Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jon Harald Søby (talk | contribs) at 10:04, 12 April 2006 (→[[WP:NPOVUW]] → [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 0 0 52 0 52
TfD 0 1 7 0 8
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 17 0 17
RfD 0 0 0 0 0
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

  • If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
  • If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
  • If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss the proper target.
  • Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When to delete a redirect for more information.)

Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.

Before listing a redirect for discussion

Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:

The guiding principles of RfD

Shortcut
  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
  • In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When to delete a redirect

Shortcuts

Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes and Wikipedia:Moving a page § Moving over a redirect

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").

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

Reasons for deleting

Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § Redirects

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

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles" (itself a redirect to "Article"), it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
  10. Shortcut
    If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
  11. If the redirect ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not target a disambiguation page or a page performing a disambiguation-like function (such as a set index of articles). Speedy deletion criterion G14 may apply.

Reasons for not deleting

Shortcut

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in article text because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. Please tag these with {{R from old history}}. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
  5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects

Shortcut

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
  2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

Closing notes

Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussion

Shortcut
STEP I.
Tag the redirect(s).

  Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page.

  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page ("Publish changes").
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination. If it is an inline template, use |showontransclusion=tiny instead.
  • If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated and specify on {{rfd}} the nomination's group heading from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
STEP II.
List the entry on RfD.

 Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For this template:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
  • If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
STEP III.
Notify users.

  It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template

{{subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName}} ~~~~

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.

  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

Current list

April 12

Crimean Ta → Crimean Tatars

This Crimean Ta is simply a mistake, as you can see in the 1st version of the article. Yahoo, who created the article probably wanted to name it Crimean Tatars, but a mistake occured. "Crimean Ta" is an abracadabra without any meaning. And, of course, there are no links to Crimean Ta. The article should be deleted. Don Alessandro 03:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Delete per nom. — TKD::Talk 04:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All India Engineering Entrace Examination → All India Engineering Entrance Examination

Mistakenly created by be with wrong spelling. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 11

List of Muslims/Proposed Organization B → User:Striver/Proposed Organization B

Editor moved the page on my request to be under his own user page leaving a redirect from main space to user space. JeffW 03:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica Estates → Queens

While Jamaica Estates is indeed a neighborhood in Queens, the Queens article itself provides no useful information about the neighborhood of Jamaica Estates in particular. Thus, providing a redirect to Queens serves little if no purpose. —Larry V (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Starting a separate article on it might be a good idea eventually, but, unless someone wants to do that now, delete since it's referenced from the Queens article itself, creating a confusing self-link. — TKD::Talk 04:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOVUW → Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Confusing shorcut-to-section which doesn't work and uses an acronym that is not commonly understood, see Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Shortcuts to sections --Francis Schonken 22:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 10

  • Backus → John Backus -- There is more than one notable person named "Backus" in Wikipedia. There were only 2 articles linked to this redirect, and direct-linking to the correct article was trivial and not disruptive. Having this link interferes with searches for other people named "Backus" (e.g. Jim Backus) Gwimpey 22:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It ought to be a disambiguation page in that case. I'll start it although I see we have a lot of Backuses! ~ Veledan • Talk 22:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Someone who knows more about Backuses may want to rearrange the links into a more appropriate order of priority! Please no one add more info than is needed for disambiguation or wikilink any other words in the dab page (apologies to those who know already, but I spend a lot of time on dab cleanup!) ~ Veledan • Talk 23:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delink in the TransGeneration page. The students are not going to be the subject of articles themselves until they do something significant, so they should all be redirects to this page. Ziggurat 20:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical Critic → Salient (magazine) -- The redirect page in its history has some sensitive detail. The page was initially about a pseudonym who wrote for the magazine. the columns were offensive. Previous versions (before becoming a redirect) have info on who the intial author is [1]. Furthermore, nothing actually uses the redirect and it is a highly unlikely search term Midnighttonight 09:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a possible search term, and redirects cost very little. 'Sensitive' information should only be deleted from the history of a page when it is potentially libelous or otherwise deleterious to Wikipedia, and this doesn't seem to be the best way to go about that. Ziggurat 22:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 8

Delete. CG 11:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--Amir E. Aharoni 20:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Since you're the sole person who has touched that page, you can tag it with {{db-author}}. Make sure to put the tag before the #REDIRECT. — TKD::Talk 05:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--Amir E. Aharoni 20:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--Amir E. Aharoni 20:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if only for the potential with the confusion with David Bowie's album.--Amir E. Aharoni 20:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 7

April 6

April 5

This is a page for a D&D spell. The spell was never notable enough for the encyclopedia to begin with. It is now a redirect to Spells of Dungeons and Dragons, and the list at that article now includes the skull trap spell. The spell isn't significant enough for inclusion in that list, however (we're trying to keep the list to the most iconic), but I'm told I can't remove the spell from the list as long as this page redirects to it! So I'm asking for this redirect to be deleted so I can remove its merged text from the target article. I'd previously proposed the deletion of this article but User:TigerShark removed the tag. Powers 02:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royboycrashfan 02:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 4

This redirect is a bit of redirection vandalism, I've deleted the reference to 
an "aeroperiod" (which doesn't exist) from the article it directs to, 
but since my removal of the redirect was reverted by a bot, I'm asking for it to be deleted.

I am bringing this discussion to the appropriate project page. Royboycrashfan 00:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nominated redirect was Reverted to actual article. An earlier editor redirected to an AfD that closed as ambiguous & the article kept. As that redirect was not appropriate, I've reverted to last actual article version. -- JLaTondre 03:00, 4 April 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 vandalism (CSD G3). Kusma (討論) 03:31, 8 April 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 redirect to a deleted page. Kusma (討論) 03:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply] The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

April 3

The nominated redirect was Deleted by Sceptre with summary of (RfD discussion). -- JLaTondre 22:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 0000 → year zero (originally → 1 BC) -- Implausible as use as an actual year, and there seems an advantage to having unsubstituted templates showing a red link. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Perhaps, instead of deleting the redirect, it should be a disambiguation page between the ISO 8601 1 BC and the common usage which would be year zero. This doesn't help the red link problem, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 0000 → 1 BC was originally created as a fix for a bug in the Wikipedia software that converted the valid ISO8601 date of [[0000-01-01]] into [[1 January]] [[0000]] instead of [[1 January]] [[1 BC]] as it should. However, since then the software appears to have been changed so that now [[0000-01-01]] is changed to [[1 January]] [[0]], where [[0]] does not go to any year but instead goes to the numeral 0, which has also been changed in the interim into a disambiguation page. Thus the original redirect now serves no useful purpose. Note that the ISO8601 date [[-0000-01-01]] now is correctly converted to -0000-01-01, where -0000 is converted to [[1 BC]] as it should. (ISO8601 uses astronomical year numbering where the astronomical 0 is the historical 1 BC.) Appearently the only way to fix the ISO8601 date format problem now is via a Wikipedia:Bug report. — Joe Kress 09:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment. I created the page, but I was completely unaware that it was even ON one of the many BJAODN pages, most of which I have not read. I agree that it may be unlikely that anybody would use it, so if there is consensus to delete it, then so be it. Firestorm 21:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 2

The nominated redirect was Deleted by Durin with summary (confirmed hoax). -- JLaTondre 23:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply] The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
  • Delete I think it is supposed to be in case someone doesn't know how to spell MAME. But too confusing and not terribly useful. JoshuaZ 20:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looking at the comments on the user page of the editor who created this one, s/he seems prone to questionable edits and this one is particularly unhelpful. How many times would someone search for "Maim" when they mean "MAME", versus how many times would someone search for "Maim" when "Maim" is actually what they mean? The earlier Wiktionary link is far more helpful - this should perhaps be reinstated. IMO, Gingerfield rocks' reversion of the Wiktionary link back to the earlier unhelpful redirect is, if anything, vandalism rather than an attempt to help build an encyclopdia. CLW 08:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons give above. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 1

The nominated redirect was Deleted by Makemi as (author request). -- JLaTondre 19:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply] The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
I've been bold and performed a move to Married and maiden names. On expriry of this nom pls rm tag from the rd (which I have snapped). John Reid 04:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 31

I think a reasonable English version would be simply missing the diacritics, but this one is a gross misspelling--"i" instead of "y", and missing "cz". Appleseed (Talk) 22:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep These are helpful redirects. Anyone trying to spell the name only having heard it rather than seen it is quite likely to use an I. They are not doing any harm are they? ~ Veledan • Talk 16:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on Kusma's talk page, the misspellings are so flagrant and bizarre that there's no way someone would be able to reproduce them. There are many easy ways to find the page if you don't know how to spell the article name or the name of a dozen of its more valid redirects: the Polish monarchs template, categories, and other articles. Appleseed (Talk) 16:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated redirect was deleted, looks like an ugly encoding error. — Apr. 2, '06 [19:21] <freakofnurxture|talk> The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. — Apr. 2, '06 [19:21] <freakofnurxture|talk> The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
I think a reasonable English version would be simply missing the diacritics, but this, too, is a gross misspelling; it adds an "i" and is missing an "e". Appleseed (Talk) 22:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google seems to agree with you; this misspelling is only found on Wikipedia mirrors. Kusma (討論) 23:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated redirect was deleted, looks like an ugly encoding error. — Apr. 2, '06 [19:21] <freakofnurxture|talk> The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
There is already a redirect from "August the Strong". Appleseed (Talk) 22:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almost a textbook case for {{R from other capitalisation}}, see Wikipedia:Redirect. Kusma (討論) 23:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 30

The nominated redirect was This is page is for redirect deletions - not merges. However, I'll redirect EMI Manhattan Records to Manhattan Records as the first is a subset of the second. -- JLaTondre 18:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply] The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Little Johnny Taylor converted to stub. -- JLaTondre 18:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply] The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Deleted by Freakofnurture. -- JLaTondre 11:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my bad, I speedied it as an implausible typo (created by pagemove error) and forgot to say so. I got sidetracked trying to figure out why the hell the target article had an &emdash; instead of a hyphen. — Mar. 30, '06 [12:37] <freakofnurxture|talk>
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Redirected to SPL. Spl was changed to an article on sound pressure level. Since there is already a sound pressure level article, this was redudant. The easiest solution was to redirect Spl to SPL which has sound pressure level as one of the disambig destinations. I recognize closing a nomination you've been involved with is against protocal, but given it matches the recommendations of both responders & is the easiest way to deal with the nomination being replaced with a duplicate article, I'm going to be bold. -- JLaTondre 13:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply] The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

March 29

The nominated redirect was deleted. Johnleemk | Talk 12:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

====*Drop the soap → Prison rape==== -- I appreciate there are some funny crude jokes that connect the two articles but I can't imagine anyone who wants to read about prison rape searching for this. Also, prison rape makes no mention of the expression drop the soap (nor should it) so the redirect could be confusing if encountered during a search. Lastly, prison rape is not a humorous topic and I think the presence of this redirect is one of those little things that detracts (if only slightly) from the prestige and professionalism of this project ~ Veledan • Talk 23:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was delete – Sceptre (Talk) 10:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

====Timeline of Kurdish history → Kurdish people==== -- I just deleted the only link using Timeline of Kurdish history from List of Themed Timelines because Kurdish people isn't and doesn't contain a timeline JeffW 21:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. Johnleemk | Talk 12:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

====Gori (city in Georgia) → Gori, Georgia==== -- Highly unlikely anyone would search for that. Only link to it is the disambig page Gori, which I'm now going to repair to point to the target. AmiDaniel (Talk) 12:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted. Johnleemk | Talk 12:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===='ole ball 'n chain → significant other==== -- Implausible search term; smacks of POV; "ball and chain" could refer to anything listed in the "see also" section of significant other. –Sommers (Talk) 01:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted already, by somebody else. — Apr. 2, '06 [19:24] <freakofnurxture|talk>

====Uncle Jerry → North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics==== -- Uncle Jerry is not mentioned at target article and it's too generic. Looking at history, it was originally a redirect to Gerald Boarman which was a redirect to the school. A bot corrected the double redirect, but missed that this was probably a vanity redirect based upon family relationship (i.e. Gerald is someone's uncle). -- JLaTondre 02:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was deleted already, by somebody else. — Apr. 2, '06 [19:24] <freakofnurxture|talk>

====Created → St. John's College, U. S.==== -- From creation summary: Forgot to remove beginning of phrase when cutting and pasting (when I created this mis-named page). Redirect name has no relation with target article. -- JLaTondre 04:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was no consensus – Sceptre (Talk) 10:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

====Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma → Cherokee==== -- nonexistent tribal entity --PeyoteMan 06:19, 29 March 2006

This WP:Rfd seems to be an artifact of a political dispute between various factions within the Cherokee nation, and is a recurring focus of the edit wars currently taking place on Chad_"Corntassel"_Smith between User:Johnc1, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Johnc1, and others.
User:Johnc1 seems to promote the Cherokee_Nation_of_Oklahoma (visit "Cherokee Website of Truth"); conversely, it is opposed (in this instance) by User:PeyoteMan/User:Waya sahoni/User:Gadugi, who seemingly prefers Cherokee_Nation.
Just an observation... -- talks_to_birds 08:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was delete – Sceptre (Talk) 10:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

====Criticism_of_Ataturk → Atatürk's reforms==== -- Implausible redirect, the page redirected to is not related to criticism either in content or title. Pti 14:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Deleted by Mikkalai as (redir to deleted page). -- JLaTondre 11:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

====Allied atrocities → World War II atrocities==== -- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World War II atrocities. No links to the page--Philip Baird Shearer 16:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Deleted by Mikkalai as (stray redir to deleted page). -- JLaTondre 11:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

====Scorched Lands and others Japanese contermeasures against enemy invading forces in WW2 → World War II atrocities==== -- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World War II atrocities. No link to the page. Page has been a redirect since the day it was created Philip Baird Shearer 16:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was no longer a redirect. — Apr. 2, '06 [19:24] <freakofnurxture|talk>

====Cultural intelligence --> Race and intelligence.==== User:Proto created the page and redirect after a question at the reference desk, with the mistaken assumption that cultural intelligence was linked to race. The two topics are, in fact, completely unrelated, as this google search demonstrates (cultural intelligence is an organisational psych/ management theory about how people of different cultures relate to each other, and cultural diversity within organisations). I reverted the redirect and requested that the page be speedied (as it was then blank) and was directed here. I will be happy to request that the article on cultural intelligence be created once it stops redirecting to something totally inappropriate. Natgoo 22:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a stub on the topic, the issue's now fixed. Natgoo 18:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

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. We also sometimes delete redirects that do have incoming links, so it's not a necessary condition either. See When should we delete a redirect? above for the reasons for deleting or keeping redirects.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=48094197"