Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 24, 2009

Elisabeth F → Fritzl case[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. As with Josef F., the argument for keeping the redirect is that "Elisabeth F" is a "plausible search term" (see Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for not deleting). And, again, the case for deleting the redirect is based primarily in the argument that the redirect "might cause confusion" (see Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting). However, that argument was not countered in this particular discussion and, notably, several of the editors who argued to keep Josef F. supported deletion of this redirect.

By the way, all abbreviated references to Elisabeth Fritzl seem to follow the format "Elisabeth F.", with a period after the 'F' (see here. I am not sure how significant this is, and whether a discussion for Elisabeth F. might produce a different outcome, but I thought it would be worth mentioning. For what it's worth, I did not consider this bit of information for the close. –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Unused and implausible. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Plausible search term and name for victim in the case used by multiple news sources (e.g. [1], [2], [3], and [4]).--Allen3 talk 21:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Too general and not precise enough. As there may be hundreds of thousands of Elisabeth F.s around the world, this could serve as the basis for bad jokes and confusion, therefore undesirable. --Catgut (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to general per Catgut; we don't want to be creating gajillions of these for every first name plus last initial, and another gajillions of first initial and last name because somewhere or another some source(s) use that formulation of the person's name. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gatgut as too general. On Wikipedia alone, there are several people who could be known as "Elisabeth F":

Elisabeth Fanger, Elisabeth Ferner, Elisabeth Filarski, Elisabeth Findlay, Elisabeth Flickenschildt, Elisabeth Foerster-Nietzsche, Elisabeth Forsselius, Elisabeth Franziska, Elisabeth Fraser, Elisabeth Frink, Elisabeth Fritzl, Elisabeth Froesslind. --Tavix (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Josef F. → Fritzl case[edit]

The result of the discussion was no consensus. In closing this discussion, I attempted to focus my reading of the discussion toward comments relevant to the appropriateness of and need for this particular redirect on the English Wikipedia, which is ultimately the scope of this discussion. Discussion about the making of interwiki links to redirects, or about censorship of the Fritzl last name in German Wikipedia, is beyond the scope of this nomination.

The case for deleting the redirect is based primarily in the argument that the redirect "might cause confusion" (see Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting). The main counter-argument to this reasoning was expressed by User:Yilloslime, who argued that, of all of the many Josefs with a last name starting with the letter "F", only Fritzl is commonly referred to as "Josef F." However, this counter-argument must be considered in light of the fact that abbreviation of last names is not so uncommon as we can afford to not worry about the potential for confusion.

Two main arguments were advanced to justify keeping the redirect. One was that this redirect is needed to allow a proper interwiki link from the German Wikipedia article about the Fritzl case. However, there was no consensus that a confusing redirect should be kept merely to accomodate the practice of another-language Wikipedia. In addition, nothing prevents the German Wikipedia from linking to Fritzl incest case via another redirect to the article; again, whether they should or should not do this is beyond the scope of this nomination.

The other argument, noted by at least five participants, was that "Josef F." is a "plausible search term", and it is this argument to keep (supported by this) that had more grounding in established guideline (see Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for not deleting #3: "They aid searches on certain terms."). While the claim that "Josef F." is the most commonly-used reference to Josef Fritzl in German-language media was challenged, the argument that it is a common reference, though not necessarily the most common one, was not refuted.

The concern that the existence of this redirect could result in misleading links is a real one, but it is partially mitigated by the fact that virtually any link to Josef F. on the English Wikipedia is almost surely inappropriate and should and can be replaced or removed. Since this will require regular monitoring of Special:Whatlinkshere/Josef F., I have bookmarked this special page and will regularly check it to ensure that there are no incoming links from articles. –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Unused and implausible. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Plausible search term and name for confessed criminal defendant in the case used by multiple news sources (e.g. [5], [6], [7], and[8]).--Allen3 talk 21:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We already have a useful redirect, namely Josef Fritzl. Furthermore, in the future there could be other persons going by the first name Josef, whose abbreviated last names would be F. My guess is, there are hundreds or even thousands of Josef F.s in German speaking countries. This could lead to some confusion and irritation, and completely innocent Josef F.s would end up linked to an infamous incest case. This is absolutely not desirable. Josef F. is simply too general and not precise enough to serve as a useful redirect. --Catgut (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to general per Catgut; we don't want to be creating gajillions of these for every first name plus last initial, and another gajillions of first initial and last name because somewhere or another some source(s) use that formulation of the person's name. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: all those "gajillions" other cases are not criminal defendants and not usually known in this abbreviated form. It is beside the point to believe that any innocent person would be linked to this case by this. --80.129.99.252 (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Josef Fritzl is not "usually known in this abbreviated form" either. We have a perfectly fine redirect: Josef Fritzl. The last name is, as the case is usually known as the Fritzl case, a lot better known than the first name. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why not a perfectly fine second redirect? --80.129.99.252 (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's unused, implausible and not necessary, we don't need J. Fritzl as a redirect either (he's not widely known as "J. Fritzl" either). Also, I second what Catgut said above, this redirect would only be useful to make bad jokes and associate innocent people with the Fritzl case, there are thousands or more Josef F.s. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • comment He's never referred to as "J. Fritzl" anywhere, and almost always only as "Josef F." in German-speaking press. See my comment below, this is not just a convention but probably a legal requirement in Germany and Austria -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Untrue. He's most widely referred to as Josef Fritzl by large German language media, including ORF, which mentions his name on thousands (literally) of web pages. It's not a "legal requirement". Then all German and Austrian mass media, including ORF, would be criminals. Are that what you are suggesting? Johnny from Bronx (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Catgut. Although Josef F. has been used for this case (as Allen3 pointed out), it would create more harm than good as there are several "Josef F."s in German speaking countries. Here is a good example of what Catgut is talking about. On Wikipedia, there are several people that could be Josef F.: Josef Fahringer, Josef Fares, Josef Feistmantl, Josef Felder, Josef Fendt, Josef Ferdinand, Josef Fessler, Josef Fiala, Josef Fischer, Josef Fischer (cyclist), Josef Florian, Josef Foerster, Josef Forster, Josef Franc, Josef Frank, Josef Frank (architect), Josef Franke, Josef Frantisek, Josef Frings, Josef Fuchs, Josef Förster. Tavix (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that none of those Josefs are ever referred to as "Josef F" while, on the other hand, Fritzl is.Yilloslime TC 03:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now the interwiki from the German wiki currently links to this redirect and, for reasons known only to them, will probably not link to directly to Josef Fritzl anytime soon (or perhaps ever), so it's not "unused". Furthermore, while there are no doubt thousands of Josef Fs in the world, only Fritzl is sometimes referenced in the media in this way, so this link is appropriate and useful. Catgut's concerns about mistaken identity seem a bit far fetched to me. Yilloslime TC 19:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to "correct" the German link, and was told by an admin there that it (and the link to Josef F. from the French Wiki) would not be changing. His response here. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It' not our problem that Germans are attempting to censor the English Wikipedia/are behaving ridiculous. Redirects at the English Wikipedia are created only to be useful at this project. We should advise them to use the correct interwiki link which is Fritzl case, it's none of their business which title is used here. As pointed out above, there are several Josef F.s and no need to redirect Josef F. to the Fritzl case. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Germans are attempting to censor the English Wikipedia" do you have any proof of that? Have those "Germans" (whoever they are) attempted to remove information from English Wikipedia? I don't think so. [In fact, if it comes to that, it's this deletion request that actually attempts to remove some information from Wikipedia.]
    "Redirects at the English Wikipedia are created only to be useful at this project." Yes, to be sure. So, are you going to delete all redirects from, say, "München" to "Munich", and from "Köln" to "Cologne", because you think they are not useful, or somehow are "attempts to censor the English Wikipedia"??? -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Germans are not trying to censor the English WP. They haven't even asked us to keep the redirect to accommodate their interwiki link version of the defendant's name. So it's no problem for us whether it goes; the German WP editors can then decide whether they want to link to our article by its proper name or just not link to it at all. That's up for their editorial discretion - just like their extreme restrictions on the usage of images containing swastikas (due to their laws or customs) doesn't impede our usage of the same images. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Untrue. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Catgut (talk · contribs). ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 03:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and use redirect below instead. --131.220.136.195 (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for now). If anything Josef F. is the best of the three 'link pages', as the name "Josef F" has been used in news articles. Our main duty as Wikipedians, regardless of any legal wrangling, must be allow access to the English-language Wikipedia. The users whose first language is German but who can read English have as much right as anyone else to read the F***** case article. Rugxulo (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ?? This page needs either to be deleted or made into a disambiguation page for Josef Fahringer, Josef Fares, Josef Feistmantl, Josef Felder, Josef Fendt, Josef Ferdinand, Josef Fessler, Josef Fiala, Josef Fischer, Josef Fischer (cyclist), Josef Florian, Josef Foerster, Josef Forster, Josef Franc, Josef Frank, Josef Frank (architect), Josef Franke, Josef Frantisek, Josef Frings, Josef Fritzl, Josef Fuchs and Josef Förster. People whose first language is German are welcome to read articles at the English Wikipedia. But we won't assist Chinese style censorship at the German Wikipedia by creating meaningless redirects simply for them. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment I don't follow the argument about censorship. How is deleting a plausible search term (which after all leads to to the article containing the full name) is going to remove censorship? In fact, I would say, if anything, it's the other way round; imagine a German-speaking person wanting to learn more about the case, typing the only term he/she knows ("Josef F.") into the search box, and getting nothing... If they don't know the actual last name ("Fritzl"), and it's quite possible that they don't, they'll just stop and not search further. And you say this actually removes "Chinese style censorship"? I don't follow that. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now you are being silly. I doubt you will find a single grown up person in Germany or Austria who is not aware of the last name, as the case is most widely referred to as the Fritzl case by all large German language media. Btw, this is censorship. I would also like to cite User:Arne List[9]: "Removing interwiki links is vandalism, and this happens in the German Wikipedia on an administrative level" and "the English Wikipedia should block any attempts of interwiki vandalism and their legalization through elsewhere useless redirects. There must be a clear frontier, in order to help the German Wikipedia to solve the problem at the root. Otherwise, interwiki vandalism will affect the rest of Wikipedia, while the Germans say they are "discussing" basic rules, which cannot be discussed". Johnny from Bronx (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are many people called 'Josef' who have a surname beginning with F, I mean, this might as well go to Josef Feistmantl, Josef Frings, Josef Fahringer, Josef Felder, Josef Fendt, Josef Fessler, Josef Fischer (cyclist), Josef Frank (architect), Josef František, Josef Fuchs, Josef Fares, Josef Fiala, Josef Florian, Josef Franc, or Josef Franke. — neuro(talk)(review) 21:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete misleading. -- User:Docu
  • Comment Strong keep. the people who !voted "delete" above probably don't realize the extremely widespread convention in the German-speaking press (which is, probably, a legal requirement) not to name the defendants in public cases. German news sources commonly abbreviate last name of defendants, and "Josef F." is how he is almost exclusively known throughout German-speaking press, e.g. [10]. The German Wikipedia uses this name throughout; it never mentions the full last name, [11]. It is thus a very plausible search term for those whose main language is German, or for those who learn about the case mainly from German-speaking sources and want to know more. It is in no way misleading or implausible. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's an incredibly bold and outright lie that Fritzl is not named by German language media. The Fritzl name is used just as extensively by the German language media as the rest of the world media. The English Wikipedia should not assist the silliness of one or two German administrators who attempt to censor the world press and something almost everyone in the world knows. This could create a dangerous precedent. The interwikis are not to be censored. This is not China. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With 500+ hits for March, the page use statistics (here) indicate that this a not unused redirect. Some of that traffic is surely a result of this RfD discussion, but even before it was listed here it was getting a few hits day, and continues to enjoy 30+hit/days. Whether that's from people searching on "Josef F." or from interwiki link is unknown, but it's clear this redirect is serving a useful purpose. Yilloslime TC 19:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you use http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php to check when the interwiki link was inserted, you will find that it was on March 24. Thus there is clearly people clicking on the interwiki link. If de needs a redirect to link to, we can easily find another one. -- User:Docu
  • Keep Plausible search term, and the "officially" used name in the native language of the person. No-one complains that Köln redirects to Cologne, although there are a bunch of other Kölns at Köln (disambiguation). Same thing. – sgeureka t•c 22:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. This is an appropriate analogy. In any case we're not censoring anything when we actually include more ways for people to find information! -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Untrue, his official name (and his name as public person as well) is Josef Fritzl. His official name is not "Josef F." Johnny from Bronx (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We should not be sending people looking for other Josef F.s to that page. If de wants to remove interwiki links to articles about criminal cases, fine. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rugxulo. Yoninah (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Amstetten kidnap and child abuse case of 2008 → Fritzl case[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. In closing this discussion, I attempted to focus my reading of the discussion toward comments relevant to the appropriateness of and need for this particular redirect, which is ultimately the scope of this discussion. Discussion about the making of interwiki links to redirects is beyond the scope of this nomination and, if anyone is interested, should be pursued at others venues—for this case in particular, the German Wikipedia or Meta may be more appropriate than any page on en.wikipedia.

The case for deleting the redirect is based in the argument that the phrase "Amstetten kidnap and child abuse case of 2008" is not a plausible search term. This argument was not really countered by those who favored keeping the redirect (the main counter-argument, noted by two editors, was that "redirects are cheap"); in fact, at least two indicated that they would prefer shorter titles. The main argument for keeping the redirect was that the redirect is needed to allow a proper interwiki link from the German Wikipedia article about the Fritzl case. However, as noted in the discussion, the German Wikipedia article does not currently link to this redirect; in addition, nothing prevents the German Wikipedia from linking to a redirect whose title is a more plausible search term, such as Amstetten incest case. –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Unused and implausible, unlikely anyone would search for such a lengthy, unused title, suggest deletion. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • So they can't use his real name even after a conviction? Well, that's crazy, but it does provide a compelling reason to go ahead and Keep this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the Fritzl case is not the the first ever criminal case in Amstetten(!). They have to use Fritzl case, that's the title of the English Wikipedia article, whether they like it or not (currently, the German WP insist that the English article is named "Josef F.", they don't use "Amstetten kidnap and child abuse case of 2008" either). Johnny from Bronx (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is going a bit further. They cannot link to Fritzl case because that would mean that the name Fritzl appears in the source code. And the reason why they cannot use the name ist that the victims that have to be protected carry the same name. And you cannot force them to use the direct link to Fritzl case if legal reasons oppose it. Have you any idea of Austrian jurisdiction? First of all let them the legal stuff get settled, then we can talk about other things. Well, and how do you know that Fritzl is not a very common name in Austria, and there are many cases you could call the Fritzl case? In fact, Amstetten has somewhat more than 20000 inhabitants, what other important cases could there be. Btw, I prefer Amstetten incest case, for the same reason as I would use Fritzl incest case. --87.146.19.110 (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely wrong, and this has been discussed ad nauseum. First off: The victims does NOT carry the Fritzl name, they have changed their name. The only implicated person carrying the Fritzl name is Josef Fritzl. Secondly, the case per se is most widely known as the Fritzl case, even in German (the Natascha Kampusch case isn't known as the "criminal case of Strasshof" either). Thirdly, Austrian law does NOT prohibit the mentioning of the Fritzl name, the Fritzl name is extensively used by Austrian and German media, even the (state) Austrian Broadcasting (ORF) mentions the Fritzl name on thousands (currently: 2,470) of webpages and claim that "all of Austria and the entire world are asking themselves: Who is Josef Fritzl?"[12]. Not "who is Josef F.?". The Fritzl case is possibly the best known such case in history and universally known as the Fritzl case, censoring the name is like attempting to censor the name of "Adolf H.". The ridiculous behaviour at the German Wikipedia is enforced by one administrator (or possibly two) against a clear consensus (to mention the name). The English Wikipedia can't do anything about the very anti-wiki behaviour at the German WP. But they have no right to create useless redirects at this project in order to assist their hilarious censorship. We should delete any such spam redirects and advise them to use the correct interwiki link. It's for the English Wikipedia to decide which title is used here. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very fine that you haven't really read my posting. I said, Amstetten incest case is perfectly equivalent to Fritzl incest case. One lemma is mentioning the nmae of the place, the other the name of the delinquent. No doubt that this is childish behaviour, but the fact is that you won't find the name Josef Fritzl in the German Wikipedia for now. I really hope that, even if the name is not mentioned in the article itself, it will at least be possible to find it by searching for Josef Fritzl, and to set a proper interwiki link. However, this is not possible right now, so we have to use other means in the meantime. Got it? 87.146.27.246 (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the English Wikipedia should not assist Chinese style censorship at the German project. The German project needs to be forced to use the correct interwiki links and stop manipulating the interwiki system. There should be no alternative to the correct interwiki link. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese style censorship? Don't be ridiculous. As you should know, unlike China, Germany and Austria are western democratic countries that respect personal rights of people. And one of those is not to brandmark the victims' names. But you are right at that point that right now everybody knows the name and that the victims have changd names.Maybe you should post your arguments in the Germy wikipedia? 87.146.22.53 (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Germany and Austria both have a strong authoritarian and even totalitarian heritage. Many of the German WP users grew up in a totalitarian country (the GDR). Not all people would agree that these two countries are as democratic as, say, Britain. They don't fully respect basic human rights like freedom of speech. But in this case, it's only the German Wikipedia, not the mass media of Germany or Austria, which is censoring in the same way as the Chinese regime is attempting to censor the Internet. The problem isn't Austria or Austrian law, the problem is a few couple of German Wikipedia administrators who don't understand the basic principles on which Wikipedia is built, and the customs of the Wikimedia projects as a whole. It's not allowed to censor valid interwiki links. We need a clear frontier against such behaviour. (Obviously, it's impossible to discuss anything at the German Wikipedia due to massive censorship, including the protection of the talk page of the article, abuse of spam filters etc. It's not like this hasn't been discussed at the German WP either, a large majority of users have protested against the censorship, but the project doesn't follow the consensus principle) Johnny from Bronx (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Low cost and wiki is not censored. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The title is too long-winded and also there is an Amstetten in Germany. If anything Josef F. is the best of the three 'link pages' designed to satisfy the delicate sensitivities of the Austrian legal system. Rugxulo (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 131.220.136.195. But I also prefer Amstettan incest case of 2008 rather than the title suggested, since it is shorter and to the point. Yoninah (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Redirects are cheap and this could potentially be useful. Someone searching for Amstetten kidnap and child abuse case of 2008 is definitely not looking for anything else, so let's be helpful. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reasonable reason offered by 131.220.136.195, so the redirect has a useful purpose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it hasn't. The German Wikipedia does not link to this title, despite false claims by 131.220.136.195. In fact, no article at this project and no article elsewhere does. You could have checked this yourself, but obviously, some people are not ashamed to voice their opinion without bothering to check what it is about. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Seal+rationale → Template:Seal rationale[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy delete as a G7. PhilKnight (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and implausible --GedUK  16:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect came into being following a move. I've deleted the redirect. PhilKnight (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Single+rationale → Template:Single rationale[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy delete as a G7. PhilKnight (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and implausable --GedUK  16:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect came into being following a move. I've deleted the redirect. PhilKnight (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Symbol+rationale → Template:Symbol rationale[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy delete as a G7 PhilKnight (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unused --GedUK  16:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect came into being following a move. I've deleted the redirect. PhilKnight (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Lists of people who are willing to sacrifice their personal lives and their stress levels for the betterment of Wikipedia → Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 08:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was originally created as a joke and was never used since its creation. Delete as unuseful and implausible search term (aren't shortcuts supposed to be shorter?). Tavix (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's fun and all but there's really no reason to keep this around. TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't even find it that funny, and it certainly isn't going to be helpful to anyone anytime soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix (talk · contribs). Not funny, and certainly not a plausible redirect. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 22:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

State elections → State elections in Hamburg[edit]

The result of the discussion was Speedy deleted at author request (non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this redirect. I was way too fast in creating the redirect State elections in Hamburg to Government of Hamburg. My intention was to create a redirect with possibilities with the specification of in Hamburg. IMHO to keep this redlink open for an new article my redirect should be deleted. Thank you Sebastian scha. (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In that case I think we can get ourselves a speedy delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bitches/Molly (Maxi Single) → Mindless Self Indulgence[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete all--Aervanath (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly disambiguated terms, most left over from page moves. All are highly unlikely search terms. (Note that while the last in the list appears to be a proper disambiguation, "Bring the Pain" is actually another track on the "Tornado" single, not the name of the band that released it.) No incoming links. TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Protestantism and American politics → Christian right[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 21:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make sense. Not every Protestant is a right-winger. Shows a clear POV problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is maybe inaccurate but it is not wrong, since the majority of political Protestants are self-styled Evangelicals like Rick Warren, while Protestant leftists will more often than not refrain from mixing faith and politics. In any case, it would not be a bad idea to write an essay on the subject. ADM (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wikipedia is not the place for your personal opinions on religion. If you want to write an essay or otherwise express your own views, there are plenty of websites that would be happy to let you do just that, this just isn't one of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to make judgements, I was just asking questions about the article Catholicism and American politics, and was wondering why corresponding articles didn't exist. ADM (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I misunderstood your use of the word "essay." If you meant that there should be an article on this subject, I completely agree, but an essay, no. In either case, this redirect is not appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:WikiDragon redirects[edit]

Wikidraco → Wikipedia:WikiDragon
Wikidraco wikidraco → Wikipedia:WikiDragon

The result of the discussion was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded cross-namespace redirects to a "WikiFauna" essay. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm in Love with a Capital 'U'" → Third Rock from the Sun (album)[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedily deleted by Metropolitan90 (CSD R3). Non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan Messages Work 13:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppily typed, with a single quote before the U, then a single and double quote after the U. Was tagged R3 but declined. A properly spelled redirect, I'm in Love with a Capital "U", already exists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sorry about that, I didn't notice the quotes and the existing redir LetsdrinkTea 01:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_24&oldid=1140112153"