Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Redirect Archives/January 2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 1[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • pitcarin house → Pitcairn House -- messed up both spelling and caps - google lists only 2 non-wikipedia hits for "pitcarin house" - and that's for a completely different place actually called Pitcarin House. If no-one's accidentally typed this name as pitcarin house in websites, I doubt anyone would looking for it on Wikipedia, either, and anyone who dod would probably be looking for Pitcarin House rather than Pitcairn House Grutness...wha? 06:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC) (sl amendment 22:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was speedily kept. Redirects which stem from reasonable alternative capitalizations are 100% in accordance with redirect policy. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


January 2[edit]

The nominated redirect was speedily deleted as per WP:CSD, R2. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you want to simply turn an existing redirect into a fully fleshed-out article, you are always welcome to do so. No admin action from RFD is necessary. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 15:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was speedily deleted by R3m0t as R2 (userfied) — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 02:00, Jan. 3, 2006

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

The nominated redirect was kept. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 15:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirects were kept, after a lengthy bout of searching both policy and soul. On the one hand, I firmly believe that the majority of the "keep" votes for these RFC shortcuts were made simply because of the backlash against Kelly Martin, and that had these other redirects been nominated a month ago, they would have been deleted without question. I personally feel that Wikipedia would benefit broadly from their immediate and continued absence. On the other hand, I can find no justification to delete them, either in redirect policy or in a broader sense, other than my own personal belief in their inappropriateness. And I have not yet reached the point where I believe my own opinions are sufficiently in congruence with the platonic ideal of Wikipedia policy that I could comfortably delete these redirects without a clear consensus to do so. As it stands, no such consensus exists. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 16:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:RFC/KM → Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin -- It is inappropriate in the extreme to create a shortcut redirect to an RFC on a specific user. (Previously deleted outside of process.) — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 05:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all, as they can be useful redirects. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all per nom. A little typing never hurt anyone, and these redirects are clearly not worth the strife they cause. -- SCZenz 05:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the "delete as vandalism target" logic, and it doesn't work here either. I don't see the point of these, but niether do I see the danger. If someone could explain why these have to die (and why it appears to be an emergency in at least one case) I'd be able to form a better opinion. For now, q-quavering keep Delete as mostly harmless but nor worth the small harm they cause in re-use. Again. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because they interfere with building a free encyclopedia and giving it away (anyone remember that?), in that redirects out of the main namespace make life difficult for re-users of our content. Shortcuts that see active use are tolerated because they help us build that encyclopedia. Shortcuts to specific RFCs are at best only tolerable while their target is still very active. (This last part is why I didn't bring WP:RFC/KM here; I'm neutral on that one, for the record.) —Cryptic (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I don't fully understand that but I certainly trust you enough to believe it. If you could give me a fuller explanation on my talk (or links to one) I'd cover you with kisses. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per SPUI. DES (talk) 06:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all per nom. These redirects are genuinely hurtful to some members of the community, something which cannot often be said of redirects, so what good are they? Xoloz 09:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Genuinely hurtful...": Clearly, not everybody feels this way. WP:RFAR/SV redirects to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo, and this redirect was created by Stevertigo himself [1].
        • If Ms. Martin had created this link, I'd agree that the SV precedent applies. As for "genuinely hurtful" -- It appears a portion of the community thinks this RFC is a "lynchmob"; I think this portion of the community is a little nuts, but if I can delete a redirect to make feel a little better, I'll go with that. They do think it's genuinely hurtful. Xoloz 16:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all, shortcuts do not make a statement of support or opposition and are benign/harmless. And as per SPUI. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all per SPUI, per Locke Cole, and per my reply to Xoloz. I cannot see how a redirect from an unambiguous abbreviation can express any POV at all. However, if somebody created a redirect from "WP:TRAVESTY" I would speedy delete it. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:49, Jan. 3, 2006
    • Keep all as shortcuts. Nothing offensive about them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all per the WP:RFAR/SV argument above. I don't see how they are hurtful either. - Mgm|(talk) 12:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all. Inappropriate. --Daveb 12:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all per Freakofnurture. WhiteNight T | @ | C 16:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep karmafist 20:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - It's been useful thus far as a quick way to link to the debate from the cabal IRC room. --Cyde Weys votetalk 20:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete very harmful precident --Doc ask? 20:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I need this explained to me: how are these a "precedent"? There was an RFAR redirect created in January of last year, and an RFAR isn't all that different from an RFC.. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all (double edit conflict). Other RfCs don't have a shortcut redirect, and neither should this one. If anyone wants to go to Kelly's RfC, they can go to the main WP:RFC redirect page and click on the individual links like we do for all the other hundreds of RfCs in history. --Deathphoenix 20:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong, look above at the others. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, POV creations. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's POV about a shortcut!? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've speedied these. Shortcuts into main policy-related pages are tolerated, but shortcuts to individual RfC's is overdoing it, is getting out of hand, and attracts trolls by placing RfC discussions into google. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, there is no harm in typing a little more and I can see why some people think there is harm in having such redirects. — mark ✎ 15:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The reasons given to delete are not compelling. They basically seem to revolve around people expressing opinions about the Kelly Martin RFC. Unless the redirect is derogatory in some way, I see no reason to delete. It's distressing to see that this has already been deleted out of process and that someone just tried to speedy it. --C S (Talk) 23:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This seems to be a high interest topic presently. reconsider in six months when the fuss has died down, or the case has become a classic worthy of abbreviation. Sandpiper 01:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete the lot; there's poor precedent in creating mainspace redirects for internal processes, especially single instances. This seems to foster knee-jerk reactions to the above RfCs. -- nae'blis (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This could be an important part of wikipedia's history. No other RFC has recieved so much attention.--God of War 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was transmogrified by User:Ih8evilstuff into a useful article. No admin action from RFD needed. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 22:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Zebibyte → Zettabyte -- Zebibyte and zettabyte are not the same (see Binary prefix), and zebibyte is also not an official binary prefix Betbest1 06:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The term is a logical extension of the other *bibytes, and thus a plausible search term. Explain in the Zettabyte article that Zebi is unofficial. Radiant_>|< 11:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. There is no reason to not have this, yet have all of the others. ih8evilstuff 21:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • None of the others are redirects. Perhaps someone should replace the redirect with a stub page. Betbest1 04:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Never mind, already done. This is no longer a RfD, and should be removed. Betbest1 04:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 16:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 3[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Russian-Ukrainian conflicts → Russia-Ukraine gas dispute -- The redirect is created by a strange move which I reverted. The article about RU-UA gas conflict is a good article and the move to the "conflictS" name is a strange one. A separate "conflicts" list article may be written at some future point but this redirect has nothing to do with such a potential entry Irpen 07:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per nom, the article deals with a single recent conflict not with the list abakharev 07:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep athough this title is not acceptable for the main article, it can exist as a redirect. I do not see any reason to delete the redirect.--AndriyK 09:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • because it is frivolously created. The reason why it's there is a frivolous page move, now reverted. Some know better about frivlous moves. --Irpen 15:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete of course. As per above, it's one conflict, not several.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. The page was only three minutes on Russian-Ukrainian conflicts, so the risk of breaking links is minimal. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 飛天小女警 - This is an alternative Chinese title for Powerpuff Girls, and nobody will probably ever bother researching this title. Little or no use of this redirect, and non-notability as well, justify its deletion. Marcus2 13:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete If this was the Chinese Wikipedia, It'd be fine. But this is the English Wikipedia, and if someone knows the Alternate Chinese title, they will know the English title as well.Makenji-san 01:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was kept. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Grygori Skovoroda → Hryhori Skovoroda - the orphaned afd I'm converting this from says it's "an irrelevant needless version of: Hryhori Skovoroda, and no reference from any article". My vote is keep redirects from alternate romanizations (even incorrect ones). —Cryptic (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • obvous keep. --Irpen 15:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was kept. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hrygori Skovoroda → Hryhori Skovoroda - the orphaned afd I'm converting this from says it's "a grammatically non-existing needless version of Hryhori Skovoroda, and no reference from any article". My vote is keep redirects from alternate romanizations (even incorrect ones). —Cryptic (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep. --Irpen 15:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep both of the ones listed by Cryptic. Even if incorrectly "romanized", they still seem keepable as plausible (mis?)spellings of the correct title. If this helps prevent a future duplicate article, then doublepluskeep. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:58, Jan. 4, 2006
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

January 4[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was kept. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Office (United States) → The Office (US) -- Undoing a move - recently created redirect. 2 links to this article (which are discussion of the invalid move.) Mrtea (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't see a problem with leaving this as a redirect - somebody could very easily try to link to it if they weren't sure what the right title was. sjorford (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.


January 5[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shiny sheen → Cindy Sheehan -- One of a few redirects by same author to this article. Delete per criteria#4 - "makes no sense". Request to author to explain unanswered. —ERcheck @ 03:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was speedily deleted as per WP:CSD, R3. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 00:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


January 6[edit]

The nominated redirect was speedily deleted as per WP:CSD, R2. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 15:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 11:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 11:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted per criteria 2 (and possibly 4) above. Note that "Interstate 127" and "Interstate 131" contained history relevant to the respective "U.S. Route..." articles, and were subject to anonymous cut-and-paste moves in December of 2002. I have merged the histories also. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 13:13, Jan. 7, 2006

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

The nominated redirect was speedily deleted (G7, author's request). howch\]\] \[\[WP:EA|e\]\] \[\[User:Howcheng|ng {chat} 07:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


January 7[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was expanded into a workable stub article by User:SPUI. No administrative action from RFD required. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Florida State Road 150 → Treasure Island Causeway - this is not and has never been a State Road 150. It is part of County Road 150. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two sources indicating otherwise are mentioned on the Talk Page; after checking multiple sources, I have yet to find a "(Pinellas) County Road 150" indicated on any map showing Treasure Island Causeway. Validity of all sources cited (including any cited by the nominator, if any) should be done on the Treasure Island Causeway discussion page and not necessarily in a RfD discussion; the fact that online and offline sources (including maps.google.com) show - correctly or incorrectly - a SR 150 designation for the toll road means that the redirect would be a useful one; therefore Keep. 147.70.242.21 17:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have made an article about the real SR 150 that has existed. No need to delete now. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A disambiguation note on the newly-created article on the former SR 150 with a link to Treasure Island Causeway should do the job and be a reasonable compromise as there are too many sources showing the toll bridge system as SR 150. B.Wind 08:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

January 8[edit]

The nominated redirect was keep. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. I am exercising my prerogative as closing admin to delete this redirect despite the fact that the lone non-anonymous vote was "keep". My reasons for so doing are because (A) redirects which could plausibly point to more than one article should not simply point at one of those articles as this can engender confusion; and (B) I believe Wikipedia would be better served by having a redlink in this case, which will hopefully encourage interested parties to fill in the hole in Wikipedia's knowledge base where Florida State Road A1A Alternate currently resides. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Florida State Road A1A Alternate → State Road 707 (Florida) - there were two sections of SR A1A Alternate; the other is now SR 811. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both are mentioned on the SR 707 page. Keep unless nominator wishes to produce a stand-alone Florida State Road A1A Alternate page. As it is, the redirect is a useful one. 147.70.242.21 17:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the originator of the targeted redirect, I second 147.70.242.21's Keep for the reasons mentioned above. It does not fit the criteria for deletion at all... and especially not for the speedy that the nominator tried to do last week. Of course, anybody who doesn't like the redirect is more than welcome to write a stand-alone article on Florida State Road A1A Alternate to take its place, but until then, a redirect page and a blue link on the State Road A1A (Florida) article is better than no redirect and a red link. B.Wind 08:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was speedily deleted by Jeffrey O. Gustafson on 04:32, 8 January 2006. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted, after merging page histories. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was retargeted to Qaf (Cyrillic) by User:Georgia guy. No administrative action required by RFD. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Qa (Cyrillic) → Қ -- I made this redirect earlier, but now I'm not sure that the name Qa is used for this letter. To avoid any confusion, I'd like the redirect deleted. Waynem 19:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

January 9[edit]

The nominated redirect was kept. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 10:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. While the redirect is harmless, it is also redundant. Typing in "Mu beta psi" in the search box and hitting ENTER (or clicking "Go") will get you to the Mu Beta Psi article even without a redirect. Try it and see. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 10:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

All nominated redirects were deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 10:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 09:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 09:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 09:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 09:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was speedily deleted as R3 (unlikely typo). howch\]\] \[\[WP:EA|e\]\] \[\[User:Howcheng|ng {chat} 00:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 10[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirects were kept, except for Wikerosion, which I have reverted back to the original article and nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikerosion). The reason for keeping these as redirects instead of protecting them and putting a "deleted" template on them is to avoid the appearance of silencing our critics. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fuck Wikipedia, Wikipedia sucks, Wikerosion, Why Wikipedia Sucks → Criticism of Wikipedia — inappropriately named redirects. —Ruud 15:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. —Ruud 15:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikerosion used to be a substantial article, so would be more properly discussed at afd (though it's a patent neologism, so I can't bring myself to revert and list it there). It might also have been merged into its target; I haven't checked. Keep the other three to discourage similar articles. —Cryptic (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I you are afraid these articles might be recreated, wouldn't it be better to delete and protect them? —Ruud 17:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was kept. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights → Wikipedia:User prerogatives -- Confusing redirect: Page taken over by vandals who renamed after topic change. SEWilco 08:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep useful redirect. And vandals? Hardly. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I think this is a bit of a shortcut in terms of procedure, but we do need to consolidate discussion regarding this questions in a place with broader based participation. Please take the different proposals and try to integrate them into policy based on broad based consensus. Fred Bauder 16:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: OK, then if it is still the User Bill of Rights page we'll try again to discuss it. (SEWilco 02:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
      • Comment: The redirect was clearly done in bad faith, by opponents of the proposal. Wikipedia:User prerogatives is a counter-proposal, which is an entirely legitimate thing, but re-directing the Bill of Rights to it is a bad-faith attempt to suppress discussion of the Bill. "Integrating the different proposals" makes no sense, because the "prerogatives" was essentially a tactic of the Bill's opponents. Opponents of the Bill should do the honorable thing: oppose it, but don't try to suppress it. --HK 07:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep No big deal. Ashibaka tock 02:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The use of the word "prerogatives" was indeed a response to the opponents of "the bill." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that does not bestow rights on Lyndon LaRouche supporters and other cultists and political extremists because they happen to sign up for user accounts. 172 16:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The move was made in good faith and I don't see any issue with keeping the redirect. Carbonite | Talk 18:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. --Optichan 19:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Replace -- it seems like an article naming dispute. The User Bill of Rights seems to be a failed proposal; if there is a brand new User Bill of Rights to propose that resolves the objections (unlikely), and is desired, then put it there, and link to Wikipedia:User prerogatives, as it doesn't require an RFD anyway, otherwise, leave the redirect, and don't make the situation any more confusing. --Mysidia (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was speedily deleted by User:Cleared as filed. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. Histories have been merged to maintain GFDL requirements. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coins of Ulster → Coinage of Ireland -- Unlinked to from the article space and left as a result of a merge AfD which specified "merge and no redirect" on many of its votes. The term is a POV fork and is not going to be linked to from the article space. Kiand 09:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I can see this being useful. If I recall properly, "merge and delete" is incompatible with the GFDL anyway. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 09:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per above - I can't see how this is so offensive that it has to be deleted? Note that redirects are allowed to be POV, precisely because they shouldn't exist as individual articles, and people might still search or link them. And yes, deleting this redirect would lose the history, which is Bad. sjorford (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete "Ulster" never created its own coinage, the author obviously intended Northern Ireland - a simple point of view agenda as the author insists on. Wikipedia is not a collection for an articles history, keep it professional first. Djegan 18:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 00:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. As Sjorford puts it, redirects are allowed to be POV. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete POV nonsense. (Background: Some Irish republicans and unionists fight endless POV wars on Wikipedia to push their 'we're right. Fuck you' campaign to annoy the other side by changing articles about Northern Ireland to either Ulster (the Unionist POV term), or Six Counties (the Republican POV term). Wikipedia reverts both and uses the factually neutral name that exists in legislation and international documents, which is Northern Ireland. This article was created as part of an ungoing POV campaign by one of the Unionist POV pushers as a two fingers sign to Republicans, who invariably will move it to Coinage of the Six Counties, and so the saga will continue! *yawn*. The neutral fact is that Ulster is a geographic term and what is Ulster (a geographically bigger entity than Northern Ireland) has never issued coins. However Northern Ireland, which is a governmental entity smaller than Ulster, does issue them. So under NPOV rules the article belongs at the official name, Northern Ireland and not at the POV name of either side: Ulster or the Six Counties) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Banknotes of Ulster → Banknotes of Northern Ireland -- POV-fork title left by a page move, unlinked and not going to be linked from the article space. Anyone considering voting on this and the above RfD should note that the use of the term "Ulster" for "Northern Ireland" is about as incorrect as refering to the United States as North America or the United Kingdom as Europe - ignoring the rest of the latter in each case It is -not- a synonym. Kiand 09:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per above. sjorford (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete "Ulster" never created its own bankotes, the author obviously intended Northern Ireland - a simple point of view agenda as the author insists on. Wikipedia is not a collection for an articles history, keep it professional first. Djegan 18:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 00:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. As above. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete POV nonsense. (Background: Some Irish republicans and unionists fight endless POV wars on Wikipedia to push their 'we're right. Fuck you' campaign to annoy the other side by changing articles about Northern Ireland to either Ulster (the Unionist POV term), or Six Counties (the Republican POV term). Wikipedia reverts both and uses the factually neutral name that exists in legislation and international documents, which is Northern Ireland. This article was created as part of an ungoing POV campaign by one of the Unionist POV pushers as a two fingers sign to Republicans, who invariably will move it to Banknotes of the Six Counties, and so the saga will continue! *yawn*. The neutral fact is that Ulster is a geographic term and what is Ulster (a geographically bigger entity than Northern Ireland) has never issued banknotes. However Northern Ireland, which is a governmental entity smaller than Ulster, does issue notes. So under NPOV rules the article belongs at the official name, Northern Ireland and not at the POV name of either side: Ulster or the Six Counties) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was speedily deleted after the target was deleted as copyvio. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 11[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dieseleum → Diesel -- I can find no evidence that there is any such word as "dieseleum", much less that it is a synonym for diesel. Rossami (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. Fun pun on peroleum. -- Frodet 23:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete One hit on google --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was speedily deleted as a completely implausible redirect. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mixing fabric softeners → Apocalypse -- I doubt anyone looking for information on fabric softeners really wants to know about apocalypse. This redirect is the second search result for 'fabric softener'[2] JLaTondre 02:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

January 12[edit]

The nominated redirect was speedily deleted by User:Doc glasgow. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 00:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give my reasoning: the article was vfd'd in Dec03 - the consensus was delete, but the closer kept and redirected instead (who knows why?). We could send it to WP:DRV for review, but it's three years old, and an obvious delete, so it looks like a waste of time. If anyone objects, I'll undelete and send it there (and call them a 'pest' at the same time)--Doc ask? 01:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - agreed. violet/riga (t) 23:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agreed. --Mais oui! 23:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No-one is going to look for an explanation of the football chant by searching for this title. David | Talk 23:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Graham 23:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirects were kept. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty-six redirects from an obsolete subpage-based nomenclature. These were all subject to cut-and-paste moves way back in the day, but I have merged the histories to the latter title in each case, and I'm beginning to think I should have just speedied them. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:41, Jan. 12, 2006
  • Keep per above guidelines. "However, avoid deleting such redirects if:... The redirect is from an old article subpage which has been moved to a top-level page, particularly the various standard country subpages." -- Netoholic @ 17:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proscription against deleting subpage redirects generally exists for the purpose of not breaking old links from outside Wikipedia. If nothing links to the redirects in question, either internally or externally, they may be safely deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 00:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only page that has recently linked to any of these is Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen (a.k.a. WP:SPLICE), when Netoholic reported them by linking to the first one and the last one. To be clear, it's not as though I went through and fixed all the links — these redirects have probably not been used since August 2002 or shortly thereafter. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 00:48, Jan. 13, 2006
  • I also just went through Google and checked each redirect individually. Google shows no hits whatsoever for any page linking to any of these redirects. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects like this are lightweight and ignorable. They have historical value and help with search terms. Keep in mind also that, while there may not be any internal links from current pages, past page revisions will still link to them. This may help someone down the line. -- Netoholic @ 12:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was kept. Redirecting the article to Spell (paranormal) would be suboptimal, since that article does not discuss sleeping curses at all. Likewise with redirecting to curse. People who look up "Sleeping curse" are likely looking for the same effect as that used in Sleeping Beauty, and in the absence of a more informative article, Sleeping Beauty is probably the best target. If there are more instances of a sleeping curse being used in fiction, and if those instances have articles here on Wikipedia, then Sleeping curse should be turned into a disambiguation page. I leave this task to those who seem more well-versed in the occurrences of sleeping curses in fiction than I am. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 13[edit]

The nominated redirect was kept. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was speedily deleted as per WP:CSD, R1. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 10:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Achang church → Achang -- redirect makes no sense, the Achang people are Theravadin Buddhist. Abstrakt 00:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as this redirect does not make sense and therefore is not needed. Abstrakt
    • Delete I ran across the orginal editor once and from their talk page they seem to be using a questionable religion reference book that is written in French. Information from that bokk needs to be verified elsewere and this isn't--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bai Church → Bai -- redirect makes no sense, the Bai people are followers of Theravadin Buddhism and Daoism so it makes no sense to be speaking of a church here. Abstrakt 00:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as this redirect does not make sense and therefore is not needed. Abstrakt
    • Keep Someone tried to write an article about this. Original text: "Bai Church is a church of the Chinese province of Yunnan. Bai church is growing in numbers. Bai Church is a church of the minority of the Bai. Bai church exists since the 20th century." Ashibaka tock 19:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I just checked there is no information on any "Bai Church" existing. Unless the original author is talking about the version of Buddhism practiced by the Bai ethnic group, there is no Bai church to speak of. As far as I'm concerned, the original text would consult as unverifible information, see WP:V. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of these people are followers of Buddhism and to a lesser extent, Daoism so putting up a redirect titled "Bai Churches" makes little to no sense unless it is referring to the Buddhism religion in this case, the main religion of these people. Also, of note, the original article, erroneously survived a Vfd, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bai Church and Talk:Bai_Church.Abstrakt 23:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete same as prior nom--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was speedily deleted as per WP:CSD, R1. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 10:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 14[edit]

RFD is not the place to hash out disputed page moves. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uh, this redirect is performing exactly as intended. SchmuckyTheCat 05:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 15[edit]

Butt Rock is not a redirect. Therefore, it doesn't belong on RFD. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirects have been kept. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Template:Admin2 → Template:Admin — not used, the split history (resulting from a cut & paste move) has been merged into the latter by me. Should be deleted to discourage use at any time between now and whenever a future Template:Admin2 is created. This would prevent the text intended by people using the former title from being changed if/when the link is changed from a redirect to a distinct template, which might be completely different. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 19:51, Jan. 8, 2006
  • Comment - This redirect did not have an RFD banner placed on it, thus potentially depriving interested parties of the notification that the redirect was up for deletion. I have placed an RFD banner on the redirect and am relisting the nomination. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but lot of admins use it, including me. But for some serendipity, I wouldn't have noticed this - better to inform other admins who use it as well. 'coz the RFD banner or tagging doesn't show on one's watchlist of his user page and I doubt if the admins take a look at their user pages regularly. --Gurubrahma 20:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was deleted. This page was the talk page of a redirect deleted via another RFD nomination. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:57, January 16, 2006 (UTC)

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

The nominated redirect was kept. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - 'long pig' = cannibal term for human flesh as food, according to my Chambers Dictionary, and I remember it from the books I used to read as a child; supposedly because human flesh tastes like pork. Colonies Chris 18:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a common euphamism for human flesh and I could not find a better article to redirect to.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was deleted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 16[edit]

The nominated redirects were all deleted by various admins. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 22:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted (and shimmering was deleted as well). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was kept. Redirecting the article to Spell (paranormal) would be suboptimal, since that article does not discuss sleeping curses at all. Likewise with redirecting to curse. People who look up "Sleeping curse" are likely looking for the same effect as that used in Sleeping Beauty, and in the absence of a more informative article, Sleeping Beauty is probably the best target. If there are more instances of a sleeping curse being used in fiction, and if those instances have articles here on Wikipedia, then Sleeping curse should be turned into a disambiguation page. I leave this task to those who seem more well-versed in the occurrences of sleeping curses in fiction than I am. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 17[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted as per WP:CSD, R1. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 17:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2001-2005 types → Toa types by year -- Useless redirect; nothing links to it and the redirect name has little to do with the target's page content. It may even confuse someone looking for some kind of yearly types that have nothing to do with Toa. Drakhan 18:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tujia Church → Tujia -- The vast majority of Tujia practice a mixture of shamanism, Taoism, and ancestral worship, so this redirect makes no sense unless it is referring to the native religion of the Tujia people. Abstrakt 20:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the above redirect makes no sense. Abstrakt 20:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maonan Church → Maonan -- The vast majority of Maonan practice shamanism, so this redirect makes no sense unless it is referring to the native religion of the Maonan people. Abstrakt 20:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the above redirect makes no sense. Abstrakt 20:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

January 18[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted as per WP:CSD, R1. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was kept as no consensus was reached. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vár → Buda Castle -- created by an anonymous editor whose article has been moved to a more accurate name. reasons I wanted this to be deleted are these: 1) the name vár simply means castle in Hungarian; the current redirect (leading to only 1 castle) is inaccurate, there should be at least a disamb page or a "List of castles in Hungary" page, but there are hundreds of castles and castle ruins in Hungary, and right now I don't see any chance that the majority of them will have articles soon (there are articles about 3, I think); 2) it's not likely anyone will search for a Hungarian term in an English wikipedia; as far as I know English names are preferred. I hope this is the right page to put it up for vfd. Alensha 14:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not entirely correct what Alensha writes above (sorry!). On the one hand, its name is Vár with a capital letter V in Hungarian, as a proper name (moreover, it's not just one of the hundreds of castles in Hungary but the historic Royal Palace); on the other hand, it is the name of the corresponding article not only in the Hungarian Wikipedia but in the German Wikipedia as well (see de:Vár).
Indeed, it's possible for people to look for it by the Hungarian name, similarly to other non-English (eg German, French) place names which are not always translated into English if they are considered common enough. (For example, the Sacré Coeur is not usually referred to as "Sacred Heart" or the Potsdamer Platz as "Potsdam Square", are they?) For the above reasons, I can see no sound reason whatsoever to delete the redirect. Adam78 14:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The German article is not really about the castle itself but about a part of the city of Budapest containing the castle. Neither hu:Var nor hu:Vár exist in the Hungarian Wikipedia; Buda Castle is at hu:Budai várnegyed I think and that article mentions the name "Vár" (I can't read Hungarian though). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment – of course in colloquial speech in Budapest it's called vár, since this is the only castle there, but outside Budapest everyone refers to it as budai vár ("Castle of Buda" – btw I think that would be the correct name for the article instead of "Buda Castle"), and in all the other cities and villages the name vár means the castle of their city or village by default. If you search for vár in the Hungarian version of Google (http://www.google.co.hu) this castle is not even in the top ten; it comes as 12th and as "budai vár", not simply as "vár". I don't really think this word is on par with "Sacré Coeur" when it comes to being internationally known. Alensha 16:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

January 19[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was speedy deleted as a vehicle for personal attacks and a completely nonsensical redirect-turned-disambiguation page. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 13:08, Jan. 19, 2006

  • Sinn Fein/I.R.A. → Sinn Fein -- Created by User:Aidan Work so that a redlink in his personal attacks (for which he is currently blocked) would go blue. This will never, ever be used by anyone other than him. Kiand 08:29, 19 January 2006 (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 (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The nominated redirect was deleted. This should have been brought up at Wikipedia:Requested moves. However, I do not expect this to be controversial, so I moved War Stories to War Stories (Firefly episode). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was speedily deleted as per WP:CSD, R1. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 21:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tomoe shinohara → Tomoe Shinohara -- incorrect capitalization - doesn't the wiki software handle this automatically? Shiroi Hane 07:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment This is probably there because of the ambiguity in asian name order. In English, typically, the family name is second while in Japanese the family name is first, many times Japanese names may be in reverse order in English (probably due to immigration forms which have separate boxes for family and "first" name.) Thus, I could easily see someone entering a Japanese person's English name in reverse order, so we should keep this redirect. Mangojuice 20:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue is not the name order (the article has now been moved and I've updated the link above) but the capitalization of the redirect. Shiroi Hane 10:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was deleted. The RfD template was not visible because it was wrongly placed (after the #REDIRECT), but it is a speedy anyway. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 20[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was kept. The redirect does not do any harm and agrees with the disambiguation guideline, as William noted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • UDF (disambiguation) → UDF -- It was a double redirect from Udf (which would be the page returned if you searched for lowercase "udf"). The disambiguation content itself was located at UDF, so I changed Udf to point to UDF. Foobar 02:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold: yes, looks like Commader Keane did a move without checking for double redirects. Of course, Udf should be a redirect to UDF. That's the standard practice (lowercase to uppercase). But, WP:D clearly says: This "(disambiguation)" redirect page should always be created for the Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages listing. ... If you must link to a disambiguation page (instead of a specific meaning), link to the redirect to the disambiguation page that includes the text "(disambiguation)" in the title (such as, America (disambiguation)). Do not delete this redirect page. This policy is currently under discussion. --William Allen Simpson 00:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was deleted, after moving 100people1poesy to Talk:Hyakunin Isshu/100people1poesy so that the page history is preserved, as part of it was merged into Hyakunin Isshu. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 100people1poesy → Hyakunin Isshu -- The redirect title is mispelled, UE and was obviously written by a person with no knowledge of English/Wikipedia Zxcvbnm 22:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It did contain some useful information which I have merged into Hyakunin Isshu, so don't slam the contributor, but the name he gave the article is not useful. Ashibaka tock 22:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

January 21[edit]

The nominated redirect was converted to a disambiguation page. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate it, instead.--Urthogie 21:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was kept. Talk pages are allowed to be redirected, yes. When you do a page move, the talk page is automatically redirected. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 21:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 22[edit]

The nominated redirects were all kept. However much I sympatize with the nomination, there is clearly no consensus to have them deleted. Besides, I think this touches so many redirects that it requires greater participation than the guys (M/F) commenting here. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A number of unused cross-namespace shortcuts... T:DYK, T:FA, T:IOS, T:IS, T:IS2, T:ITN all redirect to a template; C:CSD to a category, and H:namespace to a help page. None of them are really in use. Personally I don't think templates need shortcuts because a template by definition is a shortcut. See also WP:WOTTA for some reasons why these may be a bad idea. Radiant_>|< 23:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all. There's no way to know whether these are in use unless their users happen to be watching RFD, since A) you didn't bother putting {{rfd}} on any of them, and B) the whole point of WP:WOTTA is that shortcuts should be orphans. —Cryptic (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all - I find them very useful as a shortcut. violet/riga (t) 22:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirects were all kept, as above. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • With the advent of portal namespace, some people have figured they should use shortcuts for accessing that. While there's nothing particularly wrong with that, the following shortcuts all are hardly in use, and rather defy the point of being a shortcut in the first place... if you're going to spell out the portal name, you might as well use the five extra letters to complete the word "portal". P:Arcade_Games, P:England, P:London, P:Trains and P:cricket. Radiant_>|< 23:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all. There's no way to know whether these are in use unless their users happen to be watching RFD, since A) you didn't bother putting {{rfd}} on any of them, and B) the whole point of WP:WOTTA is that shortcuts should be orphans. —Cryptic (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all per Radiant!. --Interiot 12:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep T:FA, T:DYK, and T:ITN. These could come up in Talk, and educating people about WP:WOTTA should not be done via RfD. Delete the others.
    • Strong Keep - I have no idea how you can calculate that they "are hardly in use", but there is absolutely no reason to delete these shortcuts. I know that I use P:England and P:London, and the fact that they save 5 letters illustrates why they exist - they save five letters. Just try typing "Portal:England" and "P:England" - the latter is much easier to type. Deano (Talk) 18:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirects were all kept, as above. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unused category shortcuts... CAT:ASD, CAT:DEFAM, CAT:CAT, CAT:IFD, CAT:IMP, CAT:Imp, CAT:NC, CAT:ORFU, CAT:PNT, CAT:SEMI and CAT:UW. See also WP:WOTTA for some reasons why these may be a bad idea. Radiant_>|< 23:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all. There's no way to know whether these are in use unless their users happen to be watching RFD, since A) you didn't bother putting {{rfd}} on any of them, and B) the whole point of WP:WOTTA is that shortcuts should be orphans. —Cryptic (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all. I created CAT:CAT, and although nothing links to it, it is much easier to type than Category:Categories when trying to go in and categorize articles. Lbbzman 13:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all. These shortcuts are usefull (even if these are not the most traficed categories), they are not primalily for linking (though they are usefull in edit summaries), but makes navigation easier when you know the shortcut. --Sherool (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all. They are harmless and useful. This seems like a pretty crazy set of nominations. -Splashtalk 22:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all. If really need be, recreate as C:ASD, C:DEFAM, C:CAT... to keep the naming scheme consistent. --Interiot 12:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep category shortcuts. You can always pipe the shortcut with something more descriptive, and I can never remember the full name of CAT:PNT. Kusma (討論) 13:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirects were all deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • The first three pages nominated have no incoming links and are all pages with a disambiguation phrase after it. I would suggest nobody will enter these phrases as a search term, and they are therefore not useful. The latter page does have incoming links, but these are not from the article space, and the page itself exists as a result of the page being moved to Limited series. Again, it is not a likely search term. Hiding talk 22:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirects was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Dyslexic agnostic 21:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We need to get rid of the duplicates. --Toffile 21:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirects was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definately agreed. Dyslexic agnostic 21:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We need to get rid of the duplicates. --Toffile 21:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirects was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed once more. Dyslexic agnostic 21:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We need to get rid of the duplicates. --Toffile 21:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirects was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirects was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirects was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 23[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • scumbag → scanger -- No use of this stalwart American culture insult term (NYPD Blue, Sopranos as just two examples) ever referred to a Dublin teen subculture. Redirect seems derisive towards scangers as well.
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. – ABCDe✉ 16:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ugly bags of mostly water → human -- silly redirect to human, nothing links to it. should probably direct to the film but there doesnt seem to be an article on it -- Astrokey44|talk 13:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd point to the film as well--perhaps write a stub if nothing else. For those who don't understand the reference, the phrase "ugly bags of mostly water" originally comes from an episode of Star Trek The Next Generation, where some alien race was using it as a derogatory term for humanity. --EngineerScotty 23:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom Abstrakt 23:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

January 24[edit]

The nominated redirect was kept and retargeted to Allies (band). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allies(band) → The Allies (band) -- Target article no longer exists NatusRoma 20:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article now appears to exist; there appears to be a discussion of what the article should be called. Keep, point to correct article once consensus is reached on the latter point (a matter outside of RFD) --EngineerScotty 23:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • LibertarianisM → Libertarianism -- Frivolous redirect. No one is likely to enter LibertarianisM into the search field with the M capitalized. Solarusdude 21:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, old CamelCase redirect. Kusma (討論) 21:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question: Is there any precedent in Wikipedia to either keep or remove old CamelCase links? Solarusdude 21:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Both, see Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Precedents. I should have said "keep, harmless". Kusma (討論) 21:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, it's a completely redundant redirect. Under the current software, typing in "LibertarianisM" in the search box will take you to the Libertarianism article even in the absence of a redirect. Therefore it should be deleted. It may only be a small waste of disk space, but it's still a waste of disk space. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 22:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Deleting a redirect does not free up any disk space - the history is still stored on the server. – ABCDe✉ 16:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree with this deletion, because it's unlikely to be needed, but your reasoning doesn't hold up. !) deleting redirects doesn't save much space, as ABCD said, and 2) not everyone navigates with the search box. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was speedily deleted by Mike Rosoft. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was kept (nomination withdrawn). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 25[edit]

The nominated redirects were deleted, with the exception of As of early 2004 which does have the proper capitalization. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirects were speedily deleted under the auspices of WP:CSD, R1. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 00:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 26[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was Delete CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nomination was moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fantastapottamus, because the redirect used to be a (stubby) article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fantastapottamus → The Simpsons -- I've found only 26 entries for a google search with Fantastapottamus+Simpsons all from wikipedia and it's mirrors. --- Melaen 14:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was deleted, with particular pleasure as I'm from the country that fought the Eighty Years' War with Spain. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 27[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Culture of Guinea redirects to Guinea. It just makes it look like we have an article on the Culture of Guinea when we don't.--Cherry blossom tree 10:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken out the main article reference. I think that that fixes the problem, which was that the article on Guinea claimed there was a culture article, which redirected back in a circle. There is a (small) section on culture in Guinea, so the redirect has a purpose, even though not much of one. James James 12:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the problem is that we don't have an article on the culture of Guinea and we'll never get one while it's showing up as a blue link everywhere. None of our other 'Culture of X' articles redirect to 'X' - there's no reason why this one should.--Cherry blossom tree 12:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. I think it's slightly misleading gren グレン ? 14:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete, redlink is more useful in this case. Kusma (討論) 23:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

January 28[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was kept. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Soft serve is a type of Ice cream and it is mentioned in the article. The redirect at least takes you to applicable content until someone writes a more detailed article on soft serve ice cream. -- JLaTondre 19:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have converted the redirect to a stub. Hopefully, that will satisfy everyone. -- JLaTondre 20:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was deleted — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:31, Feb. 7, 2006

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

The nominated redirect was deleted — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:31, Feb. 7, 2006

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ansar Allah → Hezbollah -- POV redirect because Ansar Allah is the name of an unknown terrorist group whose actions were denied by Hezbollah, and also a misleading name because it doesn't at all refer to Hezbollah. CG 18:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Relisting because the redirect page did not have the RfD template placed on it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Ups, I'm sorry. CG 08:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, Seems to have some use that validates is exsistance. However, it could use some more additions. -ZeroTalk 03:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, we should turn Ansar Allah into an article to clarify its uses instead of confusingly redirect it to Hezbollah. CG 08:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Is there enough to write about Ansar Allah? An alternative would be to redirect Ansar Allah to Alas Chiricanas Flight 00901 instead of to Hezbollah. That seems a more suitable target to me. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a possibility, or we can just delete it. I just want to remove the POV and the confusion. CG 14:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete the redirect, an article on the subject would be entirely appropriate, but the current redirect is not. There is plenty of information on Ansar Allah to warrant its own article, and while there are some claims that are the same as Hezbollah or have a lot of connection to Hezbollah, there is not enough evidence for Wikipedia to treat them as one in the same. [4]Peyna 23:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

January 29[edit]

The nominated redirect was KEPT

  • WP:FARC → Wikipedia:Featured article candidates - offensive to anyone in Columbia or connected it (c.f. Farc) --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 13:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Don't see why it's offensive. Your 'individual retirement accounts' are still called IRA, right? It's just a coincidence that leads to an urban legend about McDonald's. David | Talk 13:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite possibly the dumbest listing ever made here. Keep and sanction the nominator. Raul654 08:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. This nomination made me grin. This redirect is used all the time. Regardless, I'm sure it's possible to make out every acronym to be offensive in some way. — Rebelguys2 talk 09:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and I'm closing... don't we have a disclaimer... ask the legal department to add something about "we don't mean to offend Colombian guerillas". gren グレン ? 10:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was deleted. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:34, Feb. 7, 2006

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

The nominated redirect was kept. The nominator seems to propose to turn Discounting into a disambiguation page, which does not require deletion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nominated redirects were deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was kept. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark Logan Pedley → Dominion of Melchizedek No information is listed in the article and the link is not useful. Davidpdx 10:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The second sentence of Dominion of Melchizedek says "The DoM was created in 1986 by Evan David Pedley and his son, Mark Logan Pedley", so the redirect seems to be useful to me. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I forgot to vote for this after I posted it. It looks like it's a dead issue and its going to stay anyway. Davidpdx 12:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Mostly harmless; although the redirect is an orphan. Peyna 23:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

January 30[edit]

The nominated redirect was kept, per disambiguation policy. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading (disambiguation) → Reading -- The disambiguation page is now Reading - the old Reading (disambiguation) page is therefore unnecessary - no links as of this entry Ian Cairns 13:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, potentially useful to show that you want to link to the disambiguation page instead of one of the entries. See WP:D#Generic_topic. Kusma (討論) 14:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete (as per my nomination) - there are already disambiguation links pointing to the Reading article, but none pointing to the redirect that is Reading (disambiguation). So, still unnecessary. Ian Cairns 19:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Objection: irrelevant, the only reason there were no links pointing to Reading (disambiguation) was that you just went round and edited them all, therefore this cannot be used as a justification to Delete. I accept that I had previously edited most of them into existence. However, at no point did I attempt to use their existence as a justifcation for their existence (which would be a circular argument); rather, my argument is supported by free-standing cogent reasoning, and supported by existing documented practice (Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages).Duckbill 12:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • See also footer of this page: "NOTE: WE DO NOT DELETE REDIRECTS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY INCOMING LINKS. DO NOT LIST THIS AS A REASON TO DELETE A REDIRECT." Duckbill 14:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, useful to show an intentional link to the disambiguation page, rather than an accidental one. See Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages. Duckbill 11:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Relevant text from Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages: "If you must link to a disambiguation page (instead of a specific meaning), link to the redirect to the disambiguation page that includes the text "(disambiguation)" in the title (such as, America (disambiguation)). This helps in distinguishing accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones." Duckbill 12:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedily Keep, (from above) "The guiding principles of RfD: Nominations made in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept". Nomination violates Wikipedia:Redirect: "Facilitate disambiguation: This is a redirect to a disambiguation page. This redirect is pointed to by links that should always point to the disambiguation page rather than be disambiguated." (But page needs marking with "Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages". Will do.) Duckbill 12:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually it needed " {{R to disambiguation page}}" adding after the REDIRECT (but on the same line). Done. Duckbill 12:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was speedily deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:47, Feb. 7, 2006

Category:LISP programming language family → Category:LISP dialects -- Redirect to a category; empty EngineerScotty 19:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure if this should go here or on CFD. Page redirects to a category (which it is redundant with). Only one article was in the category, that article also was in the pointed to category. I removed the one (redundant) reference, so this category is now empty.--EngineerScotty 19:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blue Fire → Legend of Zelda series -- Aside from a capitalization issue, I find it hard to believe that the Zelda series is only fictional use of blue fire. And don't some real-world materials burn at high temperatures with a blue flame? Perhaps a disambiguation page at blue fire to point to those materials? If, for some reason, it does remain a Zelda redirect, it should point to The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, the only game to actually feature blue fire. WikidSmaht (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Redirect_Archives/January_2006&oldid=1089911408"