Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrator instructions Purge the cache to refresh this page

Shortcut: WP:RFD

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Deletion yesterday Articles (by category) Templates Images & media Categories (active) User categories Stub types Redirects Miscellany Deletion review
Deletion policy
Process - log - tools Guide - Admin guide

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.

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

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

...please familiarize yourself with the following:

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

[edit] The guiding principles of RfD

The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things much if there are a few of them scattered around.
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.

[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.

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

Shortcut: WP:RFD#DELETE

[edit] Reasons for deleting

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

The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.
The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so it should be deleted.
The redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article.
The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Google to love.
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".
If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist or itself, it can be deleted immediately, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion.

Shortcut: WP:RFD#KEEP

[edit] Reasons for not deleting

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

[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 are commonly created for three reasons:

Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Dalmatian Kristallnacht → Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991).
Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and redirected to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008).
The subject matter of articles may be commonly represented outside Wikipedia by non-neutral terms. Such terms cannot be used as Wikipedia article title, 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 reasonably 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. Non-neutral redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term.

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

[edit] Closing notes

Details at: Wikipedia:Deletion process#Redirects for Discussion page

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 deletion

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

Flag the redirect.

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

{{rfd}}

#REDIRECT [[Foo]]

If the redirect is to a category or image, make sure there is a colon ( : ) before "Category:" or "Image:".
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]]
You can check the "Watch this page" box to follow the page in your watchlist. This allows you to notice if the RfD tag is removed by a vandal.
Save the page.

II.

List the entry on RfD.

Click on THIS LINK to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

Enter this text below the date heading:

{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=Reason the redirect should be deleted}} ~~~~

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=.
If the redirect or its target is a category or an image, make sure there is a colon ( : ) before "Category:" or "Image:".

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.

[edit] Current list

[edit] June 12

[edit] Xbox 4 → Xbox

Xbox 2 is a redirect to XBOX 360; there is no Xbox 3 article or redirect (as the item doesn't exist); clearly Xbox 4 doesn't exist now, nor is it expected to be in the foreseeable future. I'm bundling this nomination with this collection of redirects will similar crystal ball problems:

Fight Night: Round 4 → Fight Night: Round 3 (there are rumblings of a possible Fight Night Round 4 release in 2009, but that seems to be it)
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 3 → Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 (Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 was released in March 2008, no announced plans for a sequel yet)
V (Grand Theft Auto) → Grand Theft Auto (series) (GTA IV was released April 2008; no mention of a possible sequel yet)
The Ring Three → The Ring Two (no indication of existence of "Ring Three". Forums are discussing a possible 2009 release. Unlike the other entries in this list, there is at least a mention of the possibility of this sequel in the target, but the WP:CRYSTAL problem exists nonetheless)
The Host 2 → The Host (film)#Sequel (announced for 2009 release, but still early in the process)
Dr. Dolittle Goin' Hollywood → Dr. Dolittle (discussions in blogs and fansites indicate a 2008 release, but no reliable sources seem to confirm it.)
Jak IV → Jak and Daxter (series) (there no plans for a Jak IV, according to target article - Jak X exists)
AVPIII → Alien vs. Predator: Requiem (target is second film in series; no plans yet for a third)

Also, I offer 3.71 (PSP update) → PlayStation Portable for further consideration as there is no mention of "3.71" in target article. B.Wind (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Alvarez → Ali G Indahouse#Cast

Not only is Thomas Alvarez not mentioned in the indicated section, it can be found nowhere in the target article. This nomination is bundled with the following, each of which having the name of the redirect nowhere to be found in the target article:

Morgan Strode → List of characters in the Halloween film series
Strange Frequency 2 → Cinema of Canada
Strange Frequency → Cinema of Canada
The Survivors Club → Canadian Film Industry
Slow Dancing in the Big City → Cinema of the United States
Psycho Cop Returns → Cinema of the United States
Encounter with the Unknown → Cinema of the United States
The Crown of Vysehrad → Cinema of the Czech Republic
Julius Caesar (1979 film) → Julius Caesar (there is no mention of the 1979 film in Julius Caesar (disambiguation), either)

B.Wind (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gullu → Aishwarya Rai

There is no mention of Gullu (who could be a non-notable relative) in the target article. With similar arguments (possible non-notable relatives that are not mentioned in the target) I offer the following for further discussion and consideration:

Jamie Lee Schwartz → Jamie Lee Curtis
Buster Keaton, Jr. → Buster Keaton (he was born Joseph Frank Keaton – no “Junior”; no sons named “Buster” mentioned in target)
Tony and Elizabeth Bandiero → Al Bandiero
Charles Pusser → Carl Pusser (Buford Pusser’s father’s name is Carl, not Charles)
Elizabeth Angela Plank → Scott Plank
Martha Stewart-Ryan → Timothy Ryan
Richard James Ryan → Timothy Ryan
Kёn and Anniё Plank → Scott Plank
Antonio Emilió Sanchez → Lola Sanchez
Kay Lopez (stage actress) → Lola Sanchez
John Sanchez (stage actor) → Lola Sanchez
Marlene Dawson → Richard Liberty
Elizabeth Anne Keaton → Joe Keaton
Joseph Francis Keaton IV → Joe Keaton
Joseph Francis Keaton V → Joe Keaton

B.Wind (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RU All That? → All That

Target article has no mention of this episode title, and no apparent "List of episodes of All That" (or similar title) exists for appropriate targeting.

For the same reason, I adding Ben Don't Leave → Felicity (TV series) for further consideration. B.Wind (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:O → Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage

This redirect should point at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight as that is the more critical page for individuals seeking assistance. Or it should be a disambiguation page, as many individuals use it as a shortcut they mean to point at WP:NOR. MBisanz ^talk 05:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete in favour of MBisanz's proposal. While it should point to WP:RFO, (or just become a disambig page), one could also just as easily add a WP:O redirects here. You may be looking for... template at the top of the article. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 06:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Retarget to Wikipedia:Office as a more appropriate short cut. B.Wind (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to WP:OR or Weak Disambiguate to WP:RFO, WP:OFFICE, WP:ORPHAN, and WP:OR as it seems that all of them are likely redirects. I've been randomly punching in single letter shortcuts for sometime and all of them are dedicated to a single page. If this precedent is followed then I'll go with MBisanz and Mizu's proposals but I think a dab should still be considered.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assume good will → Wikipedia:Assume good faith

This article was created out of frustration by someone unaware that Wikipedia already had a policy on assuming good faith. When I pointed him to the actual policy, he converted his comment into this redirect. The problem is that this redirect is in the article mainspace. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Creating the page prevented frustration. And I learned about the article Wikipedia:Assume good faith, a win-win situation in my book. FX (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete an an unuseful cross-namespace redirect. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 06:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Prince's Trust → The Prince's Trust

The result of the debate was nothing to do. There is no redirect here. Bduke (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something obvious, there's a redirect page named "The Prince's Trust" which directs to an article with the same name. I didn't think this was possible, but I can't see any obvious difference in the two page titles .... Romney yw (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are several redirects. You must be thinking about The Prince's trust (with a small t), which is a perfectly valid, even desirable, redirect. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] June 11

[edit] Foo (disambiguation) → Foo

A disambiguation page that does not disambiguate Kevin McE (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, this is really FUBAR :) We used to have a disambiguation page at Foo. In November 2006, content from Foo (disambiguation) was merged there. In January 2007, someone hijacked Foo with some kind of Habbo Hotel crap - this page was then moved to Foo quest and later deleted - I have now restored the pre-hijack revisions. So, we've got history at Foo, Foo (disambiguation), Foo quest, and we have foobar which is very similar in scope to Foo. I've got no idea what to do :P --- RockMFR 22:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep the redirect and its pagehistory. As RockMFR notes, there is a lot to clean up here. We're going to need the history to do that. (Incidentally, the current version of Foo does include some of the alternate usages which were on the disambig version, though they have been incorporated into the prose rather than itemized.) Rossami (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brilliant prose → Wikipedia:Featured articles

Brilliant prose is a cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia:Featured articles. Seeing as its history was merged a long time ago, it has no history other than as a redirect. Thus, it is an unnecessary self-reference, and I suggest that it be either deleted or redirected to an article in the main namespace (such as prose). Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep again. The page dates back to 2001 and has existed as a redirect since 2002, long before the creation of the separate namespaces. There are many links to this page scattered all through the project's pagehistory. In addition, given the nature of the page and its age, there is a significant likelihood of external links to the page. Breaking those links is bad for the project. Rossami (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acheri → Luc d'Achéry

This redirect appears pointless, as this spelling is not mentioned in the article, nor does it seem likely that it would be searched for. The term also applies to Acheri (legendary creature) Kivar2 (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The alternate spelling should be added to the article and the redirect maintained. If another article references the name then a disambig page should be set up. The alternate spelling can be found in many historical books (e.g. General Biographical Dictionary) and should be redirected so users can more easily find what they are looking for. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-06-11 20:49Z
NOTE - the target is itself a redirect, making this a double redirect (see below). Both redirects should be targeted to the same article, not deleted, as both appear to be likely search items. Naturally, acheri would not be found in Luc d'Achéry until/unless a recent article move is reversed. Keep as redirected. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete to make room for a page move of Acheri (legendary creature). The latter article may get a disambiguation note (that is, an {{otheruses}} template) about Luc d'Achéry.

[edit] Scientific Mathod → Scientific method

Unlikely search term. I'm moving this discussion from AfD to help the user who mistakenly nominated it there, The Founders Intent, and am expressing no opinion. Deor (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete - I believe this is a misspelling of an intended article that where a redirect was added or an attempt to account for misspellings, and does not qualify for a redirect. Redirects should be reserved for commonly expected search terms, acronyms, etc... and not for every possible misspelling. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 16:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete. The combination of Title Case and the odd misspelling makes it extremely improbable that anyone would search for it. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The creator of this redirect user:Rich Farmbrough, is usually a very solid editor. Unless there's a better reason to delete that "improbable search criteria", I'm inclined to give him the benefit of doubt. Please remember that redirects do much more than merely support the search engine. Rossami (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I sway towards delete. if it were just a misspelling or just a miscapitailsation, then I'd say keep, but the combination seems unlikely. Mind you, it's impossible to prove that no-one would type this, isn't it? :) Grutness...wha? 03:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 少年 → Shōnen

Imposible search term. It is highly unlikely for an English language user will search for Shōnen using its Kanji form. --Farix (Talk) 15:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep, harmless. And why shouldn't you cut&paste the kanji and search for them? Kusma (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages, this would appear to line up with the first bullet of the acceptable uses of a foreign redirect. Rossami (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ice Age 4 → Ice Age (film)

Not mentioned in target article - not surprising since Ice Age 3 (Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs) is scheduled for a 2009 release. I am also adding Ice Age IV → Ice Age (film), with the same justification. B.Wind (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL. The third film is still in production; it can't be verified yet whether or not there will be a fourth installment. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 08:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Mizu.--Lenticel ^(talk) 13:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pi to the millionth decimal → Pi

Incomplete title (should have been "Pi to the millionth decimal place") and too long to be a useful search item even if the "correct" name were indeed used. While the article mentions that Pi has been calculated to trillions of places, nowhere in the article does it show the first million places of the irrational number, or even discuss the first million decimal places of pi (π). B.Wind (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 08:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
There's precedent for this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pi to One Million Digits, though I don't think either makes a particularly good redirect. Since this actually started as a listing of the first million digits, not a redirect, it should be deleted; redirecting only makes sense as an alternative to salting. —Cryptic 08:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that a redirect is a better answer than salting the page. Keep and protect with a comment on the Talk page to the prior discussion to make it very clear to future editors that we've already considered the question and that this is not content appropriate tot he encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spyware terminator → Spyware#Remedies and prevention

Not mentioned in target section (or target article at all). The article previously here was deleted at AFD; it was re-created so many times (here and at Spyware Terminator) that the title was salted for most of a year. —Cryptic 04:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hood rat → Hood

No mention of "hood rat" at all at the target, which is a disambiguation page B.Wind (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vennsenne Klan → Danish Australian

Not only is "Vennsenne Klan" not mentioned in the target, the only mentions of the phrase turned up by a Google search are here in Wikipedia. B.Wind (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trimmed in Furs → Silent Film

Too general a target to be a useful redirect ("Trimmed in Furs" is nowhere to be found in destination article) B.Wind (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC) With the same justification, I add to the nomination:

Way Up Thar → Silent film

B.Wind (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete as implausible redirects. Both are 1930's American films with sound mix set to mono according to their entries at the IMDB.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Lenticel. While I would note that "Implausible redirects/misnomers" are a criterion for speedy deletion, this isn't a recently created redirect, so RFD is a more practical approach. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 06:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William "Billy" Zane → Billy Zane

Most highly unlikely that the entire title of the redirect - including quotation marks - would be used for a search when Billy Zane would be sufficient (most likely the occurrence of the nickname inside the quotation marks would be bluelinked would be if there is involvement of a piped link. B.Wind (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Citing the same justification, I add the following to the nomination:

William "Bill" Clinton → Bill Clinton
Tip "T.I." Harris → T.I.
Antonio "Tony" Montana → Tony Montana
Victor 'Vic' Vance → Victor Vance
Luciano "Lewis" Liberatisciolli → Richard Liberty
Captain Joseph 'Joe' Grusinsky → We Own the Night
Robert "Bobby" Green → We Own the Night
Deputy Chief Albert "Bert" Grusinsky → We Own the Night
Edward "Eddie" Frank Plank → Scott Plank

B.Wind (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep all. I agree that the redirects wouldn't be helpful in a search, but names are often given in formats like these in Wikipedia articles (mainly lists). I have seen names like this as redlinks in lists, even though there was an article about the subject. Since then, I've started to create redirects like this when appropriate. Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep These redirects are clearly there for a reason and the assertion that they are unlikely is not supported by any evidence. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Redirects are cheap; these clearly serve a useful purpose (for linking in lists and such), and they don't do any harm. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of One World episodes → One World (TV series)

Target article does not have a list of episodes of the series, thus making the phrase most highly unlikely to be a useful search item. B.Wind (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Citing the same justification, I add the following for additional consideration:

List of Pacific Palisades episodes → Pacific Palisades (TV series)
List of USA High episodes → USA High
List of Undressed episodes → Undressed (TV series)
List of American Family episodes → American Family

B.Wind (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1894 Australian shearers strike → 1891 Australian shearers' strike

I believe this redirect is erroneous: the target article doesn't say anything about the 1894 strike. It's marked as "R from alternative spelling", which makes me think that the redirect creator got it confused with 1891 Australian shearers strike. —Paul A (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 10

[edit] F(x)=e^x → E (mathematical constant)

A formula, representing the exponential function, so this should be the target. This is an unlikely search term, so delete, or retarget if you think it's worthy. Cenarium (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete algebraic functions written in equation form are not acceptable titles of articles. Furthermore, F(x) is actually the natural exponential function, the inverse of the natural logarithmic function. Clearly this is not a worthwhile redirect to the article for the constant e. B.Wind (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 8tas → Beşiktaş J.K.

6saray → Galatasaray S.K.

This redirect appears to be pointless. "8tas" is not mentioned in the article, nor does it seem the kind of thing one would search for. Kivar2 (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is also 6saray → Galatasaray S.K.. I have added this redirect to the discussion. If they are well known abbreviations they should be kept. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 09:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3.1415926535897932384626433515 → Pi

Unlikely search term. Too long. We also have 3.1415926535897932384626433515, 3.14159265358979323846, 3.1415926535... and others listed here. Cenarium (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment The long one is deleted, but I also nominate the three cited (they are orphaned in mainspace, and one of them is cited at Wikipedia:1000 things not to write your article about). So no close yet. Cenarium (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Note The initial source page was this one, but it breaks the MfD page, so I modified in 3.1415926535897932384626433515. Sorry for the inconvenience, Cenarium (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete - let's invoke the Reasonability Rule here. It is unreasonable to expect search strings longer than 8 digits (3.1415926); more likely, people would be looking for 3.14. 3.1416, and 3.14159 than these absurdly long strings. Frankly, it would be better to eliminate all the redirects from articles/redirect pages with numerical names, but the shorter numerical strings would be used far too often in a search to justify removal. B.Wind (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete the redirects listed here. Keep 3.14159265 and anything shorter, anything with more digits is an unlikely search term. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 09:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
As with the "millionth decimal" discussion above, new editors seem to have a nasty tendency to keep creating these pages. Redirects may be a better way to prevent their recreation than salting all those pages. Weak keep, protect and clearly link on the Talk pages that we've already considered this content and found it inapprorpiate for the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Every combination would have to be redirected and/or protected, and the redirects are not particularly useful. Maybe if they are being recreated an entry could be added to the title blacklist for 3.1415926535 (which has already been deleted) or anything longer. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 15:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Luc d'Achéry → Luc d'Achery

This page needlessly redirects. I believe a simple notice at the top of the page for Acheri (legendary creature), which I want to move here, would be sufficient. Kivar2 (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep - source cited in the target article[1] shows actual name of subject article as Lucas d'Achéry thus establishing the diacritical as part of his actual name. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggest to remove the redirect as the acute accent is simply wrong in this case. His family name is derived from the village Achery where the e is not pronounced, i.e. you pronounce the village name more close to "Ash-ry". The most detailed biography so far about Luc d'Achery was published by Jeannine Fohlen in a series of scientific papers: Dom Luc d'Achery (1609-1685) et les débuts de l'érudition Mauriste, published in Revue Mabillon, first part in volume 55 (1965), pp. 149-175. On p. 152 you will find the relationship explained to the equally named village: La famille de dom Luc d'Achery, tout en prétendant « tirer son origine de la terre d'Achery-le-Mayot, au diocèse de Laon, près de Vandeuil et descendre des anciens seigneurs qui l'ont possédée avant que les surnoms fussent en usage », n'était cependant pas noble et son nom s'écrivait indifféremment avec ou sans apostrophe. Unfortunately, the acute accent in his name is to be found occasionally as non-French people are at times somewhat ignorant regarding the correct pronounciation of this name. And besides, I wouldn't consider the Catholic Encyclopedia from 1913 as a reliable source. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC) (author of the corresponding German article)
- Under WP:RS, it is considered a reliable source per Wikipedia policy, and such a personal opinion to the contrary as mentioned above cannot have weight without the presentation of other reliable sources to provide a refutation. Since the Catholic Encyclopedia has been oft-cited for the past 95 years, "d'Achéry" would be a useful search term regardless of whether his family used the accent aigu or not. That, per WP:KEEP, is sufficient enough for keeping the redirect. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The above cited biography by Jeannine Fohlen is a reliable source. You want to have more reliable sources? No problem, all the following scientific publications spell the name of Luc d’Achery correctly:

James Westfall Thompson: The Age of Mabillon and Montfaucon. Published in The American historical review, volume 47 (1942), pp. 225-244. Quote from p. 233: Thefirst scholar-mon who attained eminence was Dom Luc d'Achery (1609-85), "the father of the Maurist erudition", who immortalized himself by the Spicilegium (Paris, 1655-67), a collection of thirteen quarto volumes of original and unpublished medieval documents, which he meticulously edited, although his health was so frail that for forty-five years he was unable to leave the infirmary of the abbey.
M. D. Knowles: Presidential Address: Great Historical Enterprises II. The Maurists. Published in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th Ser., Vol. 9 (1959), pp. 169-187. Quote from p. 174: For almost a century, from the rise of Luc d'Achery to the death of Bernard de Montfaucon, the abbey was the scene of regular weekly gatherings of all scholarship and much of the connoisseurship of Paris and France.
Helen Clover translated and edited The Letters of Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1979. As the very first printed edition of Lanfranc's letters was published by Luc d'Achery, he is mentioned several times in this books. See for example p. 25, section iii. The early editions: But the effective transition from manuscript to print was the Maurist editio princeps of 1648. D'Achery based his edition on P.
Hubert Mordek: Kirchenrecht und Reform im Frankenreich. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1975. In his summary of the Dacheriana, a collection named after Luc d'Achery because he edited them first on p. 259, section "C. Die Dacheriana": Die Entstehung der nach ihrem ersten Herausgeber Luc d'Achery († 1685; über ihn jetzt: J. Fohlen, in: Revue Mabillon 55, 1965, S. 149-175) benannten Dacheriana fällt mit Sicherheit in die Zeit um 800.
Entry for d'Achery, Jean Luc (1609-85) on p. 446 of The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, Oxford University Press 1998

--AFBorchert (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep because it documents the pagemove of a page which has already been moved several times. The fact that others have already used the other spelling is clear evidence that its plausible. The redirect will point those readers to the right page. Rossami (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2648927 → O. J. Simpson

This is apparently OJ's prison number. This is very unlikely search term. Its not mentioned in the target article. I just cant see someone going "I found theses ramdom numbers, let me type them into Wikipedia.." If you know theses numbers wouldn't you already know it was OJ's? Redirect is not very useful.--Coasttocoast (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete pointless, not-needed. Kivar2 (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
If it were mentioned in the target, I'd remove it from the article as being too trivial. Delete pointless, out-of-context redirect. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irina Nikolaeva → Simon Ambrose

Not mentioned in the target article, the only connection I can find is in an article on the News of the World website: [2]. Not useful as a redirect --Snigbrook ^(talk) 15:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment This is already being discussed from June 4 as part of a large number of other redirects from the same editor here and will likely be deleted when that discussion is completed. ww2censor (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Determination of whether the redirect in question (Irina Nikolaeva) will be made pursuant to discussion being done here. The purpose of the other discussion is to determine which of a massive block of redirects should be brought for deletion discussion and how to organize it (hopefully with the blessing of Rossami, a couple of blocks will be presented here very soon). B.Wind (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete - if a second citation from a reliable source reflects the potentially-growing controversy involving the two individuals, then it should be kept, but one source with nothing else to support it is insufficient to justify the redirect. B.Wind (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There is another source: [3] but unlikely to be more coverage, it looks like both were published on the same day (15 July 2007). --Snigbrook ^(talk) 09:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magic Boy → Magical boy

Nonsense redirect created by a banned user. PROD and speedy deletion were removed because other articles link to it, but it is not the same thing as what it redirects to --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USB 4.0 → Universal Serial Bus

Name of redirect appears nowhere in target article... and with good reason: USB 3.0 (which is mentioned in the target) is still under development. B.Wind (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom and per WP:CRYSTAL.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Queen of Bollywood → Aishwarya Rai

Not only does this phrase appear nowhere in the target article, the nickname can apply to several Indian actresses, according to Yahoo search results. No objection if someone abitious wishes to create a dab page listing all (or many) of the "candidates," including Rai herself B.Wind (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that Queen of Bollywood doesn't exist here in Wikipedia. Time magazine[4] calls her the Queen of Bollywood, but NPR had an article on Lata Mangeshkar as "The Queen of Bollywood Music"[5], the Los Angeles Times[6] dubbed Asha Bhosle as "Queen of Bollywood", and other "Queens of Bollywood" seem to include Madhuri Dixit and Kareen Kapoor... and that's just on the first page of Google results. Create Queen of Bollywood dab page and redirect The Queen of Bollywood to it. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Kay Rowling → J. K. Rowling

Phonetic spelling of initials of psudonym (her real first name is Joanne) makes as much sense as "Eff Dee Roosevelt" or "Ell Bee Johnson". Most highly unlikely as a search term. B.Wind (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For the same reason, I'm adding Dee Bee Cooper → D. B. Cooper. B.Wind (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete both per nom - not useful redirects. Terraxos (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete - makes as much sense as "George Double You Bush". 147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Note that, however, that phonetic pronunciation lead to the nickname "dubbya", so it may in fact be useful, albeit unlikely. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 23:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete per those above me. We needn't phonetic spellings for every name on Earth. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 23:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aar Aar Chur Chur → Tamil language

redirect makes no sense - not only does the phrase appear nowhere in the target article, a Yahoo search turns up this phrase only in Wikipedia and its mirrors. B.Wind (talk) 07:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete unless some reasonable explanation for this redirect is provided. Terraxos (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Restricted use → Template:Non-free restricted use

Non-compliant image redirect. Uses improper naming format MBisanz ^talk 05:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Soft redirect which will not break past discussion links, but will prevent a redirected transclusion. -- Ned Scott 06:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Erica Connery → Jennifer Douillard

I don't see how the name Erica Connery is related to the voice actress Jennifer Douillard. Cunard (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The creator of this redirect alleges here that Douillard is a stage name. I can find no reliable sources substantiating that claim. Other edits made by the same author have been mostly reverted. Rossami (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete unless evidence is provided that this is a sensible redirect. Terraxos (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete - a Google search of "Erica Connery"+Jennifer yields a whopping 16 hits (four of them dealing with this RfD, eight links with YouTube with both women's names as tags for user-provided animation), none of them actually connecting the two names. It is very safe to conclude that these are two names of two unrelated women. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Absolutely no proof that they're the same person.Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 9

[edit] Allah lover → Islamofascism

Per Criteria 3 and 7; Was a previously deleted article, but the term seems to be pejorative and overly flippant. There is no mention of "Allah lover" within Islamofascism and, at the most basic level, a moderate Muslim can love Allah without being termed Islamofascist. VegitaU (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Offensive, obscure and misleading.--Boson (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)See below.

Delete per nom and Boson DA PIE EATER (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete as offensive.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep "Allah lover" is offensive and pejorative, but "Islamofascist" is not? Muslims certainly think of "Islamofascist" as a slur against them. Listing ethnic slurs is not controversial on Wikipedia, or at least it isn't so long as the target is non-Muslim. "Allah lover" gives you 240 de-ghosted hits on Google. From some of the hits, I gather it is the name of a band, and doesn't every band get a Wikipedia entry? Allah lover is also an Arabic name, Habeeb-Allah,[7] so it's appearently not that offensive. Christofascism and kike both get full articles. Kauffner (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete as "Allah lover" is not mentioned in target article (furthermore, "one who loves Allah" would be more properly directed to Islam or Muslim). While we might be personally offended by article names or redirects, we must also remind ourselves that NPOV rules do not apply to redirect; on the other hand, they do apply to main article, and if there is a NPOV alternative to Islamofascism, I would like to hear it myself. B.Wind (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Retarget' to Moslem, or should Jesus lover target Christian fascists? 70.51.10.156 (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have added an entry to the List of ethnic slurs and redirected there. That should satisfy most of the objections that have been raised. Where the redirect goes to should be discussed at the article's talk page. Kauffner (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep as redirect to List of ethnic slurs, per Kauffner above. It seems to be a verifiable ethnic slur, so there's no problem with having a redirect there. Terraxos (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 15:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the low number of hits in the google search above, it does not appear to be a particularly notable ethnic slur. Unless there is better evidence supporting it, I'd prefer to delete as trivial. Rossami (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep and retarget (changed from Delete). I think redirection to an article of a linguistic nature is acceptable. Nigger lover also redirects to List of ethnic slurs. List of religious slurs might be more appropriate in this case, but that is probably something for the talk page. --Boson (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Nominator comment: Allah lover was deleted from List of ethnic slurs for lack of notability. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Okay, the page has been redirected to List of religious slurs, per Boson. Let me also use this opportunity to give a hail and hardy welcome to all my, ummmm, old friends, who have followed me here. This is certainly a lot of high-level voting for an obscure redirect. Kauffner (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I wrote a large chunk of Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect?, so I'm always interested to see how it's being applied in practice. I'd like to point out that the section on Neutrality of redirects is directly applicable to this case. Please note the line which says "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". It would be helpful if people could provide evidence of whether or not this particular term has been used in multiple mainstream reliable sources - books, media, etc. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete; a quick Google search turns up "Allah lover" as the user name of several Muslims, as well as being used as a slur. It's not a plausible search term, but if it's kept I'd rather see it go to Islam or some other neutral page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Nominator comment: Agree. Jesus lover, another of his redirects, redirects to Christianity. These terms really depend greatly on context. -- VegitaU (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that Kauffner was also responsible for Cooling denier, which was speedily deleted following the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cooling denier. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Nominator comment: He also has created Warming denier under the same neologistic principle. -- VegitaU (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 8

[edit] Circles of Reformist Initiative → Reformist Initiative Circles

The result of the debate was speedy deleted to make way for move. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In order to make possibile the move of the target article to this title, which was the orginal title of it and the most correct translation from Italian. Checco (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You can do that most easily through the Wikipedia:Requested moves process. As long as it's not controversial (and this doesn't appear to be), it does not need discussion here. I would do it myself except for one question - does the history need to be merged or can the current history be simply overwritten? (I note that you are the only significant contributor to the page so far.) Rossami (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Either way it is ok. Can you move the article, then? --Checco (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] List of shopping malls in New Hampshire → Category:Shopping malls in New Hampshire

Redirect to a category. I don't think this is acceptable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep while technically a cross namespace redirect, it's a rather logical one that is still pointing to encyclopedic content. It could also help editors from making a list, if they were not aware the category existed. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep - agree with Scott above. Potentially useful, and mainspace-to-category isn't as bad as other cross-namespace redirects since categories (well, this one at least) are reader-oriented and linked to from mainspace. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Week keep per above. Potentially useful in some circumstances. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 07:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete because it's a misnomer. We have WP:CLN to tell us the difference between categories and lists; this redirect is referring to a category as a list, which isn't technically correct. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 7

[edit] Real name → Genie (feral child)

The result of the debate was speedy-deleted again as recreated content. If someone wants to appeal the original AFD discussion, please do so using the Deletion review process. Until that decision is overturned, however, speedy-deletion criterion G4 applies. Rossami (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Recreation of a redirect that was deleted twice (see here and here) For An Angel (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete as speedily as possibly - Tendentious recreation of the real name redirect of a BLP. Twice deleted unanimously in the last 6 weeks, including as recently as June 4th. There is also overwhelming consensus on the talkpage of the article, and at the BLP noticeboard that the name should not be included in Wikipedia.[8] [9]. Please also courtesy delete this heading of this discussion as both previous closing administrators have done. --Slp1 (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete and please block if it happens again. Ashton1983 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Scottish/Irish/American → Heritage

Here's another (nationality)-(nationality)-American redirect that makes no sense... and the name violates Wikipedia naming conventions to boot! B.Wind (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete - per precedent that such things are unnecessary, the fact that the name violates the MOS and that it is a very unlikely search term for the target. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 08:28, June 7, 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Unlikely search term, makes little sense. ~A H 1^(TCU) 13:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete since the slashes make it cumbersome, but also note a better target if it is kept at Scotch-Irish American. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Redirect that makes little sense, slashes make it unsearchable as well. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete per everyone DA PIE EATER (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Build America → Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States

This is not mentioned in the text of the article, except as a blue link which redirects back to the same article --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Other redirects:

I am also nominating these redirects for the same reason. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Note - I have delinked the circular redirects. Keep easily-remembered Build America and Clean Cities (with capital C's only), weak delete Commercial Building Integration and Industrial Technologies Program as they are longer titles as they are less likely to be recalled. B.Wind (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep all - the target page is pertinent to all of them, and all seem potentially useful as search terms. Type-in traffic is also conceivable. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 6

[edit] Goodbrush → Craig Mullins

This redirect is based on the fact that goodbrush.com is Craig Mullins' website (which has apparently been up and down - the redir is from '06 but there's no material on the site dating from before last week. However, I do not believe that anyone is going to search for this in reference to Mullins, and should therefore be deleted. I only found this (and two other redirects the user created to the same page) by looking at "what links here." MSJapan (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I've made a stats comparison with another low-search article that I believe must stay -- which recieved 5 searches in April 08 -- and they both come up with similar search results -- since this one got 8 for that month. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tomy Tutor → Texas Instruments TI-99/4A

The redirect makes no sense. TT is not a TI-99/4A or even a clone of it. They are two very unique systems. Lyverbe (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete Tomy Tutor - agree that there is no relation other than similar product theme. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep

first hit on google for Tomy Tutor "The Tutor is not a clone of the Texas Instruments TI-99/4A computer from 1981, but they have much in common - perhaps a cooperative effort?" [10] followed by a list of similarities
second hit "Part kid's toy, part graphics superstar, part unknown TI-99 clone" [11]
third hit on google: "In US it falls, like its cousins TI 99/8 and TI 99/4" (translated from spanish) [12]
magazine from 1983: "Along with the TI 99/4A the Grandstand (US version of Tommy Tutor) uses a 16 bit processor; a Texas 99/95 chip running at 3 MHz." [13]
extensive comparison of Tomy with 99/2, 99/4, 99/4A and 99/8 "The similarities of the 99/8 with the Tutor, however, are much more than one would suspect. Indeed, based on the system architecture at large, the Tutor seems to be an evolved, independent system based on the 99/8's hardware, just without Texas Instruments" [14]

The products are clearly related on all the retro hardware sites I saw. Either make it into an article about the product, or add a section on the target article talking about the computer. Optional, redirect to 99/8 article --Enric Naval (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You won't get a encyclopedic definition of the "Tomy Tutor" by being redirected to TI-99. They might somewhat be similar internally, but that is it. I mean, my father and I are internally the same, but you cannot learn about me by reading HIS biography. I believe someone should make separate article or at least a section in TI-99 (like Atari 8-bit family), but not a mere redirect. -- Lyverbe (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep as the Tomy Tutor is addressed in the target article. A standalone article on the TT is much more preferable, but until someone writes it, the redirect will do as a valid one. B.Wind (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:DOI → User:DOI bot/use

The result of the debate was speedy keep. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 06:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirect, pretty much un-necessary ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't made clear what harm this redirect is doing. Smith609 Talk 16:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Cross-namespace redirects are generally not allowed. It hasn't been made clear why this redirect is so valuable that it should be an exception. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  - As with all redirects, it makes it easier for editors to remember the link for the page, which is very difficult to remember otherwise. It also means that links made in edit summaries will remain permanently useful, because if the target page moves, the WP:DOI redirect can be updated - avoiding creating double redirects. My general rule for Wikipedia is "if the benefits outweigh the costs, keep it" - the costs are going to be a significant load on the server as someone goes through all the edits of User:DOI bot and replaces the links, aside from wasting my - and your - time. Smith609 Talk 16:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    - You mean *Keep? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      - Yes please! Smith609 Talk 16:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Yes, cross-namespace redirects are discouraged, but this seems usefull. Benefit outweighs cost, and don't forget WP:IAR. _Talk Islander 16:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no prohibition against cross-namespace redirects between the Wikipedia and User spaces. In fact, due to the frequency with which essays and such are moved back and forth, many such redirects are encouraged. Unlike redirects out of the article-space, there is no possibility of confusion on the part of our readers. Keep because no valid reason has yet been given for deletion. Rossami (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep no valid reason to delete. There are lots of useful redirects from wikipedia space into essays and other stuff on user space, and there is consensus to keep them that way (wikipedia space actually serves as the dumping space for this sort of meta pages, and they are kept as long as they are marginally useful) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep, for the reasons cited by Smith609 (16:42, 6 June 2008). I also checked to see what the "Help" facility in the main menu could give me about DOI: checking only the "Help" box on the "Help" page's search form produced no hits; checking the "Template" box in addition produced lots about individual templates that have a "doi" parameter, but that's all. Digital object identifier ofered no help, but that's not the function of a main article. Editors get so little help with bots, templates, etc. that it's wrong to remove any of what little they get. Philcha (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep Cross namespace redirects are only a concern for article space -> project space. Other types of cross namespace redirects are not inherently problematic. -- Ned Scott 07:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep per light-year long precedent. EJF (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I just found the correct page by typing in WP:DOI. I'd imagine other folks would find this redirect useful as well. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] June 5

[edit] Template:CAGov → Template:Non-free USStateGov-CA

Improperly named copyright tag, not in use, implausible redirect MBisanz ^talk 21:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep an excellent, easy to remember, highly plausible, and not "improperly named" redirect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep useful mnemotechnic (why is this word a red link? I can't believe nobody made an article on the most famous technique to easily remember complicated stuff) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing Wikipedia while drunk → Wikipedia:Editing Under the Influence

Cross-namespace redirect. Masamage ♫ 20:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Unuseful CNR. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep - 'Drunk' seems more common/approachable than 'Under the Influence'. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete because we already have WP:DRUNK, which is not a CNR from article space --Enric Naval (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete as a redundant CNR redirect.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Unnesecary CNR, although a redirect from Wikipedia:Editing while drunk might be useful. ~A H 1^(TCU) 13:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- On second thought, this may warrant a speedy delete based on CSD R2. ~A H 1^(TCU) 13:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  - I thought that, too, but that guideline only mentions the Talk and User namespaces, not Wikipedia or Template or so on. Maybe it should? Or is there a reason it doesn't? --Masamage ♫ 16:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    - It absolutely does not qualify for CSD R2 and should not. Many of Wikipedia's oldest policy pages existed in the "article space" because there was no separate namespace when they were created. They have inbound links both internal to the project and external. Deletion risks breaking those links. Some of those pages were moved before the MediaWiki software was changed to automatically record the move. In those cases, the pagehistory behind the redirect is the only evidence of the attribution history of the content or of the pagename (and preservation of attribution history is a requirement of GFDL). While some are investigated and deleted, some are not. Redirects to the Wikipedia space require investigation and discussion. They are not speedy-deletion candidates. Rossami (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Not really sure if the essay the redirect points to is useful, and I cannot that the redirect itself is useful. I agree with Rossami's points on cross-namespace redirects, but one argument which weighs in disfavor of such redirects is that they might confuse readers if policy pages are not segregated very clearly from article space. I don't think any of the arguments which can defend the presence of a particular CNR applies in this case. (I recognize that Rossami was just making a valid statement on speedy-delete policy, not an argument about this particular redirect.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete - history of redirect seems trivial here. While "while drunk" is often euphemistically stated as "under the influence," it comes across as a joke in this context (I know, I know... the target is a joke essay, but that's beside the point). B.Wind (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Ogg → Template:Non-free audio sample

{{Oggfile}}
{{Ogg}}

Unused, invalid template name, violate NFCC naming conventions, no meaningful links in. MBisanz ^talk 20:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete does not make sense, unless every single Ogg Vorbis audio file on the world happens to be copyrighted --Enric Naval (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Not sure where to look, but there may be audio-play templates (e.g. alternatives to the Image: tag) that may make for a good retarget. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brown British → British Asian

The title is disparaging and insulting in the same way as an attack page is, and should be deleted. The editor, User:Hashmi, Usman, has recently been identified as a sockpuppet and quite a lot of his previous work, articles, categories and redirects, have been deleted for various reasons, especially non-notability. Imho, a generally disruptive editor to Wikipedia who never has interacted with any editors notification on his talk page. ww2censor (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete as per nominator's comments - seems disruptive to me. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 03:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: This should probably be bundled with the bulk discussion below titled "Redirects created by a blocked user". Rossami (talk) 04:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually it is listed there but I did not see that discussion. I have tagged this one though most of those listed below are untagged as yet. I will leave it for now as this definitely need to go while the long list if for now in general discussion about what to do next. ww2censor (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete. CSD criterion G10 applies to all namespaces and types, so if this is an attact redirect, it may be deleted accordingly. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete - indeed seems insulting. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete it's not even a notable racial slur, which could be grounds to retarget it to the proper article on racism --Enric Naval (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't even make much sense, not all Asians are "brown". ~A H 1^(TCU) 13:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete - in some contexts "brown British" could just as easily mean "African Britons". This is not a useful search term in any case. B.Wind (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 4

The result of the debate was History merged due to cut & paste move. Keep the redirect. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chetan ramlu → Kris Chetan Ramlu

There are too many pages that re-direct to this page - it is too mess, it is best if only the Kris Chetan Ramlu page is kept - also this page has some updated information not found in Chetan ramlu - Also the history should not be merged. I hope I have done this right - becuse I want the Chetan ramlu page and the Chetan Ramlu page deleted and the Kris Chetan Ramlu page kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardbetts (talk • contribs)

Two inbound redirects hardly seems like "too many" (especially when they are the only inbound links to the page other than these deletion discussions). Keep because this page documents the first step of a pagemove of content which appears to have been merged into the target article. Keeping the pagehistory behind the redirect is the easiest way to comply with the attribution requirements of GFDL. Rossami (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
`Keep per precedent --DA PIE EATER (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chetan Ramlu → Kris Chetan Ramlu →

As above, I'm not sure how you can consider two inbound links "too many". Keep this one as well. It is the place the content was moved to prior to the merger. Rossami (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep: Redirects are cheap. In any case the history must be retained for copyright reasons. —teb728 t c 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep per precedent —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikepie2221 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep: It looks to me like you copied the page content from Chetan Ramlu to create Kris Chetan Ramlu, when you should have used the 'move' function. Unfortunately, because Kris Chetan Ramlu has since been edited and we need to comply copyright rules, a history merge is the only proper solution. Leaving Chetan Ramlu and the other pages as redirects is no big deal. Astronaut (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Redirects created by a blocked user → various

The redirects in the blue box below were created by the now-blocked user:Hashmi, Usman. A number of redirects created by this user have already been nominated for deletion below and in previous pages. The connection between the redirect and the target has often appeared tenuous or speculative. In each case, the redirect was initially created as a redirect, not as the result of a pagemove or a merger.

Had these been created independently, I would be inclined to grant them the benefit of doubt since some could be considered plausible capitalization variants, etc. Given the pattern of this user's edits, my ability to assume good faith became sufficiently strained to request a comprehensive review by the community.

Before we begin a discussion on the specific merits of the redirects, I would like to see if we can get consensus on a few procedural questions.

Should we do anything about these redirects? Is the pattern of editing alone justification to merit investigation?
If we should do something, can and should these redirect be considered en masse? Are the fact-patterns sufficiently similar that we can reach a single conclusion?
If a single decision is not appropriate, is there some other clustering that would be more efficient? Or must these be considered individually?

By the way, none of these redirects have been tagged. I'd like to answer the procedural questions before we start on that step. Rossami (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a very long list. Click "show" at right to expand it.
The list itself is transcluded from a subpage in order to keep the discussion page from getting too badly cluttered. Click here to edit the list.

[edit] ethnicity-related 4

[edit] ethnicity-related 5

German/Irish-Americans → German-American
German Jamaicans → German Jamaican
Pakistani-Indian → Indian people
Scottish-Irish-Americans → Scots-Irish Americans
German-Irish-American → American people
~~German-Cuban → German Cuban~~ hyphen
German British → German migration to Britain
Serbian Briton → Serbian British
Indian Gujarati → Gujarati people
~~Cherokee people → Cherokee~~ term appears on target

[edit] ethnicity-related 6

Franco-Cando → French Canadian
Russo-German → German-Russian
~~Immigration to the US → Immigration to the United States~~ synonymous titles
List of Germany's citizens → List of Germans
~~Scottish/Irish/American → Heritage~~ already brought up for RfD discussion
Italian-American Mafia → Italian Mafia
Jamaican-American organized crime → List of criminal organizations
~~Russian-American organized crime → Russian Mafia~~ seems like a plausible search
Irish American actors → List of Irish American actors

[edit] ethnicity-related 7

Category:French-Canadian Americans → Category:Americans of French Canadian descent
Category:People of Australian heritage → Category:People of Australian descent
Category:People of Scottish heritage → Category:People of Scottish descent
~~List of German-American actors → Category:German-American actors~~ - many redirects use this convention
German Italian → Category:German Italians
German-American history → Category:German American history
~~List of Native American tribes in California → Category:Native American tribes in California~~ - many redirects use this convention

[edit] ethnicity-related 8

Eurasian (mixed) → Eurasian (mixed ancestry)
History of the Jews in Uganda → African Jews
Old Russia → Kazakhstan
~~Vennsenne Klan → Danish Australian~~ only hit on google is wikipedia; now in RfD discussion
Tamil Sri Lankan-language → Tamil language
~~Aar Aar Chur Chur → Tamil language~~ - now under RfD discussion

[edit] videogames

~~Rockport FBI (Need for Speed) → Need for Speed: Most Wanted~~ deleted
~~Xbox 4 → Xbox~~ WP:CRYSTAL, Xbox 2 redirects to current version XBOX 360, no plans at all for #3 - in RfD discussion
~~3.71 (PSP update) → PlayStation Portable~~ in RfD discussion
P-S-3 → PlayStation 3
~~Xbox 360 Premium → Xbox 360~~ specific model to family of Xboxes
~~Rainbow Six Vegas II → Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2~~ alternative name
~~Rainbow Six Vegas II → Rainbow Six: Vegas 2~~ alternative name
~~Saints Row I → Saints Row~~ alternative name
~~Saints Row II → Saints Row 2~~ alternative name
~~Fight Night: Round 4 → Fight Night: Round 3~~ in RfD discussion
~~Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 3 → Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2~~ WP:CRYSTAL, vegas 2 was released 2 months ago and there are no plans yet for 3 - in RfD discussion

[edit] Grand Theft Auto-related

Fort Baxter Military Airbase → Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories
Staunton Island, Liberty City → Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto)
K.A.C.C. Military Fuels → San Andreas (Grand Theft Auto)
IV (Grand Theft Auto) → Grand Theft Auto IV
~~V (Grand Theft Auto) → Grand Theft Auto (series)~~ in RfD discussion
List of Grand Theft Auto IV characters → List of characters in Grand Theft Auto IV
Panjit Gavaskar (Grand Theft Auto) → List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories#Panjit Gavaskar
Rajeev Gavaskar → Panjit Gavaskar (Grand Theft Auto)
Dimitri Rascalov → List of characters in Grand Theft Auto IV#Dimitri Rascalov
Leslie Benzies → Grand Theft Auto (series)
Niko Belic → Niko Bellic
Niko Belic → ~~List of characters in Grand Theft Auto IV#Niko Belic~~ Niko Bellic (fixed)
Nikolai Belic → ~~Niko Belic~~ Niko Bellic (fixed)
~~Grand Theft Auto V → Grand Theft Auto (series)~~ (under discussion)

[edit] real people - same person?

Matthew Walker (American actor) → Matthew Walker (US actor)
~~Jamie Lee Schwartz → Jamie Lee Curtis~~ in RfD discussion
M.J. Mcdonnell → M.J. McDonnell
MJ McDonnell → M.J. McDonnell
~~Daniella Wolters → Daniella Deutscher~~ valid redirect - sometimes credited as Daniella Wolters
~~Christopher Tucker → Chris Tucker~~ valid redirect - birth name
~~Buster Keaton, Jr. → Buster Keaton~~ in RfD discussion
~~Jennifer Joanna Aniston → Jennifer Aniston~~ complete birth name
Jennifer Anastasakis → Jennifer Aniston
Andrea Moranty → Terri Summers
Donald Lyman Shanks → Don Shanks
~~Henning Von Tresckow → Henning von Tresckow~~ plausible typo
Ava Santana (American actress) → Ava Santana
Ava Santana (Cuban civilian) → Ava Santana

[edit] real people - same person 1

~~Kathryn Knighten → Ava Santana~~ Kathryn Knighten is actual name
~~Kathryn Elizabeth Knighten → Ava Santana~~ Kathryn Elizabeth Knighten is complete birth name
Katie Knighten → Ava Santana
Kathryn E. Knighten → Ava Santana
~~SugerButt → Ava Santana~~ deleted
~~William "Billy" Zane → Billy Zane~~ in RfD discussion
Jenn Tilly → Jennifer Tilly
Jeffrey Daniel Phillips → Jeff Daniel Phillips
~~Caroline de Souza Correa → Caroline Correa~~ redirect name is actual birth name
~~Dee Bee Cooper → D. B. Cooper~~ added to Jay Kay Rowling listing in RfD discussion
Christopher Candy → John Candy
Amir Khan (Pakistani-British boxer) → Amir Khan (boxer)
Jordan Brewster → Jordana Brewster

[edit] real people - same person 2

Celeste (pornographic actress) → Celeste (actress)
~~Howard Weitzman → Brianna Tatiana~~ first is now a standalone article
~~William "Bill" Clinton → Bill Clinton~~ in RfD discussion
~~Nicole Taylor → Nikki Taylor~~ birth name Nicole Renee Taylor
Darkman X → DMX (rapper)
~~Mister Marcus → Mr. Marcus~~ - barely plausible based on the actual title
~~Tip "T.I." Harris → T.I.~~ in RfD discussion
Harison Ford → Harrison Ford
Walter Houghston → Walter Huston
~~Mark Sinclair Vincent → Vin Diesel~~ birth name
~~Dennis Lee Hopper → Dennis Hopper~~ full name
~~Angelina Jolie Voight → Angelina Jolie~~ full birth name
Virginia Admiral-De Niro → Virginia Admiral
~~Virginia De Niro → Virginia Admiral~~ married name

[edit] real people - same person 3

~~Tony and Elizabeth Bandiero → Al Bandiero~~ in RfD discussion
~~Cassius Marcellus Clay Senior → Cassius Marcellus Clay, Sr.~~ - barely plausible alternate search
~~Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr. → Muhammad Ali~~ former legal name of Ali
~~Antonio "Tony" Montana → Tony Montana~~ in RfD discussion
~~Christopher Collins (actor) → K.C. Collins~~ full name
~~Chris Collins (actor) → K.C. Collins~~ sometimes credited with this name
~~KC Collins → K.C. Collins~~ only periods missing
Mannyribera → Manny Ribera
~~Victor 'Vic' Vance → Victor Vance~~ in RfD discussion

[edit] real people - same person 4

~~Benjamin Geza Affleck-Boldt → Ben Affleck~~ birth name
~~Jennifer Anne Garner → Jennifer Garner~~ full birth name
~~Bradley Pitt → Brad Pitt~~ birth name
~~Henry Jaynes Fonda → Henry Fonda~~ full birth name
~~Eliza Patricia Dushku → Eliza Dushku~~ full name
~~Bo Gunnar Widerberg → Bo Widerberg~~ full name
~~Julia Fiona Roberts → Julia Roberts~~ full name
~~Gwyneth Kate Paltrow → Gwyneth Paltrow~~ full name
~~Melvin Damski → Mel Damski~~ full name
~~Boris Lee Holder Svenson → Bo Svenson~~ former is actual birth name
~~Elizabeth Stamatina Fey → Tina Fey~~ former is full birth name
~~Jacob Joachim Klugman → Jack Klugman~~ redirect is actual birth name
~~Brittany Anne Murphy → Brittany Murphy~~ full birth name
~~Mary Willa Gummer → Mamie Gummer~~ full name
~~Mary Streep → Meryl Streep~~ birth name
~~Mary Louise Streep → Meryl Streep~~ full birth name

[edit] real people - same person 5

~~R.A. Mihailoff → R. A. Mihailoff~~ difference: one space
~~Jay Kay Rowling → J. K. Rowling~~ under RfD discussion
Damski → Mel Damski
Steven Eramo → Mel Damski
Haydin Christensen → Hayden Christensen
Jessy Stroup → Jessica Stroup
Eleanor Admiral → Virginia Admiral
Henry Gummer → Meryl Streep
Dana Streep → Meryl Streep

[edit] real people - same person 6

~~Francia Raisa → Francia Almendarez~~ also credited with this name
Jose Manuel Ibar Urtain → Pedro Lovell
Terry Krueger → Pedro Lovell
E.J.H. → Earl J. Hickey redirect retargeted to My Name Is Earl
~~MV Robert Hunter → MV Steve Irwin~~ same vessel
~~Victor "Vic" Vance → Victor Vance~~ in RfD discussion

[edit] real people - same person 7

Russ Peters → Russell Peters
~~Kelly Ann Hu → Kelly Hu~~ full name
~~Joaquin Rafael Bottom → Joaquin Phoenix~~ birth name
~~Bob Redford → Robert Redford~~ - Redford is sometimes referred to this way in "friendly" press material
~~Pauline Brandt → Paula Brandt~~ both deleted
~~Hilary Ann Swank → Hilary Swank~~ full name
~~James Adam Belushi → James Belushi~~ full name
~~John Adam Belushi → John Belushi~~ full name
Cottage Chicken → Chicken Cottage
Marc Lazard → Justin Lazard
Martha Thomason → Marsha Thomason
George Bessudo → List of film directors by name
Primula Rollo → David Niven
David Niven, Sr. → David Niven

[edit] real people - same person 8

Ragina Hall → Regina Hall
~~Charles Dennis Buchinsky → Charles Bronson~~ full birth name
~~Anna Kay Faris → Anna Faris~~ full birth name
Natalya Rogozhina → Andrei Panin
~~German Legarreta → Germán Legarreta~~ valid redirect - no diacritics
Ivan Aasen → Ivar Aasen
Johana Brady → Johanna Braddy
~~Johanna Eva Braddy → Johanna Braddy~~ former is full birth name
~~Johanna E. Braddy → Johanna Braddy~~ Ms. Braddy was also credited under this name

[edit] real people - same person 9

Humbert Fugazy → Pat Flaherty (actor)#Personal life
~~Charles Pusser → Carl Pusser~~ in RfD discussion
Bufford Pusser → Buford Pusser
~~Imran Hashmi → Emraan Hashmi~~ valid redirect - transliteration
Mr. Esparza → Moctesuma Esparza
~~Gullu → Aishwarya Rai~~ in RfD discussion
Aishwarya Krishnaraj Rai → Aishwarya Rai
Charlie Bronson → Charles Bronson
~~Aimee Lynn Chadwick → Aimee-Lynn Chadwick~~ valid search item-easy to forget hyphen
~~Gerald McCullough → Gerald McCullouch~~ - plausible mispelling
Jace Statham → Jason Statham
Richard Andrew Holahan → Dennis Holahan
Jonathan Garfield → John Garfield
~~Casper Robert Van Dien Jr. → Casper Van Dien~~ full name

[edit] real people - family member or other relationship?

~~Edward "Eddie" Frank Plank → Scott Plank~~ in RfD discussion
~~Elizabeth Angela Plank → Scott Plank~~ in RfD discussion
Kipp Marcus → Adam Marcus
David Georger → Diana Georger
Cheryl Andreá Todd → Russell Todd
Calvin Morgan → John Hunt Morgan
~~Martha Stewart-Ryan → Timothy Ryan~~ in RfD discussion
~~Richard James Ryan → Timothy Ryan~~ in RfD discussion
~~Irina Nikolaeva → Simon Ambrose~~ in RfD discussion
Ronald Laurie → Ran Laurie
~~Kёn and Anniё Plank → Scott Plank~~ in RfD discussion

[edit] real people - family member or other relationship 1

Gail Bellamy → Earl Bellamy#Personal life
Karen Bellamy → Earl Bellamy#Personal life
Michael Bellamy → Earl Bellamy#Personal life
Earl J. Bellamy → Earl Bellamy#Personal life
~~Melanie Lola Kaytia Lopez Sanchez → Lola Sanchez~~ full name
~~Melanie Sanchez → Lola Sanchez~~ Lola's full birth name: Melanie Lola Kaytia Lopez Sanchez
~~Antonio Emilió Sanchez → Lola Sanchez~~ in RfD discussion
~~Kay Lopez (stage actress) → Lola Sanchez~~ in RfD discussion
~~John Sanchez (stage actor) → Lola Sanchez~~ in RfD discussion

[edit] real people - family member or other relationship 2

~~Eleanor Keaton → Buster Keaton~~ in RfD discussion
~~Joseph Frank Keaton VI → Buster Keaton~~ full name
~~Myra Edith Cutler → Myra Keaton~~ maiden name
~~Marlene Dawson → Richard Liberty~~ in RfD discussion
~~Luciano "Lewis" Liberatisciolli → Richard Liberty~~ in RfD discussion
~~Elizabeth Anne Keaton → Joe Keaton#Information~~ in RfD discussion
~~Joseph Francis Keaton IV → Joe Keaton#Information~~ in RfD discussion
~~Joseph Francis Keaton V → Joe Keaton~~ in RfD discussion
Joseph Keaton → Joe Keaton

[edit] person to TV series/film

Sandra Grusinsky → We Own the Night
Marat Buzhayev → We Own the Night
Pavel Lubyarsky → We Own the Night
Vadim Nezhinski → We Own the Night
~~Deputy Chief Albert "Bert" Grusinsky → We Own the Night~~ in RfD discussion
~~Captain Joseph 'Joe' Grusinsky → We Own the Night~~ in RfD discussion
~~Robert "Bobby" Green → We Own the Night~~ in RfD discussion
Anzor Yugorsky → Running Scared (2006 film)
Ivan Yugorsky → Running Scared (2006 film)
Mila Yugorsky → Running Scared (2006 film)
Oleg Yugorsky → Running Scared (2006 film)

[edit] person to TV series/film 1

Arthur Case → Inside Man
Madeleine White → Inside Man
Detective Keith Frazier → Inside Man
Dalton Russell → Inside Man
Peter Evans (Desire character) → Desire (TV series)
Mashkov → The Italian Job
Yevhen → The Italian Job
Olga Katrina → You Can't Take It with You
Boris Kolenkhov → You Can't Take It with You
~~Jessica Mitchell (Pacific Palisades) → Pacific Palisades (TV series)~~ - mentioned at the target

[edit] person to TV series/film 2

[edit] geographical-related

~~Mutantville, New Mexico → New Mexico~~ retargeted to The Hills Have Eyes (2006 film)
~~Mutantville → Yuma Flats~~ retargeted to The Hills Have Eyes (2006 film)
~~Sector 16 → Yuma Flats~~ target has section on Sector 16
Devon, England, UK → Devon
Piasa, Illinois → Illinois
~~Yorkshire (UK) → Yorkshire~~ plausible search term
Oakville, Ontario, Canada → Oakville, Ontario

[edit] geographical-related 1

~~Groom Lake, Nevada → Area 51~~ alternate name of site
~~Area 51, Nevada → Area 51~~ likely search term
Glen Haven Memorial Park → Sylmar, Los Angeles, California
Vineyard Town → List of cities and towns in Jamaica#Vineyard Town (city exists, it should be deleted to be a red link on the target list)
Franklin Town → List of cities and towns in Jamaica#Franklin Town (city exists, it should be deleted to be a red link on the target list)
King Street, Spanish Town → Spanish Town
Ashingdon School → Rochford

[edit] film-related

Halloween (2007) → Halloween (2007 film)
Halloween (Remake) → Halloween (2007 film)
~~Shrek I → Shrek (film)~~ - keep, plausible search term
~~Shrek IV → Shrek 4~~ - keep, plausible search term
Jason Lives: Friday the 13th Part VI → Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives
Walking Tall: Payback → Walking Tall
~~Final Chapter: Walking Tall → Walking Tall: Final Chapter~~ likely as some promotions showed title in reverse order
~~Part 2, Walking Tall → Walking Tall Part 2~~ promoted with first title
~~Walking Tall, Part 2 → Walking Tall Part 2~~ plausible variant with comma
~~Walking Tall: The Final Chapter → Walking Tall: Final Chapter~~ plausible variant
Walking Tall (remake) → Walking Tall (2004 film)
~~Walking Tall (1973 film) → Walking Tall~~ likely search term as there were two films of that name

[edit] film-related 1

Crank (american film) → Crank (film)
~~Crank 2 → Crank 2: High Voltage~~ short version of film title
Final Chapter: Walking Tall → Walking Tall
The Final Chapter: Walking Tall → Walking Tall
Walking Tall: Pt. 2 → Walking Tall Part II
~~A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child → A Nightmare on Elm Street 5~~ redirect should be reversed (former is full title)
A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010 film) → A Nightmare on Elm Street
Raaz 2 → Raaz (2002 film)

[edit] film-related 2

~~Jannat (2008 film) → Jannat (film)~~ plausible search term
2 – 4 – 5 Trioxin → Trioxin (Return of the Living Dead)
~~2-4-5 Trioxin → Trioxin (Return of the Living Dead)~~ appears in target article
2-4-5 Trioxin (Return of the Living Dead) → Trioxin (Return of the Living Dead)
Trioxin (fictional nerve agent) → Trioxin (Return of the Living Dead)
~~Thomas Alvarez → Ali G Indahouse#Cast~~ in AfD discussion
~~Ali G: The Movie → Ali G Indahouse~~ plausible redirect: full title is Ali G Indahouse: The Movie

[edit] film-related 3

[edit] film-related 4

~~Friday III → Friday After Next~~ valid redirect - second sequel to Friday
~~Friday II → Next Friday~~ valid redirect - first sequel to Friday
Friday (African-American film) → Friday (film)
Han (The Fast and the Furious) → The Fast and the Furious (film series)
Sean Boswell → The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift
Tej (2 Fast 2 Furious) → 2 Fast 2 Furious
Carter Verone → 2 Fast 2 Furious
Monica Fuentes → 2 Fast 2 Furious
Roman Pearce → 2 Fast 2 Furious
Sergeant Tanner → The Fast and the Furious (2001 film)
Jesse (The Fast and the Furious) → The Fast and the Furious (2001 film)
Mia Toretto → The Fast and the Furious (film series)
Letty (The Fast and the Furious) → The Fast and the Furious (film series)
Dominic Toretto → The Fast and the Furious (film series)
Brian O'Conner → The Fast and the Furious (film series)

[edit] film-related 5

~~Ice Age 4 → Ice Age (film) WP:CRYSTAL, Ice_Age_3~~ will be released on 2009 - in RfD discussion
~~Ice Age IV → Ice Age (film)~~ WP:CRYSTAL, as above - in RfD discussion
~~Bobby Dawson (CSI) → List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters~~ valid redirect
Bobby Dawson (CSI: Crime Scene Investigation) → List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters
~~List of Pacific Palisades episodes → Pacific Palisades (TV series)~~ under RfD discussion
~~List of USA High episodes → USA High~~ under RfD discussion
~~List of One World episodes → One World (TV series)~~ under RfD discussion
~~List of Undressed episodes → Undressed (TV series)~~ under RfD discussion
~~List of American Family episodes → American Family~~ under RfD discussion

[edit] film-related 6

~~The Ring Three → The Ring Two~~ in RfD discussion
~~IMDb Pro → Internet Movie Database~~ plausible search term
~~Devil May Cry IV → Devil May Cry 4~~ - plausible alternate search
~~The Host 2 → The Host (film)#Sequel~~ in RfD discussion
~~Camp Crystal Lake → Crystal Lake~~ retargeted to Friday the 13th (franchise)
~~Oprah Winfrey Presents: Mitch Albom's For One More Day → Oprah Winfrey~~ retargeted to For One More Day
Night at the Museum (film) → Night at the Museum
~~ABC Afterschool Specials → CBS Schoolbreak Special~~ retargeted to After school special
Ravenside Memorial Hospital → Day of the Dead 2: Contagium
Ravenside Military Hospital → Day of the Dead 2: Contagium
~~Day of the Dead II: Contagium → Day of the Dead 2: Contagium~~ plausible error (II) vs. 2
Grey's Anatomy episodes (Season 5) → Grey's Anatomy

[edit] film-related 7

AVPII → Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem
Dr. Dolittle Goin' Hollywood → Dr. Dolittle
~~Balls of Steel (2005 TV series) → Balls of Steel (TV series)~~ valid search term
Vince (Collateral) → Vincent (Collateral)
Fonejacker - Doovde → Fonejacker
~~Fonejacker (TV series) → Fonejacker~~ valid search term
~~Kameleon 1 → Kameleon 2~~ retargeted to actual name, De Schippers van de Kameleon
~~Strictly Come Dancing (TV series) → Strictly Come Dancing~~ valid redirect
Rude Boy: The Don → Rude Boy: The Jamaican Don

[edit] film-related 8

~~List of characters in the Friday the 13th film series → List of characters in Friday the 13th~~ - seems like a plausible alternate title that might be searched
Brothers & Sisters (2000s TV series) → Brothers & Sisters (2006 TV series)
~~Morgan Strode → List of characters in the Halloween film series~~ in RfD discussion
Prison Break Season 3, Episode 9 → List of Prison Break episodes]
Michael Kerris (Pacific Palisades) → Pacific Palisades (TV series)

[edit] film-related 9

~~Strange Frequency 2 → Cinema of Canada~~ in RfD discussion
~~Strange Frequency → Cinema of Canada~~ in RfD discussion
~~Canadian Film Industry → Cinema of Canada~~ in RfD discussion
~~The Survivors Club → Canadian Film Industry~~ in RfD discussion
~~Slow Dancing in the Big City → Cinema of the United States~~ in RfD discussion
~~Psycho Cop Returns → Cinema of the United States~~ in RfD discussion
~~Encounter with the Unknown → Cinema of the United States~~ in RfD discussion
~~The Crown of Vysehrad → Cinema of the Czech Republic~~ in RfD discussion

[edit] film related 10

~~Doomsday (2008 film) → Doomsday (film)~~ valid search term
~~Day of the Dead (1985 film) → Day of the Dead (film)~~ target should be moved to redirect, then have dab page at Day of the Dead
~~Prison Break Season 4 → List of Prison Break episodes~~ valid redirect
~~Prison Break Season 3 → List of Prison Break episodes~~ valid redirect
~~Prison Break Season 1 → List of Prison Break episodes~~ valid redirect
~~Species IV → Species - The Awakening~~ redirect title was working name for film
~~Who's Your Mama? → The Parkers~~ episode title in episode list
~~Ben Don't Leave → Felicity (TV series)~~ in RfD discussion
~~Eenie, Meenie, Miney, MURDER! → That's My Bush!~~ retargeted to List of That's My Bush! episodes
~~Beyond the Wire → American Dreams~~ target article has episode list
~~HellBilly 1958 → Hellbilly 58~~ understandable redirect: action takes place in 1958
~~HellBilly 58 → Hellbilly 58~~ foreseeable typo
~~Hood rat → Hood~~ in RfD discussion

[edit] film-related 11

~~Jak IV → Jak and Daxter (series)~~ in RfD discussion
~~"The Sherminator" → Chris Owen (actor)~~ foreseeable - term he sometimes uses to promote himself
RV - Runaway Vacation → RV (film)
The hills have eyes two → The Hills Have Eyes 2
Twenty-Eight Weeks Later → 28 Weeks Later
~~The Da Vinci Code (2006 film) → The Da Vinci Code (film)~~ plausible search/disambig
~~Cloverfield (film) → Cloverfield~~ valid search possibility
~~The Dukes of Hazzard (TV series) → The Dukes of Hazzard~~ valid search term
Slither (2006) → Slither (2006 film)
Jason Hice → Lists of writers
~~AVPIII → Alien vs. Predator: Requiem~~ WP:CRYSTAL the target is only the second film on the series - in RfD discussion

[edit] film awards

The 2004 IFP/West Independent Spirit Awards → Independent Spirit Award
~~Teen Choice Award for Movie - Choice Scream → Teen Choice Awards~~ deleted
~~ALMA Award for Outstanding Actor in a Motion Picture → ALMA Award~~ deleted
~~BIFA Award → List of film awards~~ discussed and closed to keep as disambiguation page
Golden Picture Award → Awards
~~MTV Video Music Awards 2007 → 2007 MTV Video Music Awards~~ - plausible misordering
Special Interest Programming Award → List of film awards

[edit] websites

Hollywood.com → Hollywood (disambiguation)

[edit] schools

Wembley High College → Wembley High Technology College
Wembley High → Wembley High Technology College
Brent, Wembley (north), London → London Borough of Brent
Claremont High School (UK) → Claremont High School (Kenton)
Byron Court Primary School → List of schools in the London Borough of Brent
~~BYRON COURt PRiMARY SChOOl → Byron Court Primary School~~ deleted
City Academy Secondary School → City Academy High School
Gill Bal → Wembley High Technology College
East Lane High School → Wembley High Technology College
Lucas (Wembley High) → Wembley High Technology College
Kaarthick Paramananthan (Wembley High) → Wembley High Technology College

[edit] miscellany

~~£50 → Banknotes of the pound sterling~~ retargeted to Bank of England note issues
~~£10 → Banknotes of the pound sterling~~ retargeted to Bank of England note issues
~~The Queen of Bollywood → Aishwarya Rai~~ under RfD discussion
~~Jhoon Rhee Institute → Jhoon Goo Rhee~~ mentioned on target
~~Very Important People → VIP~~ target is abbreviation of former

[edit] miscellany 1

[edit] miscellany 2

~~Kingston Technology Company → Kingston Technology~~ full name as mentioned in target
~~USB 4.0 → Universal Serial Bus WP:CRYSTAL (they are still planning for 3.0)~~ - under discussion at RfD
~~USB 1.0 → Universal Serial Bus#USB 1.0~~ mentioned in article
~~USB 3.0 → Universal Serial Bus#USB 3.0~~ section in article

[edit] miscellany 3 fictional journalist

[edit] miscellany 4

[edit] miscellany 5

News, Sport, Music, Movies, Money, Cars, Shopping and more from MSN UK → MSN
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself → YouTube
~~US War in Vietnam → Vietnam War~~ foreseeable redirect (POV)
American Civilization War → American Civil War
~~Agent Yellow → Nerve agent~~ used by Homeland Security on one exercise, asked target's talk page to add it
~~Also Known As → AKA~~ common English abbreviation
~~Fictitous → Fictional~~ plausible misspelling of "fictitious"
~~American Mustard → Mustard (condiment)~~ - mentioned at the target
~~Direct-to-dvd → Direct-to-DVD~~ - possible as an entry in the search box; default capitalization rules don't catch hyphenation like this
~~Joe Bob's Drive-In Theater → Joe Bob~~ valid redirect - name of radio program
Celebrity Golf → Golf
~~Snakes & ladders → Snakes and ladders~~ valid substitution ("&" vs. "and")

[edit] Still unsorted 1

Rez-Illusion → The Hills Have Eyes documentaries#Surviving the Hills: Making of 'The Hills Have Eyes' target is at AfD
Co-X Entertainment → The Hills Have Eyes documentaries#Surviving the Hills: Making of 'The Hills Have Eyes' non-notable company, target is at AfD
~~Everybody Hates Halloween → List of Everybody Hates Chris episodes~~ saved after RfD
~~Tommy "Tiny" Lister → Tom Lister, Jr.~~ valid redirect - credited as such in e.g. IMDB
~~Bidding on the Boys → Cheers (TV series)~~ retargeted to List of Cheers episodes
~~RU All That? → All That~~ in RfD discussion
Polly (film) → Polly
Polly: Comin' Home! → Polly
~~Brown (colour) → Brown~~ - seems plausible

[edit] Still unsorted 2

General Matthew Ryan (The Hills Have Eyes) → General Ryan (The Hills Have Eyes)
Karen Sawney Bean → List of Mutants in The Hills Have Eyes#Karen Sawney Bean
Papa Jupiter → List of Mutants in The Hills Have Eyes#Papa Jupiter
~~Literature of Latin America → Latin American literature~~ plausible - same meaning
List of characters in Ali G Indahouse → Ali G Indahouse#Cast
~~Emilio Rivera Filmography → Filmography of Emilio Rivera~~ - plausible search for the target

[edit] Still unsorted 3

In-state → Ranjit Arab target article is having COI problems
Jeepers Creepers (music) → Jeepers Creepers (song)
~~The Creeper (character) → The Creeper (Jeepers Creepers)~~ valid redirect
Jezebel (magazine) → Jezebel (disambiguation)
~~Way Up Thar → Silent films~~ in RfD discussion
~~Trimmed in Furs → Silent films~~ in RfD discussion

[edit] Still unsorted 4

Chief Inspector Lee → Rush Hour (film)
Detective James Carter → Rush Hour (film)
~~Marullus → Julius Caesar~~ retargeted to Julius Caesar (play)
~~Julius Caesar (1979 film) → Julius Caesar~~ in RfD discussion
Mental patient → ~~Mental hospital~~ Mental disorder - retargeted, but can still be discussed
Michael Myers (Halloween character) → Michael Myers (Halloween)
Justin Walker (Brothers & Sisters) → Justin Walker

comments:
1. let's weed out the good ones first, any commenter that thinks that an item on the list has a reasonable chance to pass a RfD should strike it out of this list, and state the reason there (for example, I ask to take "Also Known As → AKA" out of the discussion for being descriptive of the acronym)
2. we should use a more loose criteria for this time, since all redirectes were created by the same user, which means that they all have the same bias. If we think that the bias is bad, then we delete them
3. Ask yourself: do you really want to open a RfD for every one of those redirects? How much editor time will be lost doing that? Is it worth wasting all that time against the benefits lost by simply nuking the whole list?
-Enric Naval (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, many of the redirects in the list are valid ones (redirecting characters to movies, for example), but there are several groups that should be taken care of without too much fuss:

"List of..." redirects - delete as premature.

Redirecting character names to movies or TV programs featuring them - 'keep as appropriate redirects.

Redirects involving ethnicity - nuke them all without prejudice toward recreation if another editor deems it necessary (there is a similar mess in the categories that he has created, particularly in the category redirects).

Full name to widely-known name - keep (with the relations to be determined on a case-by-case basis if it's worthwhile - I'm sure we can get rid of "SugerButt" for example).

Names of other (non-notable) family members - delete as non-notable parents, siblings, children, etc., should not be mentioned at all in the article in the first place.

Phonetic transcriptions like "Jay Kay Rowling" - delete without prejudice to recreation on an "at need" basis

Redirects with nicknames in quotation marks inside the name itself - eradicate as redundant as most such Wikilinked appearance will be piped.

While there are a few lemons and several good ones that don't fit any of these forms, if we "section the territory" as above, about 80-90 percent of these can be weeded out so the more problematic ones (like News, Sport, Music, Movies, Money, Cars, Shopping and more from MSN UK and Oprah Winfrey Presents: Mitch Albom's For One More Day - the last should be retargeted to For One More Day) can be discussed rather than processed like cattle. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You're being very reasonable, and normally that would be great. But there are 521 redirects in the above list! I like the approach recommended by Enric Naval above. Namely, if you like some of the redirects, list them here. There is no reasonable way to deliberate over 521 redirects. I have looked through the list, and I see no redirects that are "must keep". If pressed, I could find 10 or 20 which might be described as helpful. We could each spend six hours winnowing the list and decide that there are (say) 20 great redirects and another 10 possible redirects. Or, we could spend half an hour listing the few we want to keep (in my case, none), then decide to delete the rest. --Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I agree with the nom's suggestion but I listed Brown British because it is an insulting title, without even noticing this discussion and will, for now, leave it for the nom reason, unless this moves quite quickly. I've been watching this editor for many months and made attempts, as far back as January last, [15] to interact with him without success, but all he does, especially for talk page postings is to blank his talk page regularly, which was discussed recently here. Generally a large percentage of his edits have been disruptive to Wikipedia - this list is a good example of that and I have noticed much of his work deleted, usually for non-notability.ww2censor (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
While under the proposed "slash off" method above, edit conflicts are inevitable, but certainly we can assume good faith and not remove other people's slash off - if there is a disagreement about potential viability, it should be handled only after we finish whittling away the list. B.Wind (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- We should use a combination of Enric Naval's "slash" method and the IP's suggestion of breaking this large congregation into bite-sized pieces. The first collection that should be broken off to be processed should be all the ethnic redirects that are either pointless or simply a waste of space (I have tagged about 20 empty categories for deletion in this arena... and there are quite a bit of questionable category redirects and categories with fewer than three articles that were DEFAULTSORTed into them in the first place). Then there could be another set of redirects of "List of..." articles to TV main articles; another set could be redirects of individual movie articles into collections (most notably silent movies), characters into movie articles, and actors into movie articles. There was also also a collection of redirects of person names, many of them redirecting to the article of a more famous relative. Just those "clumps" would take care of about 80% of this list. B.Wind (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Good job sorting the list folks. ww2censor (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Very strong keep Er...reagardless of who created them or why, they are useful, in casew you didn't notice. If I types in "Cuban America" and hit enter I would expect to end up at "Cuban American", with the n. These are clearly good redirects, I've looked at them all, so Keep--Serviam (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete There are over 160 American people categories. I could spell "Cuban American" with/without 'n' on each word, with/without hyphen, with/without uppercase 'A'. That's 16 redirects needed, potentially times 160. Surely that's taking the "redirects are cheap" mantra too far? I agree that it doesn't matter who created the redirects. I just think the redirects themselves are pointless (except for the few that others have struck out). --Johnuniq (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  - In addition we should nuke all those categories that have fewer than five articles in them. I know of at least 50 that have been speedied as empty over the past month or two, mostly originating from the same editor. Kazakh-Americans who emigrated from Bolivia, anybody? 147.70.242.40 (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Enric Naval above. Over the next few days, any redirect that anyone thinks is worth keeping (or might pass an RFD) should be removed from this list; any remaining by the end of this RFD should then be deleted, without prejudice to recreation if someone considers them useful later. Most of these are bad redirects, but some have potential, so this seems like the best compromise solution (that avoids having to work through 521 separate RFDs). Terraxos (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been moving the more egregious ones to RfD to "reduce the pressure". These have been noted and struck off the list. Right now, it appears that most of the non-crossed ones are judgment calls, rather than clearly one way or the other. I've been bundling those with a common theme (such as "List of..." television episodes redirecting to the series) to help the process. I'll shave some more off the list and onto the RfD from time to time over the next couple of days. B.Wind (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Real Name → Genie (feral child)

The result of the debate was speedy-deleted as BLP again. Rossami (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Per the recent Rfd here and discussions at Talk:Genie (feral child), Genie's real name should be removed from Wikipedia. And if possible, please find a way to prevent this redirect from being recreated again. For An Angel (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete The general trend in books and articles about this case is to refer to her as "Genie", in order to protect her privacy. For as long as she is alive, or until her name is generally known (not just found occasionally) we should keep it that way. Wikipedia should not be leading the way in publicizing names that have been kept private for the protection of victims. Ashton1983 (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. BLP concern per Privacy of Names. Speedy deleted less that 6 weeks ago. Suggest courtesy blanking of this request, as occurred last time.--Slp1 (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete (speedily if possible). Consensus on the article, in accordance with established Wikipedia practice, is not to make any mention of her real name. For the same reasons, it shouldn't exist as a redirect either. If and when consensus changes on the article, then such a redirect would be appropriate, but creating redirects should not be used as a means of bypassing consensus. Terraxos (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

OUT OF PROCESS. Under no circumstance was this a valid Del.Wjhonson (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Three times in two months is two times too many. Perhaps a little salt is needed here. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Booker T. & The M.G.'s → Booker T. & the M.G.s

The result of the debate was Move Request. Use WP:RM instead. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Official album covers, as well compilations and at least one reference book I have consulted, spell the band's name as Booker T. & The M.G.'s, not as Booker T. & the M.G.s, capitalising the "t" in "The" and adding an apostrophe after the "g". Style guides I have consulted suggest that this is an incorrect use of the apostrophe, but we do not print the Beatles' name as "The Beetles" on the grounds that the band couldn't spell. I wish to delete the redirect and rename the article to reflect the way that the band's name was spelled on the majority of its own releases. Lexo (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Close and list at WP:RM so that proposed "target" could be moved to its properly capitalized (and punctuated) name. B.Wind (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Firecrotch → Red hair

The page is protected, therefore I am nominating the reidrect in behalf of Terraxos. His arguments are as follows: "It's an offensive or insulting redirect, in that it seems to be intended as a derogatory term for red-headed people. The word isn't actually mentioned on the target page, so the redirect doesn't have much explanatory value. Having searched elsewhere, it is mainly used to refer to Lindsay Lohan - so if this should redirect anywhere, it should redirect to her page. However, as that would raise WP:BLP issues, it would probably be best if it were deleted altogether. Especially since our article on the man who apparently coined the term, Brandon Davis, has been deleted." -- Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment; Brandon Davis (often called Greasy Bear) did not make that term up.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Red hair#Prejudice/Discrimination towards redheads, which discusses pejorative terms for red heads.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Retarget to above suggestion. Proper place to redirect users searching for that term. If there is a real relationship of this term to Lindsay, then it will be at that section --Enric Naval (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment it's amazing that a term that is much older than the number of years Lindsay Lohan has been alive is considered a Lindsay Lohan term. 70.51.9.251 (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gauss's Law for Gravitational Fields → Gauss' law for gravity

The redirect is unnecessary as it is case-sensitive while another redirect Gauss's law for gravitational fields is not. The redirect is the result of a move of the original article to the case-insensitive spelling, which was then merged with the current target article. The redirect is not currently harmful. – Ikara ^{talk →} 18:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep because it documents the pagemove of content which was later moved into the target article. Redirects that assist in the tracing of history are helpful. Rossami (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep per a university student, perhaps a physics student, may refer to gravity as Gravitational Fields, while a 12 year old who for some reason needs to look this up would use gravity. You also said that the redirect isn't harmful, so I'll use your own words against you, something that isn't harmful shouldn't be deleted on Wikipedia unless discussed by the Wikipedia community. --DA PIE EATER (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep. No harm done really with this redirect. Redirects should generally be kept, unless a redirect is obviously incorrect. Whether the user is likely to type in that redirect is not that important, as redirects are cheap. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: the redirect is not the only one to handle this spelling of the title, merely a specific capitalisation. After its removal, Gauss's law for gravitational fields (separate redirect) would still handle the case of "Gauss's Law for Gravitational Fields". As such the article serves no functional purpose. The case-insensitive redirect also documents the pagemove in its history as the target of the move. – Ikara ^{talk →} 01:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep, it is a redirect from a previous name, so it must remain there per the GFDL, even though the content of Gauss's law for gravitational fields was merged with Gauss' law for gravity. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

notice that the redirect we are discussing has no actual history except for making a redirect. I don't think that GFDL requires us to keep that sort of stuff. Deleting this redirect will not delete any useful contributions, since they are all at the properly capitalized redirect --Enric Naval (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The same could be said for any redirect that is created by moving a page, yet we don't delete them either. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 3

[edit] Mother Council of the World → Mother Supreme Council of the World

The result of the debate was no consensus. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Created and immediately redired, this is not a likely search term - it refers to the very lengthy official title of what is more commonly known as (even according to the article) the Supreme Council, Southern Jurisdiction, AASR. MSJapan (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep although not as strong as the next redirect below as it is conceivable that someone would forget to include "Supreme" as part of the name. Thus it is a useful redirect. B.Wind (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Supreme Council of the World → Mother Supreme Council of the World

The result of the debate was keep. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep - foreseeable search item (missing only "Mother" and not far from widely-used "Supreme Council"). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with part of your reasoning. It's the "of the World" portion that makes it particularly unlikely as a search term, because while it may be, no one really refers to it as such. MSJapan (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep very likely search term that is missing only one word from target title. Regarding the comment above: it is easy to forget just one word from a long title... and it would be just as valid a redirect as Supreme Council - which is actually a dab page - or Mother Supreme Council (all three are portions of the actual title of the target article). Please keep in mind WP:RFD#KEEP #2, #3, and #5. B.Wind (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Actually, shouldn't the article should be renamed as "Supreme Council, 33°, AASR, Southern Jurisdiction, USA" which is the most common name for the entity (with the "official" full title listed as an alternate)?... and all of these variants should redirect to that name. Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not here This is for discussion of redirects, not moves. --Thinboy00's ~~sockpuppet~~ alternate account 01:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Lioness of Tuzla → Hillary Rodham Clinton

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ironic sobriquet bestowed by a blogger is not a probable search term, not a reasonable basis for a redirect. Russ (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm torn. Google returns 43 non-duplicative hits for this phrase. While they do all seem to refer to Hillary Clinton, that usage is awfully trivial. (Unlike the creator of this redirect who asserted that there are "multiple reliable sources" documenting this usage, all I found were blogs.) There are zero inbound links and unlikely to be any more since all the blog entries are pretty dated. BLP doesn't apply because she is clearly a fully-public figure. And while probably intended to be derogatory, the redirect is not patently inflammatory. On the one hand, it's a pretty useless redirect. On the other hand, redirects are cheap. Still thinking... Rossami (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete - phrase is nowhere to be found in the target article. The redirect would be appropriate if there some sourced, non-trivial mention of the phrase placed there. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete - we don't have redirects for every nickname that's been bestowed on a celebrity at some point or another, only the most notable (and frequently searched) ones. Dubya, yes; Lioness of Tuzla, no. Terraxos (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's see here... only 43 non-duplicative hits and virtually all of them blogs (not exactly reliable sources? It's not even worth incorporating into the target article. Delete. B.Wind (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete due to lack of reliable sources to back up the nickname.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete attack. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Gorgoroth (band) → Gorgoroth

The result of the debate was keep. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Redundant redirect, causing inconsistencies with search engines such as Google - which usually refers to this redirect rather than the article directly. Usually redirects to outdated version of an article - takes over a day to be fully consistent. Dark Prime (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep because it documents the pagemove. The page had existed at the other title for a long time. Given the edit history, there are probably a large number of inbound links to that title (which is probably why google still finds it preferentially). But even if you accept that Google is malfunctioning, that's their problem, not ours. The redirect is working correctly and takes the user to the proper page regardless of which target is attempted. Rossami (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I can assure you, the problem is not Google's. Each time I enter the redirect in the URL an outdated version of the page comes up. Dark Prime (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  - You're going to have to show us what you're talking about here. I can't replicate any error that takes a reader to any old version of the page. What exact URL are you entering? Rossami (talk)
    - For instance, if I use the abbreviation for RFD instead of 'Redirects for Discussion', it redirects, but none of today's discussions appear. Dark Prime (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      - That sounds like you have a problem with your own browser cache failing to purge properly. You can change the browser settings or you can manually purge the cache for an individual page by typing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PAGENAME&action=purge into the browser. Some pages like WP:AFD have a link at the top to make refreshing easier but that's usually only needed for the very highest volume pages. If you're seeing it for routine pages, I'd check your local browser settings first.
        Or it could be something else entirely. It's very hard to diagnose a problem like this remotely. But it does not appear to be a problem with the redirect. If it were, the rest of us would be seeing it, too. Rossami (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep as there are many incoming links to the former name of the target article, thus making it a useful redirect. Whatever Google or Yahoo or Ask does with their search engines is their business, not Wikipedia's. B.Wind (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep because of incoming links and to keep article history. The redirect problem has to be on your end somewhere Dark Prime. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 16:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep - It is the former location of the article. Its existing incoming links are not harmful and could be useful in the event of ambiguity in the future. Khatru2 (talk) 05:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep per even if Google were to show the redirect, Wikipedia's servers would still redirect them to the appropriate article, as if someone was accessing the page from inside Wikipedia. --DA PIE EATER (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Schedule (Construction) → Primavera P3

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly sure why this very vague term is redirected to an article about a specific type of software, but it seems a little counterintuitive to say the least. Since there's no speedy deletion criteria covering this, I'm bringing it here for comments on what to do. jonny-m t 12:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete - more than one software package can be used to maintain construction schedules. Primera P3 is only one of them (and it doesn't appear in List of project management software). Schedule (Construction) could perhaps be a redirect to Project management, but that, too, is counterintuitive as it overlooks the obvious link to Schedule (disambiguation) or Scheduling. Note that Schedule (construction), with lower case "c", is a redlink. B.Wind (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above, and because nobody is going to use an uppercase inside the parenthesis. Also, is there really any encyclopedic usage for "schedule" in the context of construction? I can't think of any, and I see that Schedule (disambiguation) has no entry for such a thing. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] June 2

[edit] Consciousness causes collapse → Quantum mysticism

The result of the debate was withdrawn - ~~Retarget at editorial discretion.~~ Since it is protected, I guess you will have to start up another rfd to retarget, keeping in mind the result of the AfD. VegaDark (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The concept is not explained in the target article, and thus it is very confusing as a reader to be taken here. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consciousness causes collapse for why the redirect is in place, note that no content has been merged. The article was nominated for deletion for being pseudoscientific and nonnotable, suggestions to merge it to quantum mysticism were meant to keep the info out of serious scientific articles. However, a number of pages link to Consciousness causes collapse as if the old article was still in place, and imply that the concept has validity (see Wigner's friend and measurement problem). The redirect implies that it is pseudoscience, but with no further explanation. It would be less confusing if it was deleted outright. Redirect is currently protected, so I can't add the rfd notice myself. 67.187.76.80 (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(see below)~~Sppedy keep~~ The AfD closed as preserving history. If the nominator wants the history deleted, then he should go to WP:DRV. While the target is not the most adequate, there has not been any suggestion of a better target. Notice that some of the AfD commenters were calling to merge this article and the target article into Copenhagen Interpretation or Interpretations of quantum mechanics and that I don't agree on the nominator's interpretation of the motivations of the commenters proposing a merge. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I do think that one of these two articles would have been a better target than Quantum Mysticism. Famous physicists wrestled with this question, and still today it remains an enigma (see the book Quantum Enigma), so it's unfortunate that the current redirect essentially denigrates the issue. TimidGuy (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

keep and retarget to Copenhagen_interpretation. Looking at Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics, I think that Copenhagen_interpretation is the one that fits better the redirect. I think that we should redirected it there, since Quantum_mysticism doesn't even mention consciousness, and the article linked from it Quantum_mind is arguing the opposite: that quantum collapse causes conscousness (or is part of how the brain works) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

keep and retarget to Copenhagen_interpretation. If there is one thing we have learned about Quantum Mechanics over the past century it is that extraordinary observations often require extraordinary theories.

Before we delete CCC, let's take a look at the much more widely accepted Many Worlds Interpretation theory of wave collapse. According to MWI, the Cosmos creates an unending supply of new universes in order to let the many outcomes of each and every action in the "parent" universe occur. Was the coin toss heads or tails? Well, it was both heads AND tails, depending on what universe you wound up in. BTW, these brand new universes (or pre-existing parallel ones by some interpretations) come complete with identical copies of each and every atom, photon, galaxy, mountain range and coconut tree that the “parent” universe has (minus, of course, the “causal” atom or electron or roullette wheel spin or blown tire/not blown tire that caused it to seek its own separate universe in the first place).

Sorry, folks, but this explanation does not help me sleep any better at night than CCC. Given the impossibility of the things we are seeing in physics these days, I say we leave everything on the table, at least for now. --Covemanic (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination. (I'm the nominator, but I'm on vacation in South Africa using someone else's computer). I agree that this should be on DRV, where more people might comment. Retargeting would effectively override the AFD, where people argued that CCC was invalid. I still think there are navigation problems, but I'll leave it to the experts to sort them out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.40.212 (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Poopoo McDuffypants → Mark Sanford

The result of the debate was speedy-deleted as an attack page created by a confirmed vandal. Rossami (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason given in the article about why this redirect should be used, and the article at http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1057265/strand_residents_give_site_unique_tweaks/index.html suggests that it is vandalism 86.150.252.34 (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete: personal attack, no encyclopedic value. Scog (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] June 1

[edit] The underground → Underground

The result of the debate was keep. VegaDark (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no point having a redirect to a disambiguation page. Either it redirects to an actual article or it doesn't exist. Surely every article on wikipedia could have 'The' put before it and redirected. extraordinary (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This was not created solely to put a "the" in front of the title. It was created in Oct 2005 because an anon editor had created a stub about an university tabloid. At the time, it was not clear if that tabloid would meet our inclusion criteria or not but having that as the sole name would certainly be confusing. Redirecting to the disambiguation page would force the editor to find a better title - or if he/she chose not to, clean up a non-notable article. So the motives for creating this redirect make sense to me. The question now is what to do with it. If the content was pulled out of history and used in some other article (such as the university page), we might have to keep it to comply with the attribution history requirements of GFDL. I consider that unlikely in this case. It's old enough by now that the anon user has either come back and found the correct page or is not going to. I'm going to argue for a weak keep in this case because the costs of correcting the issue (small as they are) are greater than the costs of keeping the redirect. Rossami (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep - on the contrary, there is a point in having a redirect to a disambiguation page, and in fact we have several of them. It's because the Underground page contains a couple of entries titled 'The Underground' (The Underground (concert venue), The Underground (TV series)), which someone typing this in may be looking for; it makes sense to include them on the Underground disambiguation page as the names are sufficiently similar. The underground could be turned into a separate disambiguation page for the entries beginning with 'the', though I don't think that's necessary, or kept as a redirect here; either way, it definitely shouldn't be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Terraxos.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Kramers-Krönig relation → Kramers–Kronig relation

The result of the debate was Withdrawn. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

~~Ralph Kronig is spelled without the Umlaut on the "o", and the redirect is not in use for the article name space. Crowsnest (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)~~

Whitdrawing the RFD: deleting the redirect will remove information on the page history, since it was created as Kramers-Krönig relation and renamed later. Crowsnest (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep as a plausible typo. (For instance, I didn't realize until now that it was Kronig and not Krönig). Scog (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment To me it seems not useful to make and keep redirects for all plausible typo's. And such redirects with typo's may be linked to in articles. Things should be verifiable on WP, and this is verified wrong. Crowsnest (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  - Although I understand your point of view, the general consensus is that redirects for plausible typos do more good than harm, by making it easier for casual users to find the pages they're actually looking for. To quote the first point under The guiding principles of RFD above: If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect. Scog (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    - Yes, but more applicable here seems (to me) WP:RFD#DELETE Reason 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. Crowsnest (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    - Further, just before your quote from the The guiding principles of RFD it says: 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. When performing a Google search on: Kramers-Krönig relation, Wikipedia is on top, through the redirect: Kramers-Kronig relations (which is a plausible and correct redirect). So I think your argument does not hold. Crowsnest (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep as many English-speaking and -reading people are unaware of diacritics, and many of those who are aware of them don't know how to create "ö" in the search box. B.Wind (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's the reverse in this situation. The article's real name does not have a diacritic because Mr. Kronig did not use an umlaut on the letter "o" in his surname. The redirect under discussion goes from a name with a diacritic to a name without one, not the other way around. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep. The fact that the article was first created at the other spelling and had to be moved is clear evidence that the typo is plausible. The redirect also helps preserve the history of the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

~~The article was not created with the Umlaut, the redirect "Kramers-Krönig relation" was made later, by someone who thought that to be the correct spelling. Crowsnest (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)~~
That is a strong reason to keep the redirect, see WP:RFD#KEEP, no. 1. I whitdraw the nomination for deletion, and will remove the tag from the redirect page. Crowsnest (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Ao no kishi → List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters#Blue_Knight

Unnecessary and unused redirect. Not a likely search term and nothing links here. Created by overly enthusiastic editors of Tokyo Mew Mew. Would like these removed as part of the TMM clean up effort. Tried to CSD as G6 which was declined for "no apparent rationale for g6" and tried R3 but they were just reverted, so now bringing here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Proper transliteration of this character's original name. Disagree that it's an unlikely search term, at least insofar as anyone's going to be searching for The Blue Knight (Tokyo Mew Mew) (where this pointed for more than a year before it was merged). As a synonym, it's neither novel nor obscure, and no other rationale for deletion has been presented. Keep. —Cryptic 08:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep Redirects are cheap; I think it would be useful as a search term. Keep in mind that lack of articles linking to the redirect isn't a reason to delete. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Who knows what kibd of people that access the English Wikipedia? English, having the most articles and widely speaken around the world, might be used by people of all cultures, Indian, Candian, etc. My point is that Tokyo Mew Mew fans could be Japanese or English, the show being broadcasted in noth languages, but then the English fans could for some reason be more acquanted with the Japanese name of Blue Night, but since all cultures could access this page, Japanese people could type in Ao no kishi, but I suppose that if Japanese people wanted to find information on this character, they would go to the Japanese Wikipedia(If there is one, I'm not sure)DA PIE EATER (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is one[16] :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Cryptic and Jeremy. Shiroi Hane (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep this is the name used by fans who speak languages with latin alphabets, so it's a likely search term for that character --Enric Naval (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ao no Kishi → List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters#Blue_Knight

As above, keep. —Cryptic 08:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep Useful as a search term; lack of articles linking here isn't a reason to delete. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment per my above comment. DA PIE EATER (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Cryptic and Jeremy. Shiroi Hane (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep see my arguments on the other redirect above --Enric Naval (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Akasaka Kei-itiro → List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters#Keiichiro_Akasaka

The transliteration's unusual but not at all implausible. Harmless. Keep. —Cryptic 08:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep per my arguments above. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not only is it an unusual romanization, it would appear to be unique so I see little value. Shiroi Hane (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete looking at google, it's a very unusual spelling, and many of the few hits seem to come from sites that spider wikipedia and try to attract visitors with empty pages based on the names of the pages --Enric Naval (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per all of the above. Greg Jones II 18:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kei-itiro Akasaka → List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters#Keiichiro_Akasaka

As above, keep. —Cryptic 08:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep per my arguments above. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not only is it an unusual romanization, it would appear to be unique so I see little value. Shiroi Hane (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete see my comments for above redirect --Enric Naval (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per all of the above. Greg Jones II 18:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quiche (Tokyo Mew Mew) → List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters#Kish

Unnecessary and unused redirect. Not a likely search term, not a possible misspelling at all, and nothing links here. Created by overly enthusiastic editors of Tokyo Mew Mew. Would like these removed as part of the TMM clean up effort. Tried to CSD as G6 which was declined for "no apparent rationale for g6" and tried R3 but they were just reverted, so now bringing here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As with Pie and Tart, this character's name was food-based; that the official translation disguises this is neither unusual nor particularly relevant. Googling for Quiche "Mew Mew" -Wikipedia gets just short of ten thousand hits. Keep. —Cryptic 08:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Created this a long time ago as a redirect from the real/intended name (which was used, for example, in Newtype USA long before the manga and anime were brought over here) to the tokyopopism which while official, is incorrect (I stopped buying the manga after a volume or two as the translation errors and inconsistencies were getting annoying). Note that there was quite a bit of fighting over TMM articles at the time (and probably has been since), the Kish one more than most. Don't really see why it needs to be deleted. Shiroi Hane (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep per my arguments above. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
keep seems that fans have adopted this name as an alternative for Kish, so they will search for it --Enric Naval (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Probably worth mentioning that they would be searching for "quiche" and there is a link to the correct page from Quiche (disambiguation) so I'm still on the fence on this one. Shiroi Hane (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cyniclons Dren → List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters#Kish

Keep per my arguments above. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete This Race-Name redirect seems pointless - to use a more popular example we don't have a "Vulcans Spock" redirect. Shiroi Hane (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete only some hits at google from fans using the combination of the race name and the english version of the name. Dren is only mentioned at target as the english version of the name, and it's a minor character, so let's cleanup these, and let the search engine direct people to the list of characters --Enric Naval (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cyniclons Tarb → List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters#Tart

Keep per my arguments above. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete This Race-Name redirect seems pointless - to use a more popular example we don't have a "Vulcans Spock" redirect. Shiroi Hane (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete See arguments for Cyniclons Dren above --Enric Naval (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cyniclons Sardon → List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters#Pie

Unnecessary and unused redirects. Not a likely search term and nothing links here. Created by overly enthusiastic editors of Tokyo Mew Mew. Would like these removed as part of the TMM clean up effort. Tried to CSD as G6 which was declined for "no apparent rationale for g6" and tried R3 but they were just reverted, so now bringing here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep per my arguments above. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete This Race-Name redirect seems pointless - to use a more popular example we don't have a "Vulcans Spock" redirect. Shiroi Hane (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete See arguments for Cyniclons Dren above --Enric Naval (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Donnie Darko 2 → Donnie Darko (2001 film) → Donnie_Darko

The result of the debate was target changed, withdrawn. VegaDark (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Triple chained redirect, both created the same day by user. Yep, you guessed it, it's User:Hashmi, Usman, I'm starting to think of opening a RFC on this user. I left a few harsh words on his talk page[17] including a link to the discussion on him on this same page. Enric Naval (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Retarget Donnie Darko 2 to S. Darko. The sequel has begun shooting and has been given the title S. Darko per reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Retarget per above, now this film officially exists. Terraxos (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Nom withdrawn Retargeted to suggested location --Enric Naval (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Transformers_4 → Transformers (film)

The result of the debate was } delete all 3 - I was going to keep the third since it was added late and I wasn't sure if the participants saw the addition, but upon further examination the redirect target isn't even valid. No prejudice to recreation when these movies are officially announced, of course. VegaDark (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Using wikipedia as a WP:CRYSTAL ball. Notice similar redirects by User:Hashmi, Usman on WP:RFD. Related redirect created the same day:

Transformers_5 → Transformers (film)
Transformers_3 → Transformers (film)#Sequels (newly added)

Notice that the film article would count as "Transformers 3", which also redirects there, unless I'm miscounting Enric Naval (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete both. That takes WP:CRYSTAL to a whole new extreme. Has movie 2 even entered production yet? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Transformers_2 is scheduled for 2009..... --Enric Naval (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPEXISTS → Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?

This redirect is offensive and uncivil. Who wants their work called crap? Also, when used on a newcomer, this is easily hostile. And per WP:DBN: nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. Ostap 00:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep for now. The only other shortcut is WP:WAX, which, while shorter, is not clear. However, if you can come up with a better shortcut that you think is more civil, I will support you, but for now I see no problem with this shortcut which has been used for since last year. --Bduke (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- There is Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF. The word crap is the problem, I think. Ostap 01:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep The number of links this would break is far too great. I could support deprecating the use of the redirect, so that further use is minimized. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep and depreciate in a style similar to what was done with WP:VAIN and WP:VANITY. This gets way too much use to justify a delete, but it should be discouraged. --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete It's uncivil and it is also too long to be useful. The para that it points to is just part of an essay and is largely useless as a debating point since it has equal force both ways. People should be engaging with the article in question, not throwing facile, fecal slogans around. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Whether it's deleted or not, it will still be cited - whether it's desirable or not - in deletion debates, as so many nonexistent Wikipedia shortcuts. In the long run, this is making a mountain out of a molehill. Meh. I also suggest that WP:BEANS will quickly come into play here. B.Wind (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep it conveys tone, and gets the point across, and B.wind is correct it will still be used if deleted. Fasach Nua (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Many expletives are used here but often result in censure for uncivil behaviour. Why should we encourage this one when there are politer and shorter alternatives? Colonel Warden (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  - I can understand about the expletive, maybe change it to a soft redirect, gradually phase it out, and create WP:OTHERUBISHEXISTS which conveys a similar tone, with less WP:CIVIL issues Fasach Nua (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    - I think calling a person's contributions "rubbish" is as bad as calling them "crap". WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:WAX are fine. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
      - You arent calling anything crap, you are refuting an argument by highlighting where that argument can take you Fasach Nua (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep - clearly explains a commonly-used argument. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 21:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Widely used redirect. Wah wah it hurts my feelings - I'm tired of these nominations. --- RockMFR 23:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. Ostap 02:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep and depreciate per UsaSatsui.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep. It may be marginally incivil but it is heavily linked all through the project's history. There are almost 1500 inbound links in current use. Even if you orphaned all of those, it will still exist all over the project's page histories. Deleting this redirect would create massive and unsolvable problems as you broke all those links. Rossami (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep and depreciate I understand now the problems deleting would cause. I agree with User:UsaSatsui. Ostap 02:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Retarget to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists I would urge all previous commenters to consider this before the end of the discussion.--Serviam (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Deprecate per UsaSatsui above - this is an unnecessarily uncivil shortcut, and people should be encouraged to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or the shorter but more cryptic WP:WAX instead. However, it is worth preserving as a soft redirect for historical reasons. Terraxos (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, now independent of the "crap" word, the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists are two different pages is incredibly confusing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep but consider retargeting all these different things consistently to either the separate essay or the section in the larger essay. I don't see this as incivil. When using it, you are not actually calling your opponent's work "crap". You are reacting to an argument in which the fact that some other material is "crap" is already mutually taken for granted, most of the time. And the assumption that that other material is "crap" is a crucial, indispensible part of that argument. "Other stuff exists" is actually nonsense, it doesn't get the point across at all. Of course, "stuff" exists, so what? The fact that the other stuff is "crap" is what the debate is all about! Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep, don't mind if it's depreciated, but for me it's the perfect summing up in a nutshell of the paragraph. Drum guy (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep. The potential "offense" is extremely small beer indeed and we have enough pointless bowdlerisation. tomasz. 11:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 29

[edit] Operating systems derived from MS-DOS → DOS

This came from an against-consensus move; with such a long and wordy name, it doesn't seem useful as a search aid. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

From the pagehistory of the current redirect, from the deleted pagehistory of the page it was moved back to and from the Talk page discussion, it appears that this was a good-faith attempt to move the page. That attempt was ultimately overturned but the change to the name is part of the article's history. Leaving the redirect as part of the documentation of that move (and as a way to catch any inbound links that were created during the months while it was at the other title) is generally accepted. This redirect doesn't seem to be doing any harm. Unless there's a better reason to delete it, keep because redirects do far more than merely support the search engine. Rossami (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article was as at that title for only 7 hours and half --Enric Naval (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  - According to this, the page was moved from DOS to MS-DOS Compatible Operating Systems at 10:01, 2 January 2008. According to here, it was moved back at 00:00, 25 March 2008. Rossami (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    - Check that title- it was moved and moved back twice. That's a different redirect. I moved it back in the next edit, see here. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
      - I see that Rossami linked to a talk page discussion, but this particular move was never discussed on Talk:DOS --Enric Naval (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        Ah, I see now that it was moved twice - once in January and once in May, both quickly reverted. And those titles were close enough that I mistook them for the same move. My apologies. The Talk page discussion was about the Jan move. Rossami (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep because, erm, I actually like the title. I would probably use it to create links to the DOS page. It would make for a good article name, so I would just keep it there, so other people won't try to create it on the same place. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- P.D.: The RfD notice on the talk page will prevent good faith editors from re-creating the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  - Talk pages of deleted pages get deleted as G8, regardless of whether they have past XfD notices or not. That being said, when an editor goes to create the page, the deletion log would the page as having been deleted before, so that would probably do the trick. Wait a minute, I misread what you were saying somehow to refer to if it were deleted as opposed to staying as a redirect...strike that. VegaDark (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Lifespan → Template:Lifetime

The result of the debate was Turn in to soft redirect for now, due to lack of other suggestions/participation in general. If someone thinks the problem still exists after that, they are free to renominate. VegaDark (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Unused old redirect. None uses it. May cause problems to have many redirects to Lifetime. Magioladitis (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This redirect was previously kept as a result of a TfD discussion from July 2005. Editors at the time pointed out that you would not know if the redirect was being used or not since it is always used via substitution. What has changed since then? Rossami (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to simplify things around Lifetime. Moreover, for subst: we have {{Lived}}. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Soft redirect to not break old discussion links, but to discourage as a true template redirect. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is a problem with the redirect, Ned's proposal could be a reasonable solution. I'm not sure if I understand the problem, though? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem either, but I'll go with that Ned says --Enric Naval (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Alternate vs Alternative templates

The result of the debate was keep. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

These are just plain word ignorance or mental laziness... they redirect to the proper templates, but any editors herein should understand the distinction between alternate (cyclic) and alternative (other), or we'd be better off without them editing anything! //FrankB 04:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep as foreseeable search item, for "alternate" has multiple meanings, one of which is "alternative." B.Wind (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Keep — this appears to be a set of nominations in bad faith based on frustration of an editor with the perceived stupidity of other editors rather than a valid reason for deletion. The user has prominently stated on User:Fabartus that he has left Wikipedia out of frustration with deletionists. Notice of departure-in-anger is dated 18 April; therefore, all subsequent edits should be considered suspect. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 09:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep. BWind is correct that the word "alternate" has multiple acceptable meanings in English. Rossami (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep, people will keep making this mistake, the redirects just help them to label pages. yeah, people are lazy sometimes, that's why we have some silly redirects on templates, like the speedy templates having lots of different names for the same template, so people can use the one they remember better. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep As Above Prom3th3an (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I am sure I used at least one of them in the past. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Snowball Keep The sense of alternate as meaning a second option is not a new invention. Among other things, in HTML, it's referred to as alternate text, not alternative text. Also, anyone who tries to persuade me to their point of view by telling me that anyone who doesn't agree with them is either ignorant or lazy, well, that person won't get very far with me. Insult is a poor substitute for argument. I hold out hope that in my 4,000 edits is something worth keeping, despite Fra's opinion of me as an editor. --SSBohio 04:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Suicide mission → Suicide attack

The result of the debate was turn in to article - Keep in mind I will be leaving the redirect in place until then, so the author can get proper attribution for the content by making the edit themselves. VegaDark (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusion: a suicide mission is NOT synonymous with a suicide attack. A suicide mission refers to an operation which faces such long odds of success that it's likely the person(s) undertaking it will be killed. A suicide attack refers to an action in which the attacker's death is inseparable from the action itself (i.e., where the attacker's death is a natural result of the attack itself). Examples of the former would be the Battle of Thermopylae and the 54th Massachusetts' assault on Fort Wagner in the Civil War. Examples of the latter would be kamikaze. PassionoftheDamon (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep foreseeable search item, but an article covering suicide missions would be better. In this case deletion is the worse option. B.Wind (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I am surprised that we don't already have an article on this military term. I was even more surprised at the vandalism in the deleted versions of this page. Keep as a redirect in order to preempt a recurrence of the vandalism but encourage someone to overwrite it either with a better target or with actual encyclopedic content. Remember that anyone can overwrite the redirect - it does not have to be deleted first. Rossami (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment I think that the most popular usage nowadays is "suicide bombing", I searched google a bit, and I found it used in the context of Iraq War with the meaning of "suicide bombing" on the Telegraph [18], on The Guardian [19], and on salon.com [20], and on the context of trying to suicide bomb a restaurant on London [21]. I think that the meaning proposed by the nominator should be introduced on the target article into its own section, with the redirect re-targeted there. If the section gets enough references and size, it should be split out into what is now just a redirect. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep as redirect since the target is appropiate, see my comment above. A stub or a disambiguation page can be created with both meanings. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ I agree with the nom's reasoning. Common usage of "suicide mission" seems to point to any mission where the person or people involved not only have a low chance of success, but a high likelihood of not surviving it. The difference is intending to kill oneself versus putting oneself at great risk. I don't think putting this into "suicide attack" would be appropriate, as it's not necessarily related to attacks. A separate article would be better, but I'm not sure this would go beyond a dicdef. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment I agree with the nom's rationale, but I'm sure we can retarget to something... -- Ned Scott 04:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
~~Delete~~. I agree with the nomination here, the target article does not cover what the redirect title is saying it will cover, therefore the redirect is misleading, and can be confusing, which is a reason to delete a redirect according to point 2 in the WP:R section. Although Rossami is right in that redirects don't need to be deleted in order to create an article, I think a redlink will do more to encourage the creation of a something better. The present situation, with a redirect pointing to something else, is worse than useless. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have posted User:Sjakkalle/Suicide mission in my userspace as a start for something which could eventually replace the redirect. However, after Googling a bit on the term, I have realized that "suicide mission" is often used synonymously with "suicide attack", and as such, the redirect is not as unhelpful as I thought. Still, the difference does suggest that it should eventually be replaced with an article. Any help at developing the material I have now to a reasonable article would be greatly appreciated. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  - I !voted above to keep as a redirect, but a stub covering all meaning is also ok --Enric Naval (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    - I didn't even think of the fuel truck incident as an example, but it's a good one. Keep the stub proposed by Sjakkalle, it looks like a good one. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Stubify - retarget to Sjakkalle's stub above. While 'suicide mission' is sometimes used synonymously with 'suicide attack', it has a slightly different meaning as well; it would be best if this went to an article explaining that, with a prominent link to suicide attack for people who are looking for that subject. Terraxos (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] AshlÅ“ Simpson → Ashlee Simpson

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm also including Ashlœ Simpson and Ashlœ in this discussion.

Redirects from unlikely typos. No incoming links. Created in 2005, so they don't qualify for CSD R3. I just can't realistically imagine anyone actually typing any of these into a search. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete as redirects from implausible typos. Terraxos (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete - will an admin consider a 3-year-old redirect "recently" enough created to invoke CSD R3? B.Wind (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: It's up to the admin, of course, but "recently" is a relative term. Recorded human history spans some 5,000 years, so 2005 is pretty recent by that standard! ;) Russ (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete speedy or not, they are still implausible redirects.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Um, this is the English Wikipedia, I don't think anybody is going to seach for this many special characters when they can just type in her name. ~A H 1^(TCU) 21:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete unlikely typo, notice that the "languages" list at the left does not include any article with those spellings! --Enric Naval (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] May 28

The result of the debate was delete now that the AfD has been closed. I don't think we want to start seeing these type of redirects pop up for every AfD, that would create some very bad precedent to keep thousands of similar redirects. VegaDark (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asset Voting → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asset voting

Please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Asset voting. This was made to facilitate some off-site canvassing. Probably not very fair, and I don't know that this redirect helps us. rootology (T) 23:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing my RFD. There wasn't any disruption intended--any redirect you put up for deletion by it's very nature gets sort of broken. rootology (T) 01:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Rootology. I think that maybe we shouldn't tag redirects the same way as articles. But I can see arguments both ways. --Abd (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep.:This is totally out of order. First of all, there is a claim of "off-site canvassing," apparently based purely on speculation as to what was sent to a mailing list, not trusting that the mention of the AfD was neutral. The announcement on the list was rigorously neutral, the list is not an advocacy or biased list, but is one which has many experts as subscribers. The purpose in posting the announcement was to allow an audience of experts to see the article itself and the AfD, and the message cautioned against voting just to vote. The only reason Rootology even knew about the email message was that, as usual, when I've notified some group of Wikipedia process, I note it on the relevant page. Why the Redirect? Well, in the email voting was incorrectly capitalized. The easiest and simplest way to fix this is with a redirect, one which does no harm at all (unless allowing a reader to reach the page they want to see is "harm"). If the email was improper, that could be mentioned in the AfD as canvassing often is. In creating this RfD, Rootology broke the Redirect, which he had commented out. I fixed it by placing the RfD material below the redirect and removing the #. To allow what he did is to essentially remove the redirect without discussion. The question of the redirect is not about canvassing. The question is whether or not a person is likely to be searching for the actual AfD and uses this mispelling for some reason. With this RfD, we are now wasting more editor time, and making more fuss. The alleged canvass was neutral, and nothing has been cited or shown to the contrary, so removing the redirect, and that is what the notice did, could look like an attempt to bias the AfD by placing an obstacle to finding it. Given how valuable editor time is and how harmless the redirect is, this should be speedy closed. (someone might read that mailing list post years from now (the archives are googleable) and wonder, what was that about?, and follow the link. What will they find? Shouldn't they find the AfD?).--Abd (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Abd, the notice is *always* placed this way, so that any editor using the redirect will see the RfD notice and has the option to go to the discussion page --Enric Naval (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete - this redirect should never have been formed in the first place as this actually confuses the issue of a pending AfD. The appropriate place to note that the title of the article under discussion is malformed is in the AfD discussion itself. While there is no doubt that the editor created it in good faith, it does more harm than good here, and I believe CSD G2 would cover it as a test page if the redirect's creator (or an admin) would agree to it. B.Wind (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion. Those who specifically need a redirect to find the AfD should try Asset Voting, which redirects to Asset voting, containing the tag. B.Wind (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the speedy tag, as the redirect was evidently intentionally created and so the criterion does not really apply. If the creator decides to agree to deletion, he may of course tag it {{Db-G7}}. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy keep, valid redirect. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete it when the AfD ends, there is no need for a redirect from a AfD with a malformed name. It just makes it look as if the redirect Asset Voting was named for AfD :D . Altough, if the mailing list is published on a public website, and it's a live link, then we should keep the redirect for the people who read that page and click on that link. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There was indeed a post to a mailing list that is archived and google-indexed. Here is the message:[22]. (Those who claimed it was canvassing did so at a point where they were speculating on what the message was. There will be some clicks, could be years from now. If it weren't a mailing list, I'd have fixed it. (I did sent a message noting the spelling error, but, especially later, that message might not be seen. On the other hand, the correction is the very next message in the archive, so it might be seen.)--Abd (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Enric. It's helpful now, but after the AfD is over, future confusion might come about if a separate article is created with a capital "V". There could be confusion over which article was nominated. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That would only happen if we change our naming conventions. And, in this case, someone looking at the incorrect address would see the new AfD, for even more confusion. The redirect being there will signal to whoever creates the AfD page that the other name exists, so it can be sorted out. So this is actually an argument to keep the redirect.--Abd (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand- let me make a hypothetical situation. A couple of years from now, someone makes an article about a company, book, etc. that uses a capital letter on the second word. I've checked to see if an article has old AfDs by typing "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_for_deletion/article" in my address bar. Somebody does that for this article, and hits the AfD, and doesn't notice the "redirected from" or case of the letter "v". Now they're thinking that the newer article was AfDed, and if they didn't see the discrepancy, is posting at village pump, editor assistance, or otherwise, asking why there's an AfD without a deletion in the log; or, if it's kept, how the AfD is older than the article. It would just be confusion, and once the AfD ends, wouldn't have much of a use. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't want to tendentiously argue. I agree that there is a very small chance of confusion from this, but think that the confusion would easily be resolved. I.e. the user would try to create the AfD on "Asset Voting" and would find the Redirect, which would point to the existing AfD, which obviously is about a different subject. So the *situation* would be clear to anyone with a clue as to how the wiki functions. They would look at the Redirect. And we could put a note after the redirect, right on the page, why it is there. Classic solution here would be disambiguation, I think. But look at the probabilities: there would have to be a book or some other proper noun, "Asset Voting." The chance of that is very, very small, probably will never happen -- though I wish it would! -- and if so, by that time, we might need a disambiguation page anyway. Second possibility is to just name the new Afd with (2nd). Harmless. There would be a note in the AfD that the prior AfD was about a different subject. So, on the one hand, a speculation that there might be a moment of confusion for a relatively experienced user, vs. what I see as almost certain confusion for quite a few probably inexperienced users. How many, I don't know, but because I think this is going to be a rising topic, given recent books and internet discussion, it could be hundreds or thousands. Having thought about it this much, now, I've become far firmer on Keep. Your call, folks. By the way, sorry for making the error in the first place! But I had no idea that someone would propose the redirect for deletion! (He later realized it was a mistake, hence his withdrawal of the nomination above.)--Abd (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: AfD is now closed (no consensus, defaulting to keep Asset voting). I urge closing this RfD as well, preferably deleting this unnecessary, confusing, and redundant redirect. B.Wind (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] WikiProject → Wikipedia:WikiProject

Similarly to the redirects previously deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_10#Cross-namespace_redirects_to_WikiProjects, these are another batch of cross-namespace redirects to WikiProjects from article space. The same argument applies: because of the automatic redirection from WP: to Wikipedia, and the autosuggestion feature recently added to the search box, these sort of redirects are no longer necessary to find WikiProjects. As they are unneeded cross-namespace redirects, they ought to be deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep I think. "no longer necessary" is not an argument for deletion if they are harmless. If there is harm in keeping these, I'd certainly withdraw my keep. --Abd (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- The harm in this case comes from not properly separating the encyclopedic content from the encyclopedia-building content, which can confuse casual readers and editors alike. The main article namespace is supposed to be reserved for articles, so getting rid of unnecessary non-article content that's been placed there for historical reasons is a net plus. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I often accidentally type "Wikiproject:whatever" instead of "Wikipedia:Wikiproject whatever" and it is much easier if there's just a redirect to the right page. The mistake is an easy one to make and an obvious one, so why not have the redirects to help everyone out? Alinnisawest (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- With the current functionality of the search box, you don't need cross-namespace redirects to do this. If your search defaults are set up to search the project namespace, typing "WikiProject Foo" in the search box will automatically prompt you to search for "Wikipedia:WikiProject Foo" instead. That wasn't the case before, so there was some call for such redirects. However, they aren't needed anymore. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  - True, but who uses the prompt, anyway? I have a slow connection, and I'd have to wait about five minutes for the prompt to load. It's a lot quicker and much easier for users with slow connections to just get redirected to the page they need to go to. Alinnisawest (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep. The arguments of theoretical harm are minor compared to our need to assist our own readers and editors. I see no possibility of confusion over these titles. Anyone attempting to go to a "wikiproject" page is going to expect to find a project page, not an encyclopedia article. The argument that these are unnecessary just because you could use the search box is also irrelevant. Not everyone navigates that way (and even for those who do, the new search algorithms are not nearly as perfect as is being made out here). Rossami (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete those with the colons (i.e. starting with "Wikiproject:), and keep the rest. I can see the usefulness of these, but those with the colons look like they're in a namespace that doesn't exist. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep Definitely helps navigation. I just recently started to use the WP tag before the project's name, even established editors simply type the WikiProject's name to find one. Squash Racket (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete, with the exception of the first two, per nom. CNRs blur the line between the encyclopaedia and the project to build the encyclopaedia, and as the whole purpose of the encyclopaedia is to be able to take it away and use it, they should be avoided wherever possible. The redirects are harmful as all the pages (with the exception of the first three) contain terms that people would use to search the encyclopaedia for articles, and they will clutter up search results both here and elsewhere, where they will also create live broken links. The pages have a trivial edit history, except the last which should be hist merged. matt br 22:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep I discovered this RfD when I needed the redirect, so clearly I'm voting keep. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I find it quite interesting that the original (linked) discussion seemed to be a pretty unambiguous delete, while this discussion seems to be shaping toward a keep. What's different? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to forget that consensus can change. B.Wind (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that you've linked a shortcut, but I'm not sure what that demonstrates -- I'm not asking whether these two discussions are coming out differently, but why they so directly contradict each other. When two discussions produce such vastly different results simply because a different group of Wikipedians was randomly selected, the implication doesn't seem to be that consensus has changed but rather that it may not have existed to begin with. Perhaps the issue needs wider discussion, lest we continue to make these deletion debates random dice rolls. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete as cross-namespace. "WP:" shortcuts are shorter, so these redirects don't lessen the amount of typing required. Khatru2 (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The amount of typing isn't the issue at hand, it's the convenience and ease of use for users. The point of redirects are to help users who accidentally type the wrong thing- which all of the above redirects are for. Alinnisawest (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep i could see myself trying to find a wikiProject and typing in WikiProject:(name). So I believe that are very useful, thats how i too found this discussion in the first place. Printer222 (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:DRAMA → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus to retarget. VegaDark (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems inappropriate to me. It doesn't seem to have any use other than as a dismissive or mean comment on someone's actions ("He's just creating WP:DRAMA by reporting me") or as a joke. The first is uncivil, the second is inappropriate as I don't believe joke redirects should point to serious pages. Finally, it trivializes WP:AN/I...I'm sure there are a lot of people who bitch and moan about stupidity there, but AN/I is a very important page, and I think people need to know they can go there if they need to, lodge a complaint, and it will be taken seriously...redirects like this one hinder that. There has to be a better target for this redirect. UsaSatsui (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Retarget, sounds like it should be pointing to Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre. - Bobet 18:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Retarget per Bobet. Inappropriate and an unlikely search term that mocks a serious noticeboard which is vital to maintaining the sanity of operations. Also, I have a feeling that this was created to highlight and poke fun at the amount of 'drama' on WP, when all it has succeeded in doing is create (a small amount) more! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:56, May 28, 2008 (UTC)
Keep as is per previous RfD and AN/I thread. The redirect is not "mean" or "dismissive"; it doesn't hinder anything, and while I'm usually not a fan of WP:HUMOR, this doesn't bother me. {{Humor}} is allowed in Wikispace, and this was a good natured joke. Honestly, this nom is not based in policy. - auburnpilot talk 20:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
~~Retarget~~ Keep,~~This is an offensive redirect.~~ Jokes don't belong in what is effectively part of the user interface. On the other hand, perhaps we should look at the occurrence of Wikipedia:DRAMA I'll come back. --Abd (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC) I came back. Per arguments below, I've changed to keep. --Abd (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No retarget. The WikiProject doesn't need another shortcut. This shortcut has historically been used to point to WP:ANI - there is no good reason to change it now. Either keep as is or delete it. I'm leaning towards keep, since the reason given is dubious. I doubt the presence of this redirect has in any way affected who goes to ANI or what goes on there. If you have a problem with a particular user's usage of this redirect, tell them about it. --- RockMFR 01:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure ani needs any more shortcuts either, especially ones that aren't actually used to find the page. - Bobet 16:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep humor in wikipedia space; if you don't think it's an apt title you've never had WP:AN/I on your watch list, imo. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Humor is fine for pages like this. But we shouldn't be making a joke out of ANI. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Drama: A situation having vivid, emotional conflict. Yea, sounds like ANI to me. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 15:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, could one of you please explain why retargeting this to something that is actually related to the title is a worse choice than keeping it as a redirect that no one has ever used except to make snide commentary? Yes, ANI contains drama. That's really very clever, but doesn't mean the redirect has any value. Usefulness>nerdy inside jokes, and I don't see any comments stating that this was ever used for anything else. - Bobet 16:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  - I don't see how retargeting it to WP:THEATRE is gonna be any more helpful. Anyone looking for a Wikiproject on theatre is gonna try that first. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 17:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  - What about a disambiguation page? Seems to help people find Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre while maintaining (arguably improving) the cheeky commentary many users hold dear. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    - I don't think that would work. Currently the point of this redirect is that people can link to WP:DRAMA in discussions, and surprise people with their cleverness when it actually takes them to ani. There would be no reason to do that if it was a dab page, since they'd have to pipe the link to the correct target (which would mean they might as well link with LOL DRAMA I'M FUNNY). You could add a dab link to wp:ani, but that would just lead to the shortcut being retargeted by most random passers-by, since that's the most obvious solution. You could retarget to the theatre wikiproject and add a dab link to ANI on that page, but it would eventually get deleted because it makes no actual sense. - Bobet 11:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
      - Excellent reply, thank you. That said, I beg to differ regarding the "point" of this link -- in my opinion, almost all inside jokes of this nature are best as easter eggs that should rarely ever be used in actual discussion. If a dab page like this discourages people from using the link in rude, inappropriate ways, then that's arguably an okay solution to that problem, no? It's the only solution I can think of that (might) placate both significant groups of opinion here. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Short, easy to remember and apposite. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep: Quite fitting. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep (edit conflict) I think it's pretty harmless. Plus, I got a kick out of it. hmwith τ 18:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Retarget, while I love it to death, as it stands I must agree with User:Bobet on this matter. There are other projects like WikiProject Theatre which need it more than ANI. Besides, typing WP:ANI is faster than typing WP:DRAMA, effectively rendering the 'shortcut' fairly unnecessary. FusionMix 22:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre already has four WP:shortcuts. How many do they need? - auburnpilot talk 23:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If they need a shorter one, they could use WP:PLAY or WP:PLAYS or WP:P/ART or WP:PARTS or WP:PART or WP:SCENE. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 23:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep it's already been used at a lot of pages as a redirect to ANI. Changing it would break a lot of links on old talk page discussions. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep Anyone uncomfortable with making a joke out of ANI is taking Wikipedia way, way too seriously. Evouga (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Retarget per those above. I can see the humor intended, but this isn't a good kind of humor. It's basically saying anyone who makes a report there is creating drama, which isn't fair to those reports that aren't drama, even if they're the minority. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Retarget per above. While I love this redirect, and it is frequently an appropriate description of AN/I, it's just not that useful - whereas a redirect to the Theatre WikiProject actually might be. Jokes in WP-space are fine, but not when they get in the way of actually helping to improve the encyclopedia. Terraxos (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep the ability to self-relativate is a good thing. Some humour doesn't hurt anyone. And lightening things up seems very useful as well FelisLeo^Talk! 13:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please use this redirect in a fashion that's actually funny. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  - Sex with my GF was getting boring so I watched the WP:DRAMA instead. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 03:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    - That's not what I meant...but still, rofl --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Retarget to the same place WP:WIKIDRAMA currently points, which is Wikipedia:Is wikidrama bad?. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep It's funny because it's true. If you can't handle the heat, get out of Wikipedia.--Tombstone (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Johannes Kepler University of Linz → Johannes Kepler University Linz

The result of the debate was Speedy close - this should be discussed on the talk page(s) of the pages in question, there is no need for an RfD discussion. Non-admin closure. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 19:03, May 28, 2008 (UTC)

Should not contain a redirect but rather the actual content of the article, see discussion at Talk:Johannes Kepler University Linz. Alib (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy close. This is something to work out on the article's talk pages. Not here. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Categories: Wikipedia deletion

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

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

[edit] The guiding principles of RfD

[edit] When should we delete a redirect?

[edit] Reasons for deleting

[edit] Reasons for not deleting

[edit] Neutrality of redirects

[edit] Closing notes

[edit] How to list a redirect for deletion

[edit] Current list

[edit] June 12

[edit] Xbox 4 → Xbox

[edit] Thomas Alvarez → Ali G Indahouse#Cast

[edit] Gullu → Aishwarya Rai

[edit] RU All That? → All That

[edit] Wikipedia:O → Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage

[edit] Assume good will → Wikipedia:Assume good faith

[edit] The Prince's Trust → The Prince's Trust

[edit] June 11

[edit] Foo (disambiguation) → Foo

[edit] Brilliant prose → Wikipedia:Featured articles

[edit] Acheri → Luc d'Achéry

[edit] Scientific Mathod → Scientific method

[edit] 少年 → Shōnen

[edit] Ice Age 4 → Ice Age (film)

[edit] Pi to the millionth decimal → Pi

[edit] Spyware terminator → Spyware#Remedies and prevention

[edit] Hood rat → Hood

[edit] Vennsenne Klan → Danish Australian

[edit] Trimmed in Furs → Silent Film

[edit] William "Billy" Zane → Billy Zane

[edit] List of One World episodes → One World (TV series)

[edit] 1894 Australian shearers strike → 1891 Australian shearers' strike

[edit] June 10

[edit] F(x)=e^x → E (mathematical constant)

[edit] 8tas → Beşiktaş J.K.

[edit] 3.1415926535897932384626433515 → Pi

[edit] Luc d'Achéry → Luc d'Achery

[edit] 2648927 → O. J. Simpson

[edit] Irina Nikolaeva → Simon Ambrose

[edit] Magic Boy → Magical boy

[edit] USB 4.0 → Universal Serial Bus

[edit] The Queen of Bollywood → Aishwarya Rai

[edit] Jay Kay Rowling → J. K. Rowling

[edit] Aar Aar Chur Chur → Tamil language

[edit] Template:Restricted use → Template:Non-free restricted use

[edit] Erica Connery → Jennifer Douillard

[edit] June 9

[edit] Allah lover → Islamofascism

[edit] June 8

[edit] Circles of Reformist Initiative → Reformist Initiative Circles

[edit] List of shopping malls in New Hampshire → Category:Shopping malls in New Hampshire

[edit] June 7

[edit] Real name → Genie (feral child)

[edit] Scottish/Irish/American → Heritage

[edit] Build America → Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States

[edit] June 6

[edit] Goodbrush → Craig Mullins

[edit] Tomy Tutor → Texas Instruments TI-99/4A

[edit] Wikipedia:DOI → User:DOI bot/use

[edit] June 5

[edit] Template:CAGov → Template:Non-free USStateGov-CA

[edit] Editing Wikipedia while drunk → Wikipedia:Editing Under the Influence

[edit] Template:Ogg → Template:Non-free audio sample

[edit] Brown British → British Asian

[edit] June 4

[edit] Chetan ramlu → Kris Chetan Ramlu

[edit] Chetan Ramlu → Kris Chetan Ramlu →

[edit] Redirects created by a blocked user → various

[edit] ethnicity-related

[edit] ethnicity-related 1

[edit] ethnicity-related 2

[edit] ethnicity-related 3

[edit] ethnicity-related 4

[edit] ethnicity-related 5

[edit] ethnicity-related 6

[edit] ethnicity-related 7

[edit] ethnicity-related 8