Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Header

Current list

March 8

Skybridge crossing Hwy 67 between Ramada Inn & Rythym City Casino, Davenport, Iowa → Davenport Skybridge -- Name is too long to be a useful redirect, plus "Rhythm" is misspelled in the casino's name. --Iowahwyman 05:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KVX-FM → KLOS -- This redirect had the "considered for deletion" noticed added on 2006-02-04 by 66.81.149.82 but was not brought over to here. I support the deletion, since nothing on the KLOS page even mentions KVX-FM, let alone why there should be a redirect. —LrdChaos 16:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Holiday → Christmas -- Not being linked on any pages. Highly unlikely that someone would search for "The Holiday" if they are searching for Christmas, and it's blocking a page move. Crumbsucker 17:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Christmas is not the only holiday. Royboy crashfan 00:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Faith Evans (singer) → Faith Evans -- Redirect result of old page move. no links to it. No chance of being searched for. Crumbsucker 17:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no harm in keeping it. Royboy crashfan 00:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Faith Evans (R&B singer) → Faith Evans -- Another result of page move. Not being linked anywhere. No chance of being searched for. Crumbsucker 18:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, less useful than Faith Evans (singer). Royboy crashfan 00:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jupiter_and_Internet_conspiracists → Jupiter Conspiracy Theories -- listed page on afd, if deleted, delete redirect, if keep, keep redirect. Polonium 23:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Demon Zophiel → Jophiel -- Prodded and then nominated for AfD (discussion here) after article was turned into redirect; I am moving it here. Doesn't seem plausible, so I am voting delete. Royboy crashfan 00:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 7

Gongsta → Gangster -- Unlikely misspelling. Used to be an article created by an anon user but was turned into a redirect for being non-notable. Hairy Dude 06:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 00:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Field Remote Expeditonary Device → List_of_technology_in_the_Stargate_universe#FRED -- The redirect is no longer needed as an article (FRED) has been started on this subject. Veritas Panther 06:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article was merged into the "list of" article once before, I'm going to do it again now. And the new article's title is misspelled anyway. Bryan 07:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nominated redirect was speedily kept as the nomination was withdrawn. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Gurunath → Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath -- Gurunath is a title used by people other than the redirect subject. For example, the current leader of my lineage is Shri Gurunath Kapilnath.~~ Adityanath 12:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Rather than deleting, edit into a description of the title. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Advice taken. Thanks. Adityanath 19:24, 7 March 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 as the nomination was withdrawn. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yogiraj → Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath -- This term is a title given to other individuals besides the redirect subject. Just one example is Yogiraj Shama Churn Lahiree [1].~~ Adityanath 12:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Rather than deleting, edit into a description of the title. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Advice taken. Thanks. Adityanath 19:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of NCIS Episodes → List of NCIS episodes -- (Article originally named with the capitalization, but has since been moved as a result of conformation with WP precedence.) — THOR ^{| File:Lfucg-flag.gif File:Kentucky state flag.png} 16:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: people could type this into the search box any which way. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I often accidently capitilize that word when looking up episode lists, it's a legitimate redirect. --lightdarkness^(talk) 21:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, plausible search term. Royboy crashfan 00:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TWISTED_WHEEL → Twisted Wheel Club -- I doubt this redirect has ever been used WilliamKF 19:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nobody is likely to type all caps. Royboy crashfan 00:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion → Wikipedia:Deletion policy -- Self reference: redirect from main namespan to Wikipedia: namespace. — Itai (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. Mackensen (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unnecessary. Royboy crashfan 00:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 6

The nominated redirect was speedily deleted and Academic dress of the University of Durham was moved to Academic dress of Durham University. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Academic dress of Durham University → Academic dress of the University of Durham -- The university tends to call itself Durham university, I'd link the give the article a consistant name with Durham University. This redirect is blocking a page move. Salix alba (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No matter how the university may call itself, this is still a common mistake. What page move is it blocking? -- That might change my opinion. AmiDaniel 23:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete. Sorry, I understand now. AmiDaniel 03:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete? Do you mean the redir page is blocking the move of Academic dress of the University of Durham to Academic dress of Durham University, i.e. preventing you changing the direction of the redirect? If that's the case, you can simply tag it for CSD under reason G9 — non-controversial page move — instead of voting here ~ Veledan • Talk 21:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Warehouse (Leeds) → University of Leeds -- An old article originally about a club in Leeds popular with students and redirected to the University. Does not seem to be useful redirect. Salix alba (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. AmiDaniel 23:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lions Gate Films-merged with Lions Gate Entertainment
- Keep. Seems like a worthwhile redirect for people unaware of the merger searching under the old company name.--Andrew c 02:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knocked Up (film) → Knocked Up -- Self-nom. Originally made to disamb, but wasn't it needed so the page was moved. Resulting redirect not needed. Crumbsucker 13:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. AmiDaniel 23:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canopy (forest) redirects to Forest but that page does not discuss topic. Someone is currently redirect pages directly to forest causing incorrect meanings in articles like West Nile virus where the habitat of forest versus canopy is significant. Rmhermen 19:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Turn into article, rather than just remove the redirect. At the very least it will be a useful stub. --Salix alba (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as stub per Salix. --Allen 00:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 5

John 6 → Gospel of John -- Redlinks work a lot better than redirects for the purposes of the {{Chapters in the Gospel of John}} box. Imagine if every redlinked chapter was actual a redirect back to the parent Gospel. A user wouldn't be able to tell which chapters actually had content and which ones were just redirects. Since John 6 is the odd ball, I suggest this redirect be deleted Andrew c 07:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. AmiDaniel 09:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Makes sense to me.Herostratus 14:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks like a simple newbie error. Page was created by an anon editor simply pasting in the text of the bible chapter and a later editor changed it to a redir instead of deleting the page. ~ Veledan • Talk 21:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While there is considerable debate over the meaning of the chapter, it is best covered in articles on the doctrines involved and on the gospel itself. --CTSWyneken 02:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Johanesburg → Johannesburg -- Not a common misspelling that I've seen (in fact, only one article pointed there). Dbinder 13:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't look too unplausible to me. I've tagged it as {{R from misspelling}}, and vote keep. Kusma (討論) 17:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: "n" vs. "nn" is a relatively common misspelling error when typing. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As per above. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Related topics → List of topics related to Sound Art -- Someone accidentally created an article called List of Related topics. I moved it. This redirect is meaningless. Reyk 23:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OOT → Ocarina of Time -- The targeted article itself is a redirect to The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Since the chances of OOT being typed in and expecting "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time" as a hit are minimal, I recommend the redirect be deleted. み使い Mitsukai 02:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Change target to The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. OoT (note different capitalization) already exists as a redirect to that page, and Google gives about 252,000 results for "Ocarina of Time" and "OOT" together. — TKD (Talk) 08:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gərbəˈtɕov → Mikhail Gorbachev -- Fun with IPA is not a plausible reason for a redirect. Seems like it might be a test page by a relatively new user. Kinu ^t/_c 06:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I challenge anyone to type that into the search box at all, let alone do it by accident :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 18:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 4

sux → suction -- Not useful for a redirect. 64.194.44.220 22:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wiktionary: this should appear in Wiktionary as a sometimes euphemistic and sometimes stylistic alternate spelling of Wiktionary:sucks (consult Wiktionary:suck, colloquial meaning of general disparagement). (recall the usage "6000 SUX" from RoboCop for instance) User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SUX should redirect to the Sioux Gateway Airport in Sioux City, Iowa. SUX is the three-letter IATA code.

1976-77 → 1976-77 in English football -- Too unspecific (created by page move to better title). Similar redirects were deleted recently, but I had overlooked this one. Kusma (討論) 20:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert to DAB: convert the page from a redirect to a disambiguation page that would include the present target among others. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tell the truth → Lie - What the heck? Why should tell the truth redirect to lie? 64.194.44.220 17:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: that's an odd one; I can't think of a good alternative target unless maybe Things mothers tell their children or List of positive behaviors perhaps? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can't redirect it to a nonexistent page. Perhaps it could be redirected to truth. 64.192.107.242 14:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I implied creation of one or the other article followed by the redirection; I'm aware that redirecting to a non-existant page is not desirable (though it can be done technically). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Change Redirect to truth. Science3456 15:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to point to To Tell the Truth. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Change Target → To Tell the Truth ... thanks for suggesting that one as a "mechanics" path; should then be tagged with R-from-related-word perhaps. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Under the Double Eagle → Josef Wagner (composer) -- This is a piece of music written by Wagner which redirects to Wagner. This is inappropriate. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm not sure why you think that's inappropriate. Pointing people to where information is discussed when there's not an article on the topic is one of the purposes of redirects. -- JLaTondre 22:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason for the existence of this particular redirect is almost definitely because it is displayed on the page March (music), where a link to Wagner's page is prominently displayed right next to the piece. I would say that its fine for this particular piece to redirect to Wagner, but it's sort of inappropriate since not all of Wagner's music redirects to him, and, indeed, far more prominent marches do not redirect to their composers, so the redirect seems somewhat out of place and redundant. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: in the absence of an article on the march itself I can see at least two places that the redirect might point, the composer (it's current target) or a list of the composer's pieces (such as List of works by Josef Wagner), which in many cases is in fact part of the composer's biographical article. I can see, though, the point of deleting it if one wishes to discourage a trend of creating redirects for every one of every artist's works. I waffle back and forth on that particular notion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 3

SocialisM → Socialism - why an article with such a name should exist??? yanis 16:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Note This was originally posted on WP:AFD. I moved it, and the vote history, here. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep it is a redirect to Socialism to help users who miss type during searches. Not overly nessary in this case.--Blue520 16:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note. Redirects for deletion sould go on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletionpage.--Blue520 16:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Not a very likely incorrect spelling. Better to fall through to the search feature. — RJH 18:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Unless I'm missing something, typing a misplaced cap at the end of a word should still go to the correctly capitalized article, and not the search page. For fun, I tried 'CommunisM' and was sent right to Communism with no redirect. The only time I can see this being useful is if the typo is in an inline link, in which case the red link would make it stand out enough that it would be found and corrected quickly anyway. -- Vary | Talk 22:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. pointless redirecT. Eivind 00:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, obsolete CamelCase. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the usual CamelCase with old edit history. -- User:Docu
  - Question: could you say something to the benefit of keeping the edit history on this and similar items? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - See Wikipedia talk:Merge and delete for a discussion of history and the GFDL license requirements. -- JLaTondre 00:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, #4 above. —Cryptic (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:Docu and Cryptic. -- JLaTondre 18:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. It's true that redirects are cheap, but its a really unlikely spelling. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep: thanks to JLaTondre's reference; I see that the camelcase version existed long before the normalcase version and that there is a history discontinuity between the two; therefore, the redirect up for deletion must be kept in order to satisfy GFDL licensing requirements. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per above. Kappa 02:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, redirects are cheap. Matt Yeager
- Delete. Redirects are cheap, but this one is completely unnecessary -- are we going to create a page for every possible spelling of every word? AmiDaniel 23:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep. Sorry, I see your point now. AmiDaniel 03:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep because of its edit history. Incidentally, I took the liberty of replacing the {{afd1}} on the redirect with {{rfd1}}. Hairy Dude 05:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC) ♫ (Talk?) 03:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep: CamelCase redirects are historically significant and sometimes act as targets for external links. What did you think the huge great notice was telling you? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 18:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pimation → Multiplication -- Pimation is apparently not a word and the creating account is new, so the article is probably a hoax. The Rod (☎ Smith) 05:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Marijuana / Cannabis (drug) → Cannabis (drug) -- Bad page move by Moskvech (talk · contribs) —Viriditas | Talk 03:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Binskiffler -> Dumpster diving - there is no evidence that this word exists outside of us and our mirrors (Google results). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binskiffler. —Cryptic (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shadows (album) → Shadows (Gordon Lightfoot album) -- This redirect was created out of a page move in line with the album page guidelines. All pages that previously linked to this redirect now link directly to the main page and thus the redirect serves no purpose. Shadow007 15:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This nomination makes no sense. If there is only one notable album called Shadows, Lightfoot's album should be placed at Shadows (album). If there is more than one, Shadows (album) should be a disambiguation page rather than a deleted redirect. — Mar. 3, '06 [17:13] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
- There is another (Shadows (Spy Glass Blue album)), but both are linked from Shadow (disambiguation), and as stated nothing links to Shadows (album) any more. Dan, the CowMan 17:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As Dan says, Gordon Lightfoot's album was originally the only album called Shadows with a page. But subsequently another one has been created so Shadows (album) was moved to Shadows (Gordon Lightfoot album). Both Shadows albums have a link on the Shadow (disambiguation) page and so the redirect is pointless. Although I note that someone turned the redirect into a disambig page I think this is pointless. I still believe it should be deleted. Shadow007 00:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Shadow (disambiguation) has many links. Shadows (album) as a disambig specifically for the albums makes sense, causes no harm, and could actually help. -- JLaTondre 02:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - In my opinion, as a disambig page it is unlikely to be helpful. People will simply search "Shadows" and be redireted to Shadow, then to the Shadow (disambiguation) page from which they will get to one of the two Shadows albums. I think it extremely unlikey that without any pages linking to Shadows (album) anyone will actually go there. Shadow007 07:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - For general users, true. However, for those familiar with Wikipedia's naming convention, not necessarily. The existence of Shadows (album) as a disambig page would ensure a duplicate article or an article on another album with the same name is not created at Shadows (album) by mistake. -- JLaTondre 17:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keep as dab page. Agreed, if you delete Shadows (album) someone will recreate it in error next time they write an article about an album called Shadows, then people who know the wiki will link to it from the wrong album without checking and they'll see their link go blue on the preview and think 'oh clever of me I guessed it right', and it'll be a mess. At least if it's a dab page when people link to it in error we'll pick it up on WP:DPL and be able to clean it up ~ Veledan • Talk 18:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 2

The nominated redirect was deleted. — Mar. 7, '06 [17:17] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Userbox → Wikipedia:Userboxes -- No self-reference. I thought this was decided, but people keep recreating it. I bring it here so that we can legitimately put deletedpages on it. Broken Segue 23:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Can you show me where this was decided? Sorry if I have restarted this issue. --F a ng Aili

Where what was decided? No-self reference? That has been policy for as long as I can remember. See WP:SELF. Also, Wikipedia:Redirect says that a redirect should be deleted if "It is a cross-space redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace." This issue has never been controversial there is nothing to start. The policy is pritty cut and dry (at least, I hope you don't start some thing, it'd annoy me if yet another policy that I agree came under attack). Broken Segue 01:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, ok. I was just asking. I was not familiar with that policy. --F a ng Aili 14:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Strongest Objection. That redirect does no harm in anyway that I can see. I don´t think that any article is going to be written with that title. It is quite usefull and easy to use (a official goal of Wikipedia) for new and old users. I also object how the whole matter is being dealt by over-eager users. You listed that re-direct in this list, that is true (see below), but as two users showed that they did not agree, you simply ignored their view and deleted the re-direct anyway. This is not a shootinglist where someone announces that he going to kill a wild animal and then does it regardless of everything. This is place where someone asks for the opinion of other users and tries to reach a agreement. Therefore I must most strongly object the deletion of this redirect and also your behaviour. Flamarande 18:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Strong Objection. What that guy said. ^^^^^^^ Recon0 20:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above ^^^ Dtm142 01:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This might be an instance of WP:IAR. There's at least one precedent for it: List of admins redirects to Wikipedia:List of administrators. --F a ng Aili 19:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid its an instance of people not understanding the rules. (The List of admins link is wrong as well) In Wikipedia:Redirect ona t the top of this page it is made clear that such redirects (no matter how convenient) are to be deleted. The users who are voting here don't understand this policy. As to Flamarande's comments I say AGF. I did nothing of the sort. I didn't even delete this template (and I deleted nothing after listing them here as you suggested). So I have no idea what you are talking about. Also note that two other respected admins (Tony Sidaway and Pathoschild) speedied this redirect (they were right to do so), but to clear it for users who don't understand the policy on inter-namespace redirects I listed them here. I am not here to destroy your userboxes *sheesh* this isn't a conspiracy. Cross-namespace redirect = bad and have always been that way. We're only having this conversation because it's about userboxes. I fear mentioning this, but a few clicks down the page you will find the uncontrovertial nomination of Rollback feature. If you want a quick way to acess the userboxes page use the WP shortcuts (WP:UB). Broken Segue 21:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First I have to apolagize to Broken. I confused him with the administrator who deleted the redirects whithout following proper channels and also imediatly put a deletedpages on it (see the talpages). I am sorry. But there a lawfull exceptions to rule mentioned above which (in my opinion) also apply to these case. Flamarande 18:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that it falls under: "*5. It is a cross-space redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace."

I can certainly understand that, but fact is that these redirects also fall under: However, avoid deleting such redirects if:"*3. They aid searches on certain terms." and "*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 a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways."

- Delete per norm. Those who voted keep, see BrokenSegue's rationale at Talk:Userboxes. This isn't a move against userboxes. All such inter-namespace redirects should be deleted. --F a ng Aili 21:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and second what Fang Aili said. Mackensen (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all cross-namespace redirects. -- JLaTondre 01:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all cross-namespace redirects. —Cryptic (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, redirects are cheap. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 03:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Look at the alternative: a user who wants to find out how to use userboxes types it in the searchbox, only to get an ugly page with a "this page has been deleted" notice on it. What kind of impression does that give to a newbie about the usability of Wikipedia? To whose benefit is that? The user isn't looking for an encyclopedia article on it, they just want to add the damn things to their userpage, or take a look at the gallery of them. Without a deleted notice page nor a redirection, the result is a search list with Wikipedia:Userboxes right at the top. Your solution has users seeing a "deleted" notice page, forcing them to backtrack to hit the search button. Why not cut the steps down to one: hit the go button and go straight to the desired page? IT MAKES NO SENSE TO HAMPER THE USABILITY OF WIKIPEDIA FOR THE SAKE OF A PEDANTIC RULE. Please don't break the search box: I typed in "userboxes" and got an ugly page with a notice leading me here. This is NOT what I was looking for! Think of the user and what he or she wants to find when typing in the term. Make Wikipedia work better, make it intuitive. Empathize with the user, for that's who we are serving. --Go for it! 04:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. What harm is this page doing anyone? You might not like userboxes, but it's an awfully cheap way to get rid of them--by making them impossible for new users to learn about. AmiDaniel 06:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. I think this deletion was made by a group of strict interpreters of wikipedia policy, and it is rediculous to delete this, unless someone will write an article on userboxes that is informative, and includes a link to the wikipedia userspace page, but that encyclopedic information is already found in the wiki-space. It is a useful link that makes wikipedia easier to navigate. Clarkefreak ∞ 23:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. as per Go for it! and Clarkefreak --Varco 15:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per User:Go for it! -arctic gnome 17:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.[reply]

The nominated redirect was deleted. — Mar. 7, '06 [17:17] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Userboxes → Wikipedia:Userboxes -- Same as the above, but it's a soft redirect (even worse). Broken Segue 23:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have advocated the recreation of the redirect ever since that weird deletion conspricy. Beside, many new users will have no idea how to find userboxes without it. If this is deleted, might as well do this to all redirects. The Republican 03:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the policy on no self-references does not mean that no search term or redirect can point to an article about Wikipedia. The policy is meant to prevent *useless* self-references, such as "This Wikipedia article is about Cats" at the top of the Cat article. Johntex\^talk 03:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I can see no wrong with this redirect. I helps the WikiUser and does no harm. I can only ask you to explain us what harm is done by that redirect. Flamarande 18:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Those who voted keep, see BrokenSegue's rationale at Talk:Userboxes. This isn't a move against userboxes. All such inter-namespace redirects should be deleted. --F a ng Aili 21:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and second what Fang Aili said. Mackensen (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or if not deleted, at least make it a real redirect. "Soft redirects" are the most useless thing since decaffeinated coffee. — Mar. 4, '06 [00:57] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
Delete all cross-namespace redirects. -- JLaTondre 01:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all cross-namespace redirects. —Cryptic (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, redirects are cheap. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 03:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Look at the alternative: a user who wants to find out how to use userboxes types it in the searchbox, only to get an ugly page with a "this page has been deleted" notice on it. What kind of impression does that give to a newbie about the usability of Wikipedia? To whose benefit is that? The user isn't looking for an encyclopedia article on it, and certainly not an ugly dead end -- they just want to add userboxes to their userpage, or take a look at the gallery of them. Without a deleted notice page nor a redirection, the result is a search list with Wikipedia:Userboxes right at the top. Your solution has users seeing a "deleted" notice page, forcing them to backtrack to hit the search button. Why not cut the steps down to one: hit the go button and go straight to the desired page? IT MAKES NO SENSE TO HAMPER THE USABILITY OF WIKIPEDIA FOR THE SAKE OF A PEDANTIC RULE. Please don't break the search box: I typed in "userboxes" and got an ugly page with a notice leading me here. This is NOT what I was looking for! Think of the user and what he or she wants to find when typing in the term. Make Wikipedia work better, make it intuitive. Empathize with the user, for that's who we are serving. --Go for it! 05:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per what I said above. AmiDaniel 06:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep see above. Clarkefreak ∞ 23:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a cross-namespace link, which is not allowed. Deleting this has nothing to do with userboxes per se, other publishers may mirror the contents of Wikipedia, and cross-namespace links break. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 11:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.[reply]

Puritis → Itch -- Wrong spelling Rjb uk 21:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson's sexual orientation → 1993 child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson -- Redirect was created by Vizjim to prove a point as a result of this discussion and a comment by 72.66.30.149. Vizjim did nearly the same thing here too. Crumbsucker 10:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't proving a point as such, just filling in redlinks with redirects that might make sense. If you look at the Baden Powell debate I originally voted to merge the content back into the main article, so I'm confused as to what point I might have been making. Happy to have this deleted, but equally think that a "sexuality" category makes sense.Vizjim 16:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't be anything other than pure speculation, and as such is not encyclopedic even as a redirect. Not relevant, unnecessary. --DanielCD 14:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does his sexuality have to do anyting with his abuse charges? ^KILO-_LIMA 18:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --Grocer 19:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nominated redirect was Deleted by Freakofnurture. -- JLaTondre 18:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advancement in Cub Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)) → Advancement in Cub Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) -- self-nom, article originally created with extra parenthisis in name, sinced moved to correct name, redirect not needed Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per Gadget850. ^KILO-_LIMA 18:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

One million articles → [[2]] -- illogical Grocer 19:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --Grocer 19:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, long after our special banner is gone off our home page, someone will wonder what our one-millionth article was. This redirect should be kept and should eihter point to the "Jordanhill railway station" article, as it does now, or to the press release pertaining to hitting the milestone. Johntex\^talk 19:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note also the poll below on One millionth article, which currently has 3 opinions to keep compared the the one opinion listing it for consideration here. Thank you, Johntex\^talk 19:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, but please notice this article was created under different circumstances, deleted a few times, then recreated as a redirect. And while "One millionth article" is a somewhat likely search string, "one million articles" is hard to make sense of. --Grocer 19:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep - This was 1 away from actually being the millionth article. scary.--God Ω War 22:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, God of War, that isn't an acceptable reason to keep a redirect. Broken Segue 23:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as Johntex says it is a historic thing which people will wonder about and want to find. It should redirect to the press release which then links to the article itself. Iancaddy 00:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep until 2 million articles. I created this article (at the time, the old article was deleted and did not exited). It was the article number 999999. I sugest to delete this article 1 mounth after wikipedia reaches 2 million articles. In the meantime we could expalin it was number 999999, and make a link to the one millionth, without redirect. Moa3333 19:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, navel gazing. Pavel Vozenilek 19:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no self-references. Someone who wants to know what the millionth article in Wikipedia was should look at Wikipedia. —Cryptic (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, self-referencial. bogdan 09:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for a couple of weeks , while we're in the news, in case some clueless user types it into the search box, then delete. Zocky | picture popups 13:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - articles shouldn't self-reference Wikipedia. —Whouk (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism (disambiguation) → Terrorism -- This disamb page is sort of an anomaly. It never really contained substantial content, and a new page was created to replace it (Terrorist (disambiguation)). It can probably be safely deleted, since nothing links here. Most of the edits to this page are from the sockpuppet of a banned user (User:Lady in Red, User:A bird in the hand, User:Cheese Curd, User:Legal Tender, User:Peter McConaughey are all User:Zephram Stark) so there isn't really any reason to preserve the history. Maybe move the talk page to Talk:Terrorist (disambiguation) (which doesn't yet exit) since there is some discussion that is maybe worth saving. Just wanted to see what others thought about this. JW1805 (Talk) 22:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 1

One millionth article → Jordanhill railway station -- Self-referential redirect, not useful for searches or linking. cesarb 04:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I've already used this, much easier to remember than "Jordanhill railway station". Kappa 04:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, long after our special banner is gone off our home page, someone will wonder what our one-millionth article was. This redirect should be kept and should eihter point to the "Jordanhill railway station" article, as it does now, or to the press release pertaining to hitting the milestone. Johntex\^talk 05:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Johntex. ^KILO-_LIMA 18:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SELF Ziggurat 19:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or if its kept, I am going to make redirects from favorite pizza topping to anchovi to save myself time. It doesn't matter that you find this useful or if its convenient. Millionth article isn't an alternate name for that railway station. The article doesn't even mention that it is the millionth, so why should we have a redirect for it. That will, at the least, confuse people and, worse, it violates wp:self. BrokenSegue 23:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment whether the article mentions its one-millionth status is a question of when you look at the article. Opinion is split about 60-40 against mentioning at the moment - this is likely to drift the other way as media mentions start coming in. Johntex\^talk 03:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, concur with CesarB and BrokenSegue. An article on Wikipedia facts/stats can state this milestone and identify the one millionth article. But a redirect is useless in the long run. P199 19:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no encyclopedic value. Pavel Vozenilek 19:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, same as One million articles. Add a link in Wikipedia if you think it's merited. A self-referencing redirect certainly is not. —Cryptic (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per self-referential --Grocer 17:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree that "One Millionth Article" is not the name of the station, but in no way is it harmful to the article itself (nor de-encyclopedifying) to have a redirect to that page. If we were to add in a notice on that page, I would object, because it is irrelevant to the railway station that it was wikipedia's 1,000,000th article. It's a way for wikinerds to refer themselves to this milestone article. By the way, I gleaned WP:SELF and I'm not sure how that applies to this case. Could someone explain briefly how that affects what we're dealing with? Clarkefreak ∞ 23:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for a couple of weeks , while we're in the news, in case some clueless user types it into the search box, then delete. Zocky | picture popups 13:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Cryptic. Chick Bowen 18:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nominated redirect was Category not redirect & speedy deleted by R3m0t. -- JLaTondre 20:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in Tau Beta Pii → Category:Wikipedians in Tau Beta Pi -- I was a bold but bad wikipedian, I has a typo in the original name when i created the category. The correctly named category has been created Bmearns 20:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like it.--God Ω War 22:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rollback feature → Wikipedia:Rollback feature -- From mainspace to project space, resulting from a move. Incidentally, the target page could benefit some comments - Liberatore(T) 15:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all cross-namespace redirects. -- JLaTondre 01:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I understand this policy of cross-namespace redirects, but I feel it's being applied irrationally. We all need a little common sense ... Rollback feature clearly applies only to Wikipedia:Rollback feature, and this redirect only makes it easier on new users to find information on a topic they don't understand. I feel that redirects that link one topic to another clearly related topic and that make finding information on that topic easier should be kept. AmiDaniel 08:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo. --nnh 04:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okuninushi No Mikota → Okuninushi No Mikoto
- Ameno-Koyame → Ame-no-Koyane
- Talk:Ameno-Koyame → Talk:Ame-no-Koyane
  - Delete all. Unlikely occur. --Aphaia 11:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eden District Municipality, Weastern Cape → Eden District Municipality -- unlikely typo of "Western"; nothing links to it htonl 14:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raspberry pie->Pie. Moved from an orphaned afd. My vote is keep. —Cryptic (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 28

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alleged allied war crimes → allied war crimes -- Inherently non NPOV when the name appears as a link on another page --Philip Baird Shearer 19:52, 28 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) 10:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of alleged allied war crimes → allied war crimes -- Inherently non NPOV when the name appears as a link on another page --Philip Baird Shearer 19:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --– sampi (talk•contrib•email) 07:15, 2 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.

Current list

March 8

Skybridge crossing Hwy 67 between Ramada Inn & Rythym City Casino, Davenport, Iowa → Davenport Skybridge -- Name is too long to be a useful redirect, plus "Rhythm" is misspelled in the casino's name. --Iowahwyman 05:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KVX-FM → KLOS -- This redirect had the "considered for deletion" noticed added on 2006-02-04 by 66.81.149.82 but was not brought over to here. I support the deletion, since nothing on the KLOS page even mentions KVX-FM, let alone why there should be a redirect. —LrdChaos 16:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Holiday → Christmas -- Not being linked on any pages. Highly unlikely that someone would search for "The Holiday" if they are searching for Christmas, and it's blocking a page move. Crumbsucker 17:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Christmas is not the only holiday. Royboy crashfan 00:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Faith Evans (singer) → Faith Evans -- Redirect result of old page move. no links to it. No chance of being searched for. Crumbsucker 17:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no harm in keeping it. Royboy crashfan 00:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Faith Evans (R&B singer) → Faith Evans -- Another result of page move. Not being linked anywhere. No chance of being searched for. Crumbsucker 18:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, less useful than Faith Evans (singer). Royboy crashfan 00:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jupiter_and_Internet_conspiracists → Jupiter Conspiracy Theories -- listed page on afd, if deleted, delete redirect, if keep, keep redirect. Polonium 23:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Demon Zophiel → Jophiel -- Prodded and then nominated for AfD (discussion here) after article was turned into redirect; I am moving it here. Doesn't seem plausible, so I am voting delete. Royboy crashfan 00:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 7

Gongsta → Gangster -- Unlikely misspelling. Used to be an article created by an anon user but was turned into a redirect for being non-notable. Hairy Dude 06:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 00:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Field Remote Expeditonary Device → List_of_technology_in_the_Stargate_universe#FRED -- The redirect is no longer needed as an article (FRED) has been started on this subject. Veritas Panther 06:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article was merged into the "list of" article once before, I'm going to do it again now. And the new article's title is misspelled anyway. Bryan 07:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nominated redirect was speedily kept as the nomination was withdrawn. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Gurunath → Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath -- Gurunath is a title used by people other than the redirect subject. For example, the current leader of my lineage is Shri Gurunath Kapilnath.~~ Adityanath 12:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Rather than deleting, edit into a description of the title. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Advice taken. Thanks. Adityanath 19:24, 7 March 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 as the nomination was withdrawn. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yogiraj → Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath -- This term is a title given to other individuals besides the redirect subject. Just one example is Yogiraj Shama Churn Lahiree [3].~~ Adityanath 12:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Rather than deleting, edit into a description of the title. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Advice taken. Thanks. Adityanath 19:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of NCIS Episodes → List of NCIS episodes -- (Article originally named with the capitalization, but has since been moved as a result of conformation with WP precedence.) — THOR ^{| File:Lfucg-flag.gif File:Kentucky state flag.png} 16:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: people could type this into the search box any which way. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I often accidently capitilize that word when looking up episode lists, it's a legitimate redirect. --lightdarkness^(talk) 21:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, plausible search term. Royboy crashfan 00:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TWISTED_WHEEL → Twisted Wheel Club -- I doubt this redirect has ever been used WilliamKF 19:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nobody is likely to type all caps. Royboy crashfan 00:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion → Wikipedia:Deletion policy -- Self reference: redirect from main namespan to Wikipedia: namespace. — Itai (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. Mackensen (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unnecessary. Royboy crashfan 00:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 6

The nominated redirect was speedily deleted and Academic dress of the University of Durham was moved to Academic dress of Durham University. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Academic dress of Durham University → Academic dress of the University of Durham -- The university tends to call itself Durham university, I'd link the give the article a consistant name with Durham University. This redirect is blocking a page move. Salix alba (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No matter how the university may call itself, this is still a common mistake. What page move is it blocking? -- That might change my opinion. AmiDaniel 23:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete. Sorry, I understand now. AmiDaniel 03:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete? Do you mean the redir page is blocking the move of Academic dress of the University of Durham to Academic dress of Durham University, i.e. preventing you changing the direction of the redirect? If that's the case, you can simply tag it for CSD under reason G9 — non-controversial page move — instead of voting here ~ Veledan • Talk 21:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Warehouse (Leeds) → University of Leeds -- An old article originally about a club in Leeds popular with students and redirected to the University. Does not seem to be useful redirect. Salix alba (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. AmiDaniel 23:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lions Gate Films-merged with Lions Gate Entertainment
- Keep. Seems like a worthwhile redirect for people unaware of the merger searching under the old company name.--Andrew c 02:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knocked Up (film) → Knocked Up -- Self-nom. Originally made to disamb, but wasn't it needed so the page was moved. Resulting redirect not needed. Crumbsucker 13:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. AmiDaniel 23:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canopy (forest) redirects to Forest but that page does not discuss topic. Someone is currently redirect pages directly to forest causing incorrect meanings in articles like West Nile virus where the habitat of forest versus canopy is significant. Rmhermen 19:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Turn into article, rather than just remove the redirect. At the very least it will be a useful stub. --Salix alba (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as stub per Salix. --Allen 00:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 5

John 6 → Gospel of John -- Redlinks work a lot better than redirects for the purposes of the {{Chapters in the Gospel of John}} box. Imagine if every redlinked chapter was actual a redirect back to the parent Gospel. A user wouldn't be able to tell which chapters actually had content and which ones were just redirects. Since John 6 is the odd ball, I suggest this redirect be deleted Andrew c 07:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. AmiDaniel 09:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Makes sense to me.Herostratus 14:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks like a simple newbie error. Page was created by an anon editor simply pasting in the text of the bible chapter and a later editor changed it to a redir instead of deleting the page. ~ Veledan • Talk 21:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While there is considerable debate over the meaning of the chapter, it is best covered in articles on the doctrines involved and on the gospel itself. --CTSWyneken 02:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Johanesburg → Johannesburg -- Not a common misspelling that I've seen (in fact, only one article pointed there). Dbinder 13:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't look too unplausible to me. I've tagged it as {{R from misspelling}}, and vote keep. Kusma (討論) 17:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: "n" vs. "nn" is a relatively common misspelling error when typing. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As per above. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Related topics → List of topics related to Sound Art -- Someone accidentally created an article called List of Related topics. I moved it. This redirect is meaningless. Reyk 23:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OOT → Ocarina of Time -- The targeted article itself is a redirect to The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Since the chances of OOT being typed in and expecting "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time" as a hit are minimal, I recommend the redirect be deleted. み使い Mitsukai 02:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Change target to The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. OoT (note different capitalization) already exists as a redirect to that page, and Google gives about 252,000 results for "Ocarina of Time" and "OOT" together. — TKD (Talk) 08:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gərbəˈtɕov → Mikhail Gorbachev -- Fun with IPA is not a plausible reason for a redirect. Seems like it might be a test page by a relatively new user. Kinu ^t/_c 06:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I challenge anyone to type that into the search box at all, let alone do it by accident :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 18:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 4

sux → suction -- Not useful for a redirect. 64.194.44.220 22:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wiktionary: this should appear in Wiktionary as a sometimes euphemistic and sometimes stylistic alternate spelling of Wiktionary:sucks (consult Wiktionary:suck, colloquial meaning of general disparagement). (recall the usage "6000 SUX" from RoboCop for instance) User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SUX should redirect to the Sioux Gateway Airport in Sioux City, Iowa. SUX is the three-letter IATA code.

1976-77 → 1976-77 in English football -- Too unspecific (created by page move to better title). Similar redirects were deleted recently, but I had overlooked this one. Kusma (討論) 20:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert to DAB: convert the page from a redirect to a disambiguation page that would include the present target among others. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tell the truth → Lie - What the heck? Why should tell the truth redirect to lie? 64.194.44.220 17:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: that's an odd one; I can't think of a good alternative target unless maybe Things mothers tell their children or List of positive behaviors perhaps? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can't redirect it to a nonexistent page. Perhaps it could be redirected to truth. 64.192.107.242 14:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I implied creation of one or the other article followed by the redirection; I'm aware that redirecting to a non-existant page is not desirable (though it can be done technically). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Change Redirect to truth. Science3456 15:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to point to To Tell the Truth. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Change Target → To Tell the Truth ... thanks for suggesting that one as a "mechanics" path; should then be tagged with R-from-related-word perhaps. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Under the Double Eagle → Josef Wagner (composer) -- This is a piece of music written by Wagner which redirects to Wagner. This is inappropriate. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm not sure why you think that's inappropriate. Pointing people to where information is discussed when there's not an article on the topic is one of the purposes of redirects. -- JLaTondre 22:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason for the existence of this particular redirect is almost definitely because it is displayed on the page March (music), where a link to Wagner's page is prominently displayed right next to the piece. I would say that its fine for this particular piece to redirect to Wagner, but it's sort of inappropriate since not all of Wagner's music redirects to him, and, indeed, far more prominent marches do not redirect to their composers, so the redirect seems somewhat out of place and redundant. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: in the absence of an article on the march itself I can see at least two places that the redirect might point, the composer (it's current target) or a list of the composer's pieces (such as List of works by Josef Wagner), which in many cases is in fact part of the composer's biographical article. I can see, though, the point of deleting it if one wishes to discourage a trend of creating redirects for every one of every artist's works. I waffle back and forth on that particular notion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 3

SocialisM → Socialism - why an article with such a name should exist??? yanis 16:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Note This was originally posted on WP:AFD. I moved it, and the vote history, here. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep it is a redirect to Socialism to help users who miss type during searches. Not overly nessary in this case.--Blue520 16:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note. Redirects for deletion sould go on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletionpage.--Blue520 16:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Not a very likely incorrect spelling. Better to fall through to the search feature. — RJH 18:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Unless I'm missing something, typing a misplaced cap at the end of a word should still go to the correctly capitalized article, and not the search page. For fun, I tried 'CommunisM' and was sent right to Communism with no redirect. The only time I can see this being useful is if the typo is in an inline link, in which case the red link would make it stand out enough that it would be found and corrected quickly anyway. -- Vary | Talk 22:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. pointless redirecT. Eivind 00:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, obsolete CamelCase. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the usual CamelCase with old edit history. -- User:Docu
  - Question: could you say something to the benefit of keeping the edit history on this and similar items? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - See Wikipedia talk:Merge and delete for a discussion of history and the GFDL license requirements. -- JLaTondre 00:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, #4 above. —Cryptic (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:Docu and Cryptic. -- JLaTondre 18:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. It's true that redirects are cheap, but its a really unlikely spelling. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep: thanks to JLaTondre's reference; I see that the camelcase version existed long before the normalcase version and that there is a history discontinuity between the two; therefore, the redirect up for deletion must be kept in order to satisfy GFDL licensing requirements. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per above. Kappa 02:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, redirects are cheap. Matt Yeager
- Delete. Redirects are cheap, but this one is completely unnecessary -- are we going to create a page for every possible spelling of every word? AmiDaniel 23:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep. Sorry, I see your point now. AmiDaniel 03:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep because of its edit history. Incidentally, I took the liberty of replacing the {{afd1}} on the redirect with {{rfd1}}. Hairy Dude 05:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC) ♫ (Talk?) 03:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep: CamelCase redirects are historically significant and sometimes act as targets for external links. What did you think the huge great notice was telling you? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 18:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pimation → Multiplication -- Pimation is apparently not a word and the creating account is new, so the article is probably a hoax. The Rod (☎ Smith) 05:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Marijuana / Cannabis (drug) → Cannabis (drug) -- Bad page move by Moskvech (talk · contribs) —Viriditas | Talk 03:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Binskiffler -> Dumpster diving - there is no evidence that this word exists outside of us and our mirrors (Google results). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binskiffler. —Cryptic (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shadows (album) → Shadows (Gordon Lightfoot album) -- This redirect was created out of a page move in line with the album page guidelines. All pages that previously linked to this redirect now link directly to the main page and thus the redirect serves no purpose. Shadow007 15:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This nomination makes no sense. If there is only one notable album called Shadows, Lightfoot's album should be placed at Shadows (album). If there is more than one, Shadows (album) should be a disambiguation page rather than a deleted redirect. — Mar. 3, '06 [17:13] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
- There is another (Shadows (Spy Glass Blue album)), but both are linked from Shadow (disambiguation), and as stated nothing links to Shadows (album) any more. Dan, the CowMan 17:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As Dan says, Gordon Lightfoot's album was originally the only album called Shadows with a page. But subsequently another one has been created so Shadows (album) was moved to Shadows (Gordon Lightfoot album). Both Shadows albums have a link on the Shadow (disambiguation) page and so the redirect is pointless. Although I note that someone turned the redirect into a disambig page I think this is pointless. I still believe it should be deleted. Shadow007 00:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Shadow (disambiguation) has many links. Shadows (album) as a disambig specifically for the albums makes sense, causes no harm, and could actually help. -- JLaTondre 02:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - In my opinion, as a disambig page it is unlikely to be helpful. People will simply search "Shadows" and be redireted to Shadow, then to the Shadow (disambiguation) page from which they will get to one of the two Shadows albums. I think it extremely unlikey that without any pages linking to Shadows (album) anyone will actually go there. Shadow007 07:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - For general users, true. However, for those familiar with Wikipedia's naming convention, not necessarily. The existence of Shadows (album) as a disambig page would ensure a duplicate article or an article on another album with the same name is not created at Shadows (album) by mistake. -- JLaTondre 17:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keep as dab page. Agreed, if you delete Shadows (album) someone will recreate it in error next time they write an article about an album called Shadows, then people who know the wiki will link to it from the wrong album without checking and they'll see their link go blue on the preview and think 'oh clever of me I guessed it right', and it'll be a mess. At least if it's a dab page when people link to it in error we'll pick it up on WP:DPL and be able to clean it up ~ Veledan • Talk 18:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 2

The nominated redirect was deleted. — Mar. 7, '06 [17:17] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Userbox → Wikipedia:Userboxes -- No self-reference. I thought this was decided, but people keep recreating it. I bring it here so that we can legitimately put deletedpages on it. Broken Segue 23:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Can you show me where this was decided? Sorry if I have restarted this issue. --F a ng Aili

Where what was decided? No-self reference? That has been policy for as long as I can remember. See WP:SELF. Also, Wikipedia:Redirect says that a redirect should be deleted if "It is a cross-space redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace." This issue has never been controversial there is nothing to start. The policy is pritty cut and dry (at least, I hope you don't start some thing, it'd annoy me if yet another policy that I agree came under attack). Broken Segue 01:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, ok. I was just asking. I was not familiar with that policy. --F a ng Aili 14:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Strongest Objection. That redirect does no harm in anyway that I can see. I don´t think that any article is going to be written with that title. It is quite usefull and easy to use (a official goal of Wikipedia) for new and old users. I also object how the whole matter is being dealt by over-eager users. You listed that re-direct in this list, that is true (see below), but as two users showed that they did not agree, you simply ignored their view and deleted the re-direct anyway. This is not a shootinglist where someone announces that he going to kill a wild animal and then does it regardless of everything. This is place where someone asks for the opinion of other users and tries to reach a agreement. Therefore I must most strongly object the deletion of this redirect and also your behaviour. Flamarande 18:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Strong Objection. What that guy said. ^^^^^^^ Recon0 20:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above ^^^ Dtm142 01:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This might be an instance of WP:IAR. There's at least one precedent for it: List of admins redirects to Wikipedia:List of administrators. --F a ng Aili 19:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid its an instance of people not understanding the rules. (The List of admins link is wrong as well) In Wikipedia:Redirect ona t the top of this page it is made clear that such redirects (no matter how convenient) are to be deleted. The users who are voting here don't understand this policy. As to Flamarande's comments I say AGF. I did nothing of the sort. I didn't even delete this template (and I deleted nothing after listing them here as you suggested). So I have no idea what you are talking about. Also note that two other respected admins (Tony Sidaway and Pathoschild) speedied this redirect (they were right to do so), but to clear it for users who don't understand the policy on inter-namespace redirects I listed them here. I am not here to destroy your userboxes *sheesh* this isn't a conspiracy. Cross-namespace redirect = bad and have always been that way. We're only having this conversation because it's about userboxes. I fear mentioning this, but a few clicks down the page you will find the uncontrovertial nomination of Rollback feature. If you want a quick way to acess the userboxes page use the WP shortcuts (WP:UB). Broken Segue 21:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First I have to apolagize to Broken. I confused him with the administrator who deleted the redirects whithout following proper channels and also imediatly put a deletedpages on it (see the talpages). I am sorry. But there a lawfull exceptions to rule mentioned above which (in my opinion) also apply to these case. Flamarande 18:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that it falls under: "*5. It is a cross-space redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace."

I can certainly understand that, but fact is that these redirects also fall under: However, avoid deleting such redirects if:"*3. They aid searches on certain terms." and "*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 a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways."

- Delete per norm. Those who voted keep, see BrokenSegue's rationale at Talk:Userboxes. This isn't a move against userboxes. All such inter-namespace redirects should be deleted. --F a ng Aili 21:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and second what Fang Aili said. Mackensen (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all cross-namespace redirects. -- JLaTondre 01:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all cross-namespace redirects. —Cryptic (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, redirects are cheap. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 03:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Look at the alternative: a user who wants to find out how to use userboxes types it in the searchbox, only to get an ugly page with a "this page has been deleted" notice on it. What kind of impression does that give to a newbie about the usability of Wikipedia? To whose benefit is that? The user isn't looking for an encyclopedia article on it, they just want to add the damn things to their userpage, or take a look at the gallery of them. Without a deleted notice page nor a redirection, the result is a search list with Wikipedia:Userboxes right at the top. Your solution has users seeing a "deleted" notice page, forcing them to backtrack to hit the search button. Why not cut the steps down to one: hit the go button and go straight to the desired page? IT MAKES NO SENSE TO HAMPER THE USABILITY OF WIKIPEDIA FOR THE SAKE OF A PEDANTIC RULE. Please don't break the search box: I typed in "userboxes" and got an ugly page with a notice leading me here. This is NOT what I was looking for! Think of the user and what he or she wants to find when typing in the term. Make Wikipedia work better, make it intuitive. Empathize with the user, for that's who we are serving. --Go for it! 04:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. What harm is this page doing anyone? You might not like userboxes, but it's an awfully cheap way to get rid of them--by making them impossible for new users to learn about. AmiDaniel 06:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. I think this deletion was made by a group of strict interpreters of wikipedia policy, and it is rediculous to delete this, unless someone will write an article on userboxes that is informative, and includes a link to the wikipedia userspace page, but that encyclopedic information is already found in the wiki-space. It is a useful link that makes wikipedia easier to navigate. Clarkefreak ∞ 23:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. as per Go for it! and Clarkefreak --Varco 15:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per User:Go for it! -arctic gnome 17:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.[reply]

The nominated redirect was deleted. — Mar. 7, '06 [17:17] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Userboxes → Wikipedia:Userboxes -- Same as the above, but it's a soft redirect (even worse). Broken Segue 23:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have advocated the recreation of the redirect ever since that weird deletion conspricy. Beside, many new users will have no idea how to find userboxes without it. If this is deleted, might as well do this to all redirects. The Republican 03:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the policy on no self-references does not mean that no search term or redirect can point to an article about Wikipedia. The policy is meant to prevent *useless* self-references, such as "This Wikipedia article is about Cats" at the top of the Cat article. Johntex\^talk 03:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I can see no wrong with this redirect. I helps the WikiUser and does no harm. I can only ask you to explain us what harm is done by that redirect. Flamarande 18:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Those who voted keep, see BrokenSegue's rationale at Talk:Userboxes. This isn't a move against userboxes. All such inter-namespace redirects should be deleted. --F a ng Aili 21:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and second what Fang Aili said. Mackensen (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or if not deleted, at least make it a real redirect. "Soft redirects" are the most useless thing since decaffeinated coffee. — Mar. 4, '06 [00:57] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
Delete all cross-namespace redirects. -- JLaTondre 01:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all cross-namespace redirects. —Cryptic (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, redirects are cheap. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 03:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Look at the alternative: a user who wants to find out how to use userboxes types it in the searchbox, only to get an ugly page with a "this page has been deleted" notice on it. What kind of impression does that give to a newbie about the usability of Wikipedia? To whose benefit is that? The user isn't looking for an encyclopedia article on it, and certainly not an ugly dead end -- they just want to add userboxes to their userpage, or take a look at the gallery of them. Without a deleted notice page nor a redirection, the result is a search list with Wikipedia:Userboxes right at the top. Your solution has users seeing a "deleted" notice page, forcing them to backtrack to hit the search button. Why not cut the steps down to one: hit the go button and go straight to the desired page? IT MAKES NO SENSE TO HAMPER THE USABILITY OF WIKIPEDIA FOR THE SAKE OF A PEDANTIC RULE. Please don't break the search box: I typed in "userboxes" and got an ugly page with a notice leading me here. This is NOT what I was looking for! Think of the user and what he or she wants to find when typing in the term. Make Wikipedia work better, make it intuitive. Empathize with the user, for that's who we are serving. --Go for it! 05:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per what I said above. AmiDaniel 06:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep see above. Clarkefreak ∞ 23:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a cross-namespace link, which is not allowed. Deleting this has nothing to do with userboxes per se, other publishers may mirror the contents of Wikipedia, and cross-namespace links break. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 11:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.[reply]

Puritis → Itch -- Wrong spelling Rjb uk 21:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson's sexual orientation → 1993 child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson -- Redirect was created by Vizjim to prove a point as a result of this discussion and a comment by 72.66.30.149. Vizjim did nearly the same thing here too. Crumbsucker 10:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't proving a point as such, just filling in redlinks with redirects that might make sense. If you look at the Baden Powell debate I originally voted to merge the content back into the main article, so I'm confused as to what point I might have been making. Happy to have this deleted, but equally think that a "sexuality" category makes sense.Vizjim 16:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't be anything other than pure speculation, and as such is not encyclopedic even as a redirect. Not relevant, unnecessary. --DanielCD 14:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does his sexuality have to do anyting with his abuse charges? ^KILO-_LIMA 18:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --Grocer 19:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nominated redirect was Deleted by Freakofnurture. -- JLaTondre 18:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advancement in Cub Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)) → Advancement in Cub Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) -- self-nom, article originally created with extra parenthisis in name, sinced moved to correct name, redirect not needed Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per Gadget850. ^KILO-_LIMA 18:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

One million articles → [[4]] -- illogical Grocer 19:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --Grocer 19:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, long after our special banner is gone off our home page, someone will wonder what our one-millionth article was. This redirect should be kept and should eihter point to the "Jordanhill railway station" article, as it does now, or to the press release pertaining to hitting the milestone. Johntex\^talk 19:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note also the poll below on One millionth article, which currently has 3 opinions to keep compared the the one opinion listing it for consideration here. Thank you, Johntex\^talk 19:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, but please notice this article was created under different circumstances, deleted a few times, then recreated as a redirect. And while "One millionth article" is a somewhat likely search string, "one million articles" is hard to make sense of. --Grocer 19:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep - This was 1 away from actually being the millionth article. scary.--God Ω War 22:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, God of War, that isn't an acceptable reason to keep a redirect. Broken Segue 23:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as Johntex says it is a historic thing which people will wonder about and want to find. It should redirect to the press release which then links to the article itself. Iancaddy 00:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep until 2 million articles. I created this article (at the time, the old article was deleted and did not exited). It was the article number 999999. I sugest to delete this article 1 mounth after wikipedia reaches 2 million articles. In the meantime we could expalin it was number 999999, and make a link to the one millionth, without redirect. Moa3333 19:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, navel gazing. Pavel Vozenilek 19:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no self-references. Someone who wants to know what the millionth article in Wikipedia was should look at Wikipedia. —Cryptic (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, self-referencial. bogdan 09:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for a couple of weeks , while we're in the news, in case some clueless user types it into the search box, then delete. Zocky | picture popups 13:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - articles shouldn't self-reference Wikipedia. —Whouk (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism (disambiguation) → Terrorism -- This disamb page is sort of an anomaly. It never really contained substantial content, and a new page was created to replace it (Terrorist (disambiguation)). It can probably be safely deleted, since nothing links here. Most of the edits to this page are from the sockpuppet of a banned user (User:Lady in Red, User:A bird in the hand, User:Cheese Curd, User:Legal Tender, User:Peter McConaughey are all User:Zephram Stark) so there isn't really any reason to preserve the history. Maybe move the talk page to Talk:Terrorist (disambiguation) (which doesn't yet exit) since there is some discussion that is maybe worth saving. Just wanted to see what others thought about this. JW1805 (Talk) 22:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 1

One millionth article → Jordanhill railway station -- Self-referential redirect, not useful for searches or linking. cesarb 04:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I've already used this, much easier to remember than "Jordanhill railway station". Kappa 04:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, long after our special banner is gone off our home page, someone will wonder what our one-millionth article was. This redirect should be kept and should eihter point to the "Jordanhill railway station" article, as it does now, or to the press release pertaining to hitting the milestone. Johntex\^talk 05:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Johntex. ^KILO-_LIMA 18:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SELF Ziggurat 19:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or if its kept, I am going to make redirects from favorite pizza topping to anchovi to save myself time. It doesn't matter that you find this useful or if its convenient. Millionth article isn't an alternate name for that railway station. The article doesn't even mention that it is the millionth, so why should we have a redirect for it. That will, at the least, confuse people and, worse, it violates wp:self. BrokenSegue 23:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment whether the article mentions its one-millionth status is a question of when you look at the article. Opinion is split about 60-40 against mentioning at the moment - this is likely to drift the other way as media mentions start coming in. Johntex\^talk 03:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, concur with CesarB and BrokenSegue. An article on Wikipedia facts/stats can state this milestone and identify the one millionth article. But a redirect is useless in the long run. P199 19:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no encyclopedic value. Pavel Vozenilek 19:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, same as One million articles. Add a link in Wikipedia if you think it's merited. A self-referencing redirect certainly is not. —Cryptic (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per self-referential --Grocer 17:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree that "One Millionth Article" is not the name of the station, but in no way is it harmful to the article itself (nor de-encyclopedifying) to have a redirect to that page. If we were to add in a notice on that page, I would object, because it is irrelevant to the railway station that it was wikipedia's 1,000,000th article. It's a way for wikinerds to refer themselves to this milestone article. By the way, I gleaned WP:SELF and I'm not sure how that applies to this case. Could someone explain briefly how that affects what we're dealing with? Clarkefreak ∞ 23:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for a couple of weeks , while we're in the news, in case some clueless user types it into the search box, then delete. Zocky | picture popups 13:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Cryptic. Chick Bowen 18:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nominated redirect was Category not redirect & speedy deleted by R3m0t. -- JLaTondre 20:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in Tau Beta Pii → Category:Wikipedians in Tau Beta Pi -- I was a bold but bad wikipedian, I has a typo in the original name when i created the category. The correctly named category has been created Bmearns 20:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like it.--God Ω War 22:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rollback feature → Wikipedia:Rollback feature -- From mainspace to project space, resulting from a move. Incidentally, the target page could benefit some comments - Liberatore(T) 15:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all cross-namespace redirects. -- JLaTondre 01:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I understand this policy of cross-namespace redirects, but I feel it's being applied irrationally. We all need a little common sense ... Rollback feature clearly applies only to Wikipedia:Rollback feature, and this redirect only makes it easier on new users to find information on a topic they don't understand. I feel that redirects that link one topic to another clearly related topic and that make finding information on that topic easier should be kept. AmiDaniel 08:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo. --nnh 04:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okuninushi No Mikota → Okuninushi No Mikoto
- Ameno-Koyame → Ame-no-Koyane
- Talk:Ameno-Koyame → Talk:Ame-no-Koyane
  - Delete all. Unlikely occur. --Aphaia 11:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eden District Municipality, Weastern Cape → Eden District Municipality -- unlikely typo of "Western"; nothing links to it htonl 14:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raspberry pie->Pie. Moved from an orphaned afd. My vote is keep. —Cryptic (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 28

The nominated redirect was deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alleged allied war crimes → allied war crimes -- Inherently non NPOV when the name appears as a link on another page --Philip Baird Shearer 19:52, 28 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) 10:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of alleged allied war crimes → allied war crimes -- Inherently non NPOV when the name appears as a link on another page --Philip Baird Shearer 19:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --– sampi (talk•contrib•email) 07:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Footer

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.