning WP: shortcuts is premature, and that that should only be done if and when the page has a guideline or policy status. I've brought this up on the appropriate talk page before bringing it to RfD. There were no responses, probably because the proposal project has stalled; but in any case, no objections were made. TJRC (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep for now as they point to the appropriate section of the proposal. If it appears that the proposal has been abandoned, I'd suggest taking the proposal to WP:MfD instead - if it's deleted, the shortcuts will go with it into oblivion; if it's kept, the short cuts should stay as well... at least until someone has a better use for them. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
    • My point, though, is that having official-looking shortcuts to proposals that have not been adopted, and may never be adopted, is misleading. There seems little use for shortcuts to unadopted draft policies. My suggestion is that they be deleted, and re-added if and when there is something that merits having a shortcut, i.e. a policy or guideline. I don't see the point of shortcuts to drafts that may go nowhere. TJRC (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
      • The catch is that even essays have short cuts (which are condoned by Wikipedia policy), and sometimes guidelines are magically turned into essays instead of policies. If the target merits deletion, then take it to MfD; otherwise, it might be better to let sleeping dogs lie. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as they benefit navigation, I do not believe that WP namespace redirects need to point only to official policy, as pointed out above many essays have shortcuts. These should be deleted if the proposals fail/are abandoned, but that can probably be performed by the admin that closes such discussions. --Taelus (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, reiterate everything 147.70.242.54 says. I'll be there when you raise the WP:MfD proposal. Josh Parris 10:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, given the difficulty in deleting a proposal which hasn't gained consensus. I just tried to raise the WP:MfD proposal and got shot down by the guidelines. Josh Parris 10:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hëävÿ mëtäl ümläüt

Delete as pointless and facetious. Nothing links to it. 188.221.240.150 (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ofo language

The result of the discussion was pagemove performed. This type of uncontroversial page move falls under speedy deletion criterion G6 (technical deletions) and can be requested using the template {{db-move}}. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 19:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete redirect so article can be moved to more reasonable location. The "L" in "Language" generally isn't capitalized in wikipedia. I would like to speedy it, but I'm not sure it qualifies for speedy deletion. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep as a redirect from alternative capitalisation - the redirect is already tagged as such. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Changed to reverse redirect per NullofWest (below). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If there is consensus to move Ofo Language to Ofo language then it qualifies as a G6 (Speedy Housekeeping). I say Switch Article with Redirect following the nom's reasoning.NullofWest Fill the Void 22:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Wikipedia:PIKA

The result of the discussion was speedy delete under criterion G7 (creator consents to deletion). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 19:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A redirect not linked to anywhere on the project. Linking it to Changing Username simply does not make sense. NW (Talk) 04:32, 23 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