Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 7, 2015.

Ungrateful Dead[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Grateful Dead as a {{R from incorrect name}}. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, the term is not mentioned in the target article and doesn't make sense. So, either delete it or weak retarget to Grateful Dead as a {{R from incorrect name}} (which I think is probably a bad option since there are probably parody or tribute groups/bands that have this name.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Stemming the rose[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. The discussion below shows that this phrase is too obscure and such a redirect is too much of a surprise. There isn't much appetite for editing the target article to mention the phrase either. Deryck C. 10:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wiktionary, this is slang for anal sex that was used in Brokeback Mountain. No iteration of the phrase appears on the articles for the film or short story. The redirect will WP:ASTONISH and confuse readers unfamiliar with the phrase; those that know the phase's origins will learn nothing more. --BDD (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add the material to the movie page. Just knowing that the movie is the source of the quote aids the reader. Plot summaries are continuously edited and text is removed and added and then removed again over time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Richard, what makes you think this is significant enough a concept? As you probably know, Wikipedia has a perennial problem with overly detailed plot summaries for fictional works. Does the phrase have significant usage or influence? Was it a moment commentators especially remarked upon? It wasn't mentioned in the article when the redirect was created either. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not have a problem with plot summaries that are too long, some editors have a problem with detailed plot summaries. Some have been so shortened, that after reading I have to wonder if it is the same movie I just watched, or if the person who wrote it even saw the movie. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s point. --Rubbish computer 19:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - added {{R from quote}} to the redirect. Wiktionary has a entry on the phrase- wikt:stem the rose.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional - if the material is actually added to the article, then it should clearly be kept. If it isn't (and it's not there now), a soft redirect to Wiktionary is appropriate. WilyD 09:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't personally mind extended summaries for fictional works, since they can be informative. But this seems to be obscure slang and would fall under the policy for neologisms. Is this actually what a reader would expect to read in a film article? Dimadick (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there isn't any information on the topic. The Wiktionary entry is wikt:stem the rose, which is a little different than "stemming the rose." -- Tavix (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very obscure... I honestly don't find the usage of this slang to be notable at all. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

SpongeBump SquarePants Theme Song[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. WP:INVOLVED close given the size of the backlog and clear consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFD#DELETE #8. I'm reviewing creations by this indefinitely blocked editor. He was a prolific creator of redirects, many of which seem innocuous. But his user talk page is about half RfD notifications. A few have come up recently. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dank meme[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 27#Dank meme

Jimbo Wale[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was WP:SNOWBALL keep; withdrawn by good-faith nominator (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is spelled incorrectly, so I think it should be deleted. There is no evidence that this misspelling is used frequently enough to justify keeping it per WP:R#KEEP. Everymorning talk 12:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it's a typo, not a misspelling. WilyD 12:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP and WP:RFD#HARMFUL; also, it's getting a steady 20-25 hits per month, which is pretty good for a typo/misspelling and indicates it's actually useful. Sideways713 (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Appears to be useful and this is a plausible typo. --Rubbish computer 13:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many hits are "not frequently enough"? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if my nomination doesn't make sense; I don't spend very much time at RFD. I will therefore withdraw it. Everymorning talk 00:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Night of nights[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to The Night of Nights. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Originally a redirect to Logie Award with unclear connection to the ceremony in question (no mentions of "night of nights" in the article body), by a series of bots it seems to have transformed into a confusing and pointless redirect to List of prizes, medals and awards. It doesn't seem to serve purpose other than befuddling visitors. mathrick (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Vereinigtes Königreich[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Geez, this is a pretty poor string of results here. English Wikipedia—where you have to use English, unless you're looking for the UK! --BDD (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to German. GZWDer (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. (And given the head of state is a nice german lady, it's obviously related to german anyhow) WilyD 10:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - The rationale for removig this, as well as all the other coutry-related redirects, has been given and is consistently the same: WP:FORRED. People who look United Kingdom up on English wikipedia can be expected to use the English name. If they want a resource where the German name is used, it exists already and is called the German Wikipedia. They can also follow the Languages sidebar from there if they wish to see the English version of the article. There's no reason to create 500+ redirects for all possible local-language names for every single country and territory on Earth, especially ones like "いわゆる中国", which means literally "so called Middle Kingdom" in Japanese. mathrick (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED as this is a redirect from an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @WilyD: Although it has not been explained here and on the similar redirects on this page, per the guideline WP:FORRED redirects to a subject from an unrelated foreign language are advised against. I thought I should tell you as this is the rationale behind many of the redirects on this page being proposed for deletion. Thanks, --Rubbish computer 12:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've read the guideline FORRED, and it doesn't say anything that would motivate the deletion of this redirect. WilyD 12:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @WilyD: This page in a nutshell: Redirects from other languages should generally be avoided unless a well-grounded rationale can be provided for their inclusion. So it could be argued this should be deleted because there is not a well-grounded rationale, as this is in an unrelated language. Thanks, --Rubbish computer 12:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's not a rationale; it's a baseless assertion that contains absolutely no justification whatsoever. WilyD 12:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • @WilyD: Please calm down. Why would somebody be searching the UK's name in German on the English Wikipedia? Also, remember to ping me so I can reply sooner. Thanks, --Rubbish computer 12:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • @WilyD: Often it is too uncertain for an immediate decision to be made; that is why these redirects are put here to be discussed. Calling somebody else's point baseless because you happen to disagree with it is counter-productive. --Rubbish computer 12:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • @WilyD: Can you stop writing that no rationale has been suggested for deletion even at times when a rationale has been given? The fact that the reason for deletion is possibly inconconclusive is why they are here to be discussed. Please come up with reasons why they should be kept instead, in order to benefit the overall discussion, so a decision can be reached sooner. Thanks, --Rubbish computer 12:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • The why is pretty unambiguous - they want to find (or perhaps, verify) information on the United Kingdom. But beyond that, you don't seem to have a point, so I don't see how it can be discussed. You haven't provided a reason to delete this redirect. There's a reason to keep it - readers who search for the term will be directed to the information they're looking for. That's good (in the context of being an encyclopaedia). We summarise information, but it's only purposeful if readers can find the information; if we hide it from them, why are we writing an encyclopaedia? But we can't discuss the reason for deletion unless it's provided, and no rationale for deletion has been provided here. Oh, though @Rubbish computer:, since you asked (though personally, I dread the little red box). WilyD 12:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • @WilyD: I have provided a reason: why would somebody type the name of the UK in German on the English Wikipedia. I have backed this up with a guideline and you are ignoring it. Fair enough if you don't agree, but please stop stating that other people's arguments do not exist. Sorry if you don't like being pinged but I don't see the point in writing this if you might not see it as soon. I am not trying to persuade you to vote Delete, I am explaining my rationale, which you are saying does not exist. Also, per WP:NOTFAQ some redirects get voted to be deleted--and sometimes deleted--as they consist of a question somebody types in, which leads them to information. While this is useful, this is somewhat objected to as Wikpedia is a place where you type in names and get articles, not a place where you type in questions and get answers. Again, feel free to disagree, but please stop saying the arguments do not exist. It is not accurate to say, and it doesn't help. Thanks, --Rubbish computer 12:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • A question is not a reason unless perhaps it's rhetorical. If you have a reason why it would be beneficial to the encyclopaedia to delete this redirect please present it, as of now no reasons have been presented. Otherwise, please stop falsely insisting you've provided a reason when you have not. WilyD 16:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WilyD: It costs nothing to ping somebody, but it seems you prefer for me not to respond. I managed to see this on Recent Changes by fluke. You are missing the point (please read this): you are saying there is no reason when there is a reaon. I am not going to perpetuate this futile discussion. Also, you are not assuming good faith when you say I am falsely insisting this. Thank you. --Rubbish computer 16:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Rubbish computer: - okay, sorry, habit. I'm neither assuming nor not assuming bad faith. It's perfectly possible that you're confused or mistaken, I don't know. It's a simple statement of fact that you haven't provided a rationale for deleting this useful redirect. If you think you have, I would implore you to re-read the discussion, no rationale has been suggested. If you meant to provide one, please do so. I agree that trying to discuss a rationale that hasn't been provided is fruitless. I'd rather do something productive (and hell, fun), but when large, useful chunks of the encyclopaedia are slated to get destroyed, there's nothing more urgent. WilyD 16:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is no policy forbidding this, just a personal essay. If you want the essay to be policy, lobby for it, until then it has no force, I can write an opposing essay right now and it would carry the same weight. If this were policy we would have to delete all the Latin and French that are redirected to the corresponding English phrases. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): That's not true. The essay that is being referenced (WP:FORRED) is an application of WP:R#D8, which is a guideline stating that obscure synonyms aren't helpful and are usually deleted. Your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS point aside, any foreign language redirect that has any affinity with that language is always kept, which is probably why you see all those Latin and French phrases. -- Tavix (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I think there's enough affinity here that it's worth keeping around. According to Languages of the United Kingdom, "9% [of the population of the UK] can speak/understand German" which is pretty significant. Historically, there have been a lot of Germanic peoples who have settled in what is now the United Kingdom, so there's some affinity from that perspective (although that was before the modern rise of Germany and the United Kingdom, the connection still exists today). -- Tavix (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A bit of an understatement here. The term "Germanic people" can be used to refer to speakers of modern Germanic languages such as English. Germanic is not a synonym of "German". Dimadick (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm aware of that... -- Tavix (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Unlike some of the "keepers" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. (However, since this is a term that someone from a primary English-speaking country may hear about their own country, and thus is a plausible search term by an English-speaking individual (any-other-language to an English name), I am neutral on this one.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete English wikipedia is not a search engine for German wikipedia -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient importnt to be useful as an officil name--WP is not a place for beingdogmatic about hterules. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather silly argument. Why is it important? Why is this a good candidate for ignoring rules? Don't tell me you're going wiki-anarchist on us! --BDD (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale has remembered that the encyclopaedia's main purpose is provide information to readers - something the delete position either neglects or has contempt for. WilyD 16:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per WP:FORRED. The sole purpose for the existence of FORRED is to stop this very sort of redirect. It applies here, 100%. If fact, it applies to no other situation. Per FORRED, we don't support searching WP in German -- doing so haphazardly in a few random cases can only give the false impression that we do support searching in German. It's bad, misleading, and very specifically against WP policy. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Royaume Uni[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to French. GZWDer (talk) 06:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. (And given that sufficient French people live there to elect an MP, the non sequitor ain't even true. WilyD 10:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED as is an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FORRED does not provide any rationale for deleting redirects in unrelated foreign languages. Can you explain why you'd link an unrelated essay, and provide some rationale for why you think this useful redirect should be deleted, knowing that such a deletion makes the encyclopaedia harder to use for readers? WilyD 16:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:R#K5. This nation is close to China and likely to be a search target for Chinese viewers. The page views confirm its usefulness to at least some people. ~ RobTalk 18:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: I'm going to assume that you copy and pasted and forgot to change "China" to "United Kingdom." Is that fair? -- Tavix (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wily. France and the United Kingdom have enough of an affinity for one another (especially from a historical standpoint) that the redirect makes sense. Definitely wouldn't call French an "unrelated" language to the UK. Also, per Languages of the United Kingdom, "23% of the UK population can speak/understand French" which is a significant population. -- Tavix (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Affinity is exactly what they don't have, historically. Animosity, possibly. Oh, it's the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo, by the way. After all, what did France do for the United Kingdom in the two World Wars? Except provide a venue. Si Trew (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a tad of French in the English language, such as Honi soit qui mal y pense on British coins and the front of my passport, but then Ich dien (→ Prince_of_Wales's_feathers) is not French, I think. In short, French language has been a major contributor to English language, but the language is not the political union: that's WP:XY. Si Trew (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Unlike some of the "keepers" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. (However, since this is a term that someone from a primary English-speaking country may hear about their own country, and thus is a plausible search term by an English-speaking individual (any-other-language to an English name), I am neutral on this one.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HARMFUL WP:RFD#HARMFUL. The possible harm caused by deleting a long-standing redirect outweighs any benefit. Further, this is occasionally used in English media e.g. the Eurovision Song Contest! :-). Just Chilling (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? WP:HARMFUL R's to WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and rather than avoiding it you are co-opting it? I don't get it. Si Trew (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is an {{R from shortcut}} to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#It does not do any harm but was not marked as such. Is now. Si Trew (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my mistake; thx for picking it up! Now fixed. Just Chilling (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Steel1943 (whose !vote was Neutral). This term is not used in the English language. (DOI: I am English. But don't live in the United Kingdom nor France.) [Je peux parler français comme une vache espanol] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), but this is WP:NOTENGLISH. This would be WP:CREEP in that we suddenly allow any foreign-language term for the United Kingdom, which in itself tends to be a nightmare because often the idiomatic term is (back-translated) "England" to mean any of "England", "Britain", "Great Britain", the "British Isles" or "United Kingdom". By extension, f'rexample in Hungarian hu:Anglia means England, not Anglia (a DAB). WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See also my comments at #Feilvbin, below. R titles do not have a [carte blanche] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help). Si Trew (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we should be very selective about what of this type of redirect we include, & the official name for a country in another language might well be an exception. WP is not a place to be dogmatic about the rules. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

いわゆる中国[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy delete. Even if this were a redirect from the Japanese for "China", it would be difficult to imagine a justification for keeping it, but it is in fact a redirect from a contemptuous, racist term, and as such it qualifies for speedy deletion as vandalism, and as an attack page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Japanese. GZWDer (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Menggu[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Chinese. GZWDer (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. (And given that Taiwan claims sovereignty over Mongolia, it's obviously related to Chinese anyhow) WilyD 10:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:R#K5. This nation is close to China and likely to be a search target for Chinese viewers. The page views confirm its usefulness to at least some people. ~ RobTalk 18:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Steel1943: Could you explain interwiki links a bit? I've never heard of them before. If I'm understanding right, in the absence of this redirect and the presence of an identically named article on another language wiki, would the person searching this term be redirected there? ~ RobTalk 03:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BU Rob13: That's essentially correct, except they would not be redirected there unless they use an external search engine of some sort, such as Google. The purpose of interwiki links (now handled by Wikidata) is if the English article is located on here and Wikidata has the connect established to its article on a different language Wikipedia, then it can be located there. If you haven't noticed them before, those links are located on the bottom-left side of the page. Steel1943 (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with Steel1943, per my notvote at #Feilvbin, below. These could usefully have been telescoped into one listing. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Taiwan still claims Mongolia. Mongolia was part of China until recent times -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Taiwan claims Mongolia A8v (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...And how this is useful to those who speak English? Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many people speak both Chinese and English. Although the effort to delete redirects related to non-English languages has done substantial damage to the ability of second language speakers to use English Wikipedia, it has probably done only very minimal damage to their ability to speak English. WilyD 16:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just described the purpose of Wikidata and interwiki links. Having a non-English title built into the English Wikipedia as a redirect to an article in English rather than its "other language equivalent", in my opinion, causes more harm than good. Steel1943 (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We usually have redirects for original/native language names. And this is Taiwanese territory (as claimed) so would be the native "official" language. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Feilvbin[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Chinese. GZWDer (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:R#K5. This nation is close to China and likely to be a search target for Chinese viewers. The page views confirm its usefulness to at least some people. ~ RobTalk 18:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Steel1943's sentiment that any policy or guideline about article titles (WP:TITLE) applies equally to redirects, with obvious exceptions for {{R from typo}}, {{R from misspelling}} and so on (see WT:RFD#"Not mentioned at target").
After all, someone searching does not know, at that time, that the page title is a redirect, nor should they need to know. So a redirect should have the same rules for its title as an article.
My rationales or reasons given are:
  1. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense (in English language)
  2. WP:RFD#D2 not mentioned at target i.e. confusing (see the WT:RFD discussion I referred to)
  3. WP:NOTDIC not a translation dictionary
  4. WP:FORRED
  5. ...but WP:USEENGLISH is the most apt.
Si Trew (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Malaixiya[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 17#Malaixiya

Jianpuzhai[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Chinese. GZWDer (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:R#K5. This nation is close to China and likely to be a search target for Chinese viewers. The page views confirm its usefulness to at least some people. ~ RobTalk 18:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with Steel1943, per my notvote at #Feilvbin, above. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Chinese pinyin CANNOT be redirect to the country topics. WKDx417 (talk) 06:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Miandian[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Chinese. GZWDer (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:R#K5. This nation is close to China and likely to be a search target for Chinese viewers. The page views confirm its usefulness to at least some people. ~ RobTalk 18:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with Steel1943, per my notvote at #Feilvbin, above. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the Shan plateau was part of China until recent times, much of its population is Chinese -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or (weak) retarget. A user who enters a search term into English Wikipedia's search box presumably is looking for encyclopedic information about that term, but.the current target does not give them that information: it doens't even mention this name, let alone contain any discussion of it (nor should it, per WP:WEIGHT). This name does get a bare mention at Names of Burma, but it doesn't seem like secondary sources have discussed it. Maybe there's content that could be added there about the historic or diplomatic context of this name. quant18 (talk) 06:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nipoer[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Chinese. GZWDer (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:R#K5. This nation is close to China and likely to be a search target for Chinese viewers. The page views confirm its usefulness to at least some people. ~ RobTalk 18:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with Steel1943, per my notvote at #Feilvbin, above. I think these could have been telescoped into one listing since the pro's and con's are the same for all except the French one. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nipo'er[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Chinese. GZWDer (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with Steel1943, per my notvote at #Feilvbin, above. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bajisitan[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Chinese. GZWDer (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with Steel1943, per my notvote at #Feilvbin, above. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kashimi'er[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Chinese. GZWDer (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with Steel1943, per my notvote at #Feilvbin, above. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Aksai Chin, where Chinese Kashmir points to. - TheChampionMan1234 04:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Afuhan[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Chinese. GZWDer (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with Steel1943, per my notvote at #Feilvbin, above. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dajikesitan[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete Just Chilling (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Chinese. Also misspelling GZWDer (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. It's a misspelling, so I don't believe that I have to advocate WP:FORRED on this one. Wikipedia isn't a translation service; Wikidata is. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with Steel1943, per my notvote at #Feilvbin, above. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Yiselie[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Chinese. GZWDer (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:R#K5. This nation is close to China and likely to be a search target for Chinese viewers. The page views confirm its usefulness to at least some people. ~ RobTalk 18:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete region is unrelated to China and has negligible Chinese population -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Balesitan[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Chinese. GZWDer (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with Steel1943, per my notvote at #Feilvbin, above. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete region is unrelated to China and has negligible Chinese population -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Yindunixiya[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Chinese. GZWDer (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with Steel1943, per my notvote at #Feilvbin, above. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep due to the ethnic problems with Chinese Indonesians -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Where the telephone was invented[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTFAQ -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also no correct simple answer, Bell used prior art. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points. --Rubbish computer 12:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:R#D2, as this can reasonably be expected to cause confusion given the prior art issue. Note that WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. ~ RobTalk 14:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but redirect instead to → Invention of the telephone. A reason for keeping the redirect is that this is a plausible search term. A redirect is not a FAQ, WP:NOTFAQ does not apply to redirects, and with the improved target none of the reasons for deleting redirects listed under WP:RFD#DELETE applies.  --Lambiam 20:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retarget per Lambiam. Also, from the policy – Wikipedia articles should not list frequently asked questions (FAQs). Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s). There is nothing there that says that it does not apply to redirects in "article" mainspace. So if this redirect were titled "Where was the telephone invented?" or any redirect such as "How are pine trees trimmed?" then they are FAQ type redirects that go against the policy. ref. WP:NOTFAQ. Having said all that, this redirect, which is not a "question" per se, is a good search phrase that's probably better off kept and retargeted to the article that illustrates that the "where" of telephone invention is not a simple concept. – Paine  21:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. How many times did people WP:EDIANS say that already? --Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 10:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Where hitler died[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not even a proper question in English, and in order to serve any kind of search engine purpose, we'd have to add where did Hitler die, where did hitler die?, where did Adolf hitler die?, and any other possible permutation. WP:NOTFAQ exists for a reason: article namespace makes a crappy search engine. mathrick (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, it's not a question, which makes the invocation of NOTFAQ bizarre. But it's proper English, for the place where Hitler died. WilyD 16:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL, it is a statement! Statements are not questions with poor grammar, except on Jeopardy! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 10:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Who writes Wikipedia?[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. (Who writes Wikipedia? We do! We do!) --BDD (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Who writes Wikipedia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Who killed Osama bin Laden?[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTFAQ -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. Given that NOTFAQ relates to article content, which redirects don't have, I can only assume something totally different was meant. WilyD 10:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 14:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as being a plausible search term. A redirect is not a FAQ, WP:NOTFAQ does not apply to redirects, and none of the reasons for deleting redirects listed under WP:RFD#DELETE applies here.  --Lambiam 20:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This statement is entirely incoherent. We only manage to achieve your goal of preventing readers from getting their questions answered if we delete the information from the article. Sure, we make it harder for readers to use the encyclopaedia, but we don't really make it impossible, so some may still be able to get information out of this encyclopaedia despite our best efforts to ensure they don't. WilyD 16:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Having readers look up "questions" that are not titles of subjects give readers the false expectation of finding either a complete answer to their question, or expect to find an actual subject by this name, such as a book title. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Who killed Osama bin Laden[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTFAQ -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 14:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as being a plausible search term. A redirect is not a FAQ, WP:NOTFAQ does not apply to redirects, and none of the reasons for deleting redirects listed under WP:RFD#DELETE applies here.  --Lambiam 20:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This statement is entirely incoherent. We only manage to achieve your goal of preventing readers from getting their questions answered if we delete the information from the article. Sure, we make it harder for readers to use the encyclopaedia, but we don't really make it impossible, so some may still be able to get information out of this encyclopaedia despite our best efforts to ensure they don't. WilyD 16:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Having readers look up "questions" that are not titles of subjects give readers the false expectation of finding either a complete answer to their question, or expect to find an actual subject by this name, such as a book title. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Who killed JFK[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. There's disagreement about where to point this, and plenty of support for just throwing it out. --BDD (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a statement "[This is] Who killed JFK" ... It is not "Who killed JFK?" --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Who elects the new pope[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep. The comments are split between WP:NOTFAQ and the argument that the target article pretty much exactly answers the question posed by the redirect title. Deryck C. 10:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - direct readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been proposed. Given that no questions are involved, the invocation of NOTFAQ is bizarre. WilyD 16:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to College of Cardinals. That's who elects the new pope. Papal conclave describes how a new pope is elected. Delete as second choice. --BDD (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Who discovered america?[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Who discovered America?[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To explain the present situation requires delving into some history. I came to the topic on February 10, 2008, because of a question at the Humanities reference desk. The first answer given linked to Discovery of america, which at the time was a redirect to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. I thought any encyclopedic discussion of the dicovery of America should deal one way or another with the narrative that someone by the name of Columbus "discovered" America, and not skirt the issue by switching to "Pre-Columbian" without any prior discussion. For that reason, I changed the page to redirect to Discovery of the Americas. Later the page Discovery of america was changed to redirect to Voyages of Christopher Columbus, which represents the opposite point of view to the original pov target Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact! The page Discovery of America was also changed to redirect there.)
In February 2008 the redirect target Discovery of the Americas was a reasonable stub that, in my opinion, had the potential to become a normal full-fledged article. (Just before doing this, I had moved the stub from the title Discoverer of the Americas to Discovery of the Americas, which I thought was a more reasonable title.)
I then also created the page Who discovered America? as #REDIRECT[[Discovery of the Americas]]. I don't remember now exactly why I created the redirect page, but probably because I thought it was a plausible search term – there was already an older page titled Who discovered america?, and there is now even a book by that title.
Since then, Discovery of the Americas was reclassified from history stub to dab page on April 24, 2009, moved to Discovery of the Americas (disambiguation) (since deleted) on July 13, 2009, moved back to Discovery of the Americas on February 13, 2014 with an appeal to WP:MALPLACED, and immediately afterwards replaced by a redirect to History of the Americas, now with an appeal to WP:DABCONCEPT. I happen to think this is not an optimal situation; the various viewpoints and theories concerning the discovery of the Americas, although connected to the history of the Americas, nevertheless constitute a clearly discernible separate issue that has its own history, even though the topics are obviously connected.
In the meanwhile, the page Who discovered America? had also been changed (together with Discovery of America) to redirect to the pov target Voyages of Christopher Columbus, but then it was changed again (on November 15, 2014) to redirect to Settlement of the Americas, which is the current situation. Quite ironically, the edit summary was Npov.
I still think we should have a separate article on the Discovery of the Americas, to which Who discovered America? then should redirect, but as long as that is not the case, both should redirect to the same target – but not to any of Settlement of the Americas, Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, or Voyages of Christopher Columbus. At the moment, the mosr reasonable target is History of the Americas.  --Lambiam 11:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or Retarget I prefer Settlement of the Americas to History of the Americas, as I think the former is closer to what readers are looking for, but either is acceptable. WilyD 12:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Linking an unrelated policy with no explanation is not a very helpful !vote. This is supposed to be a discussion, do you have any rationale whatsoever for wanting to delete this useful redirect, thereby making it harder for readers to use this encyclopaedia? WilyD 16:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:R#D2. This redirect can reasonably cause confusion, as many different peoples "discovered" America at different times in history. There is no unambiguous answer. ~ RobTalk 14:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • which can also be used as an argument for redirecting instead to History of the Americas, which covers all: the migration process during the Ice Age, the Viking settlement L'Anse aux Meadows, and the exploration led by Columbus.  --Lambiam 17:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that NOTFAQ is only about the layout of articles/information, and cannot apply to redirects (which do not lay out information, and Steel1943 has provided no rationale for deletion, can you articulate a rationale for deletion? WilyD 09:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

When is Christmas?[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 24#When is Christmas?

How wikis work[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How volcanoes are formed[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that the redirect is not a question, but a topic, how could NOTFAQ possibly apply? Linking an unrelated policy with no explanation is not very helpful in a discussion. WilyD 16:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 14:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as being a plausible search term. A redirect is not a FAQ, WP:NOTFAQ does not apply to redirects, and none of the reasons for deleting redirects listed under WP:RFD#DELETE applies here.  --Lambiam 20:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How transistors work[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 14:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as being a plausible search term. A redirect is not a FAQ, WP:NOTFAQ does not apply to redirects, and none of the reasons for deleting redirects listed under WP:RFD#DELETE applies here.  --Lambiam 20:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible search terminology. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How the universe was created[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 28#How the universe was created

How the structure of starch is suite to its function[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How the solar system was formed[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How television works[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How rainfall calculated[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion delete. --BDD (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right, because it's a sentence fragment, which is equally misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How radiation affects Perceived temperature[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 28#How radiation affects Perceived temperature

How plants make food[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 14:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Photosynthesis is how plants make food, right? Or is that oversimplifying things? --BDD (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apart from the WP:NOTFAQ issue, whose applicability to redirects ought to be resolved generally, a redirect to photosynthesis is an oversimplification; photosynthesis is how plants fix carbon, but there are many more biochemical steps between that and the production of food components such as proteins, starches, fats (and oils), and vitamins. Plant anabolism would be a plausible redirect, but it doesn't exist, and I doubt that it will exist in the near future. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How old the earth is?[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How old is the Earth?[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 24#How old is the Earth?

How noise pollution affect our health[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...Due to a lack of a question mark at the end of the redirect's title? If there was a question mark there, it would be a question, based on the redirect's wording. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How mapping has changed over human history[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unambiguously directs the reader to the content they're looking for. No rationale has been suggested for deletion. WilyD 12:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 14:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. Note that this redirect isn't even a question, it's simply a more everyday English phrasing of the title. For the layman rather than the cartographer. WilyD 16:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This redirect isn't even a question, it's merely a rephrasing of the academically nomenclatured title into more ordinary English phrasing. Given that the title isn't a question, how can NOTFAQ possibly be relevant? WilyD 16:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How many spaces after a period[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 23#How many spaces after a period

How many men?[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep, refining the target to Taxation as theft#How many men?. --BDD (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned. This can also refers to Population. GZWDer (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep given the restored content to the Taxation as Theft page. ~ RobTalk 00:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a legitimate redirect to the restored target page. It seems that the "How Many Men?" section was removed in September 2012 due to an apparent lack of reliable source (see the brief discussion at Talk:Taxation as theft). I have restored that section now with a reliable source. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, valid subject. I don't understand the delete votes above. It seems like people failed to WP:BEFORE? This has plenty of Google results. — Earwig talk 22:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a restricted search, an unrestricted search [1] does not show "taxation as theft" results, and it didn't appear on the article page at the time this was filed, per the comment above yours by CactusWriter. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@67.70.32.190: Given the improvements made since this RFD was filed, are you still standing by your "Delete this does not make sense" comment? — CactusWriter (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I thought I struck it out when I placed my reply. It's been corrected now -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks like it's mentioned in the article, but forward the redirect to the applicable section. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's mentioned I still think the title is ambigous.--GZWDer (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How internet use affects the human brain[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 28#How internet use affects the human brain

How internet use affects humans[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 28#How internet use affects humans

How fast can a handgun bullet travel[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How elements are arranged in the Periodic Table[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 23#How elements are arranged in the Periodic Table

How directness of sunlight causes warmer weather[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 28#How directness of sunlight causes warmer weather

How are women treated in comparison to men in iran[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How a toilet works[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unambiguously directs the reader to the content they're looking for. Since WP:NOTFAQ is about article content, and redirects have no content, I can only assume it's linking was an egregious error, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. WilyD 12:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 14:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How a strep test works[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How a transistor works[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 14:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How a transistor work[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How a Transistor Works[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unambiguously directs the reader to the content they're looking for. No rationale has been suggested for deletion. WilyD 12:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 14:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How a jukebox works[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unambiguously directs the reader to the content they're looking for. No rationale has been suggested for deletion. WilyD 12:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 14:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How a bill becomes a law[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. I almost just retargeted as the nom suggested; it would be a valid {{R from other capitalisation}}. But in most cases, the search engine is case-insensitive anyway. It also would've felt like quite the supervote, even though I doubt anyone would've objected. --BDD (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. Probably retarget to How a Bill Becomes a Law. GZWDer (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

What's Wikipedia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

What's RSS?[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unambiguously directs the reader to the content they're looking for. Since WP:NOTFAQ is about article content, and redirects have no content, I can only assume it's linking was an egregious error, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. WilyD 12:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 13:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that NOTFAQ has nothing to say about the question, why are you a) linking an unrelated policy, and b) not providing any rationale for deleting this useful redirect? Do you have any rationale? WilyD 16:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 15:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. Searching "RSS" gets to the target. No need to encourage searching this way.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

What wikipedia is[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

What was the main cause of WWII?[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unambiguously directs the reader to the content they're looking for. Since WP:NOTFAQ is about article content, and redirects have no content, I can only assume it's linking was an egregious error, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. WilyD 12:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 13:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 15:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. The "main cause" would be a matter of opinion anyhow.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

What time is dinner[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTFAQ -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - discussed at target (to my surprise). WilyD 12:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 13:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. Also, per WilyD, this is actually on the target page oddly. ~ RobTalk 15:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. There is no universal time at which dinner is expected to be held; nor which meal (noon or evening) it refers to for that matter. A bad question, with no good target.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jeez, please read Dinner. I was surprised, but the article address this question. But, of course, since Wikipedia's not being used as an FAQ here, it doesn't answer it in the style of an FAQ, but provides information on what time dinner is expected to be held in different contexts. WilyD 16:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

What led to civil war[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete extremely unclear; which civil war? WP:NOTFAQ -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both of above reasons. --Rubbish computer 13:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 17:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rob, it looks like you've been copying and pasting this answer. What makes you think that the origins of American Civil War "unambiguous[ly] answer" a question about an unspecified civil war? Why not Background of the Spanish Civil War or English Civil War#Background? See also WP:BIAS. --BDD (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at all redirects before pasting the answer to them. Note that I responded to all redirects nominated for the "QA site" reason, but I did select delete or change redirect to a fair amount of them. You do make a good point, and I had looked at this from my US-centric point of view. It is more appropriate to delete or possibly redirect to something like List of civil wars, from which readers can find the article that they seek. Deleting probably causes the least confusion, so that's my preferred option. ~ RobTalk 20:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

What is the origin of life?[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambigous redirect. See Origin of life. GZWDer (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: That would be a double redirect.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. While this is a factual encyclopedia, that is a theory. Many other possible scientific targets, with non of them being the best.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Origin of life, where the topic is addressed. No rationale has been presented. NOTFAQ, in particular, is explicitly about how information is organised, not about what is (or isn't) included. I would implore people to read it before invoking it, and it's transparently inapplicable to those who've bothered to read it. WilyD 16:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

What if extraterrestrials come to Earth[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 23#What if extraterrestrials come to Earth

What happens after you die[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTFAQ -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 13:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NPOV, WP:R#D2. The answer to this question is ambiguous and unproven, so directing to an article about the afterlife is not neutral. ~ RobTalk 17:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - I'd love to know the answer to that question, and regardless of what opinion is taken on the matter, there is one thing we can say for certain: the definitive answer to that age old question is not contained within this encyclopedia.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

What frequences can bats hear[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTFAQ -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 13:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bat#Echolocation. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. Jarble (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hearing range#Bats, a more complete answer to this question. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 17:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BU Rob13: With that rationale, why don't we create the following redirects, and direct them to the appropriate sections respectively within the article: "What frequencies can Humans hear", "What frequencies can animals hear", "What frequencies can cats hear", "What frequencies can dogs hear", "What frequencies can mice hear", "What frequencies can birds hear", "What frequencies can marine mammals hear". Maybe create an alternative version of each, with a common misspelling of either frequencies or hear, or an alternate capitalization.
Trying to illustrate a point above. If we do this type of thing, the combinatorial explosion would be insane. We have a search engine, making these type of redirects generally un-useful and only serving to create clutter. If we didn't have a search engine, then to a certain point, I could see it.
The above aside, I'm not going to restate it every time, but I fundamentally disagree with you about WP:NOTFAQ, and your opinion that it doesn't apply to redirects.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

What happens after death[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTFAQ -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obviously, it'd be just as problematic to redirect to Nothing or Decomposition or Scavaging. We can't help readers with this one. WilyD 12:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 13:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NPOV, WP:R#D2. The answer to this question is ambiguous and unproven, so directing to an article about the afterlife is not neutral. ~ RobTalk 17:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - I'd love to know the answer to that question, and regardless of what opinion is taken on the matter, there is one thing we can say for certain: the definitive answer to that age old question is not contained within this encyclopedia.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Who knows for sure? I don't, and neither do any of us. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

What caused the Civil War[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • As per BDD's comment in another similar RfD, this is not unambiguous due to a failure to specify which civil war. It is more appropriate to delete or possibly redirect to something like List of civil wars, from which readers can find the article that they seek. Deleting probably causes the least confusion, so that's my preferred option. ~ RobTalk 20:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as being a plausible search term. A redirect is not a FAQ, WP:NOTFAQ does not apply to redirects, and none of the reasons for deleting redirects listed under WP:RFD#DELETE applies here.  --Lambiam 20:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not the U.S. Wikipedia, we do cover topics outside the U.S.A. We should not promote WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS; as such it directly crosses point #1 for deletion. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, ambiguity, and WP:NPOV to a lesser extent.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there isn't a target which is unambiguous and answers this question -- Tavix (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Having a baby/child[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to delete. There is a split of opinion between "delete" and "retarget", with an additional underlying argument that the given phrases can refer to either parenting or childbirth. Deryck C. 11:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the best (or even correct) target for these terms. However, the terms also seem ambiguous, given that they may refer to the topics in Birth or Childbirth. (There may be a disambiguation page here somewhere.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTGUIDE -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. --Rubbish computer 13:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Childbirth. WP:NOTGUIDE applies to articles, not redirects, and even if it were applicable to redirects, I fail to see how it has any bearing here. "Having a child/baby" is more plausibly related to childbirth itself than parenting. "Raising a child" is the more likely search term for "parenting". ~ RobTalk 17:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is -- it can be used of families or even males, not just cwomen--it refers dto the whoe process of raising a child, not just giving bith. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Childbirth - I think that's the closest in meaning, and where other articles are wanted, Childbirth is likely to link them to it. WilyD 16:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Childbirth per Rob; that article is about having children. --BDD (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Parenting and child guidance classes and authors[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Steel1943 (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hand picked coffee[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Coffee production#Picking. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is a bit misleading. Probably best to either retarget it to Coffee bean (since they are the crop picked by hand), or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Raktajeno[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is, surprisingly, a WP:NOTWIKIA violation. This is the name of either coffee or a type of coffee in the Star Trek universe. That, and it seems as though this is spelled incorrectly anyways; search engines return the correct spelling of this word as "Raktajino". Steel1943 (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if it were spelled correctly I'd say redirect it to List of fictional beverages, as "Raktajino" is included there. It isn't.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fiction non-coffee coffee is not the same as coffee. So this is the wrong target, since Klingon coffee would be a coffee analog from the Kligons, and not a variant of Earthly coffee -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of above reasons. --Rubbish computer 13:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Definition of beverage[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIC. Steel1943 (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The effects of soda[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGUIDE. That, and Soda is a disambiguation page, so thus, "soda" is ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Seedrink[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. You can drink sea water, but I wouldn't recommend it. --BDD (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding any results that this redirect refers to anything specific, let alone "soft drink". All results I find for this term on search engines seem to return results for some sort of actor promotion or discovery company. Steel1943 (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Soda drinking[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 17#Soda drinking

Graveyard Drink[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, and most search engine searches return results for some sort of cocktail, but the redirect isn't mentioned there. That, and the possible cocktail doesn't seem to be named the same as the redirect anyways. Steel1943 (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Cool drink[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soft drinks are not the only drinks that can be cool, in style and/or in temperature. That, and the redirect was previously an article that basically stated that "cool drink" is synonymous for "soft drink" in India, but that article had no references, and searches for "cool drink India" and "cool drink" on search engines couldn't provide any proof that the phrase "cool drink" refers to anything specific anywhere. Steel1943 (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 01:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ambiguous.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are things called cold brews which are cool drinks, etc -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As stated above, cold beers, cold teas, and all other kinds of specific drinks existing make this a very problematic redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Finite module[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 17#Finite module

Feuerwehrmann[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. The retargeting proposal has some merit, but as the IP noted, this concept would be used in Austria, and probably a few other countries as well. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED; firefighters are not exclusive to German-speaking cultures. However, the word "feuerwehr" seems to be mentioned in the article, but not with the suffix "mann". If there is a retargetting option for this redirect, it may be German fire services. Steel1943 (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to German fire services. --Rubbish computer 00:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:XY plus WP:FORRED. Austrian firefighters are covered in Wikipedia too, at Geography of firefighting#Austria, and Austria uses the word feuerwehr [2]. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. General topic with no affinity for any particular language -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further rationale from nominator: Here's some additional information for why this redirect is harmful for the English Wikipedia: In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fail to see why the readers would be confused. And even if they were slightly confused, the metaphorical "Fuck you" you propose giving them instead isn't going to be less confusing. "English Wikipedia gave me an article in English, even though I used a German search term" is far less confusing than "Wikipedia is trying to obscure information to ensure I can't find it." WilyD 16:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for comparing apples to oranges, and validating my statement. The issue here is trying to find this term's most associated subject in English-speaking use, which, in this case, seems to possibly be German fire services. Wikipedia isn't a translation service; that's Wikidata and interwiki links. To elaborate, a redirect from English to an article on the English Wikipedia whose article title (possibly established by WP:COMMONNAME) has a foreign-language name could be seen as appropriate (considering that this term could be seen in English context), but a non-English term redirecting to an article with a title that is of a language that is not the same language (including English) on the English Wikipedia, unless the word is some sort of loanword, is not an appropriate redirect due to not having established use in the English language. Steel1943 (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to German fire services since the average English-speaking user, if they were to come across this word, would be thinking of it in these lines. He/she/they would be interested in looking up more information on fire-fighting in Germany. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the guideline WP:R#D8. -- Tavix (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_7&oldid=1142587246"