Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

Related Sponsors

BM Pharmacy Generic pharmaceuticals at unbeatable prices. Insomnia, men's health, hair health, pain control. bmpharmacy.com
Online Pharmacy Carisoprodol, tadalafil, sildenafil, vardenafil and more... xlpharmacy.com
MedBasket.com Discreet. Inexpensive. Fast shipping. Great selection. What more can we say? medbasket.com
Frugalmed 2000 reasons to shop with us first. frugalmed.com
Ads by Tiva

Skip to current discussions.

Skip to current discussions

Administrator instructions Purge the cache to refresh this page

Shortcut:
WP:RFD
Deletion discussions
Deletion policy

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic redirects. Items sent here usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted by an administrator, kept, or retargeted.

Note: If all you want to do is replace a currently existing, unprotected redirect with an actual article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold.

Note: Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as a reason to delete a redirect. Redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted as well, so it's not a necessary condition either. See When should we delete a redirect?

Old discussions are archived at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log.

Contents

Before you list a redirect for deletion...

...please familiarize yourself with the following:

The guiding principles of RfD

  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things much if there are a few of them scattered around.
  • The default result of any RFD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Thus, a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article. However, for more difficult cases, this page can be a centralized discussion place for resolving tough debates about where redirects point.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another page's talk page don't need to be listed here, as anyone can simply remove the redirect by blanking the page.

When should we delete a redirect?

Shortcut:
WP:RFD#HARMFUL

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old, then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles — such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.

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

Shortcut:
WP:RFD#DELETE

Reasons for deleting

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.
  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 it should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article.
  4. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Google to love.
  5. 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 is the "CAT:" shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space but in practice form their own "pseudo-namespaces".
  6. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist or itself, it can be deleted immediately, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
  7. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion.
Shortcut:
WP:RFD#KEEP

Reasons for not deleting

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history. 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 the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms.
  4. You risk breaking external or internal links by deleting the redirect. Old CamelCase links and old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing external links pointing to them.
  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.
  6. The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects

Note that redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This covers only article titles, which are required to be neutral (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article naming). Perceived lack of neutrality in redirects is therefore not a valid reason for deletion.

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. Dalmatian Kristallnacht → Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991).
  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 redirected to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be commonly represented outside Wikipedia by non-neutral terms. Such terms cannot be used as Wikipedia article title, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance, the widely used but 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.

If a redirect is not an established term and is unlikely to be used by searchers, it is unlikely to be useful and may reasonably be nominated for deletion. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources), it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Non-neutral redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term.


See also: Policy on which redirects can be deleted immediately.

Closing notes

Details at: Wikipedia:Deletion process#Redirects for Discussion page

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 deletion

To list a redirect for deletion, follow this two-step process:

I.
Flag the redirect.

  Enter {{rfd}} above the #REDIRECT on the redirect page you are listing for deletion. Example:

{{rfd}}
#REDIRECT [[Foo]]
  • If the redirect is to a category or image, make sure there is a colon ( : ) before "Category:" or "Image:".
  • 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]]
  • You can check the "Watch this page" box to follow the page in your watchlist. This allows you to notice if the RfD tag is removed by a vandal.
  • Save the page.
II.
List the entry on RfD.

 Click on THIS LINK to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=Reason the redirect should be deleted}} ~~~~
  • 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=.
  • If the redirect or its target is a category or an image, make sure there is a colon ( : ) before "Category:" or "Image:".
  • It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the redirect that you are nominating the redirect. To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect.

Current list

July 5

Oklahoma City Outlaws → Oklahoma City National Basketball Association team

Delete (nominator) Redirect was created as a result of page-move vandalism. No indication the Outlaws name is even being considered, so the redirect is very unlikely to be used. 5:15 04:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Marin City , California → Marin City, California

Recently created article which was a substantial copy of the original. I converted it to a redirect, but the nature of the "typo" (a space between the word City and the comma) makes me wonder whether this redirect should be kept. Neutral, leaning towards keep, but seeking a second opinion. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 02:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete Page is useless as a redirect. It has a page history, but it's only copy paste from the original article, plus maintenance bots, hence not needed attribution. happypal (Talk | contribs) 08:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hola/Chau (album) → Hola/Chau

Delete (nominator) Results from a move by myself, as the album was un-necessarily disambiguated; and thus wrongly named. There is no edit history, no incoming links, and the original page was created only a few days ago. The redirect serves no purpose. If One day the album needs to be disambiguated, then the page should be re-created happypal (Talk | contribs) 08:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

July 4

Gamaecube → Nintendo GameCube

This seems like an very unlikely, to be used redirect. No pages use this redirect. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 21:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree about the unlikely-hood of this redirect; I made it precisely because I accidentally went to it. ~~

Delete. We shouldn't have redirects just because they are typos. If it is a spelling mistake, fine, but no one would actually knowingly spell it that way. happypal (Talk | contribs) 08:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Gaemcube → Nintendo GameCube

This seems like an unlikely, to be used redirect. No pages use this redirect. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 21:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagree about unlikeliness. See other comment. ~~

Delete per above. happypal (Talk | contribs) 08:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Water stress → Water war

Not mentioned in the target article; doesn't seem to be a similar enough term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, but re-target. Isn't it a physics term used for when water a variable effort on a body? like Wind stress. I would re-target to water engineering. happypal (Talk | contribs) 08:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment it might refer to biological stress caused by lack of water, instead of mechanical stress caused by hydrological action 70.55.84.66 (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Captain America(2010 film) → Captain America in other media

No mention of a 2010 film on target page. Creator of page is a likely vandal. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The redirect is to a nonexistent section of the target article. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 04:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete and Move. If the conclusion is that we keep the page, we should move it at Captain America (2010 film) anyways, and delete the erroneously named redirect?

July 3

Michal Jordan → Michael Jordan

Redirect originally was created due to misspelling of Michael Jordan. The redirect article Michal Jordan may eventually exist to refer to hockey player that was recently drafted by the Carolina Hurricanes. While it is true that the redirect article can simply be modified to be about the hockey player if/when the player achieves notability and has his own article, several articles link to Michal Jordan related to the 2008 NHL Entry Draft. Pparazorback (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. I don't see the problem here. An article can be created, or the redirect retargeted, when it becomes necessary. There's no need to delete this at this time. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Currently there are several articles that point to the rfd article in question that were meant to refer to the hockey player, thus could cause confusion when it redirects to the basketball player. No article links to the rfd candidate in question that was meant for the basketball player. IMO, I don't find any use in keeping the misspelled article. -Pparazorback (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. We should waste no time creating a stub about the hockey player with a disambig tag at the top. In fact, this should be done the minute this discussion is closed. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 03:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Why wait? Do it now. I would if I knew anything about him --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
      • There. It's done. Although the time is not right to do the disambig note the other way around. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 03:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - plausible misspelling of Michael Jordan. Once the hockey player meets WP:HOCKEY/PPF, an article about him can be easily written (note that if he is a first round draft pick of the NHL, he is already qualified). B.Wind (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Spellbound (computer game)(2) → Spellbound (Beyond computer game)

Obsolete redirect (no longer linked from any article); double redirect (target was moved); no non-trivial page history; not a plausible search term for the intended article -- Korax1214 (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

  • The pagehistory includes the record of the pagemove so the pagehistory is not trivial. The fact that it is orphaned is a good thing - in a perfect world, almost all our redirects would be orphaned. Since the redirect is an artifact of the pagemove, its utility as a search term is irrelevant. Fix the double-redirect by retargetting to the new destination. Rossami (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Profit! → List of fictional South Park species#Underpants Gnomes

Originally directed into Underpants Gnomes (until it was recently altered to direct towards Profit). Falls under #7 of WP:RFD#DELETE - "redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name" Barkeep Chat | $ 18:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Retarget as I already have done. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an extremely notable phrase from an extremely notable show. It is heavily used too so I believe most visitors coming here typing that might be looking for it. Yamakiri TC § 07-4-2008 • 18:22:21
  • Retarget per UsaSatsui as the the South Park episode mentions it only trivially. B.Wind (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Frontal lobe disorder → Psychopathy

Psychopathy is one very specific instance of a frontal lobe disorder; there are many others with Pick's disease and Frontal lobe epilepsy being good examples. The redirect is very misleading for anyone wanting to find out about disorders of the frontal lobe Anonymaus (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

  • That would seem to be an argument to either repoint the redirect to a better or perhaps more general page or to turn the redirect into a disambiguation page. Neither of those requires deletion before making the fix. If you know where the title should point, please just be bold and fix it. Rossami (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks. There weren't any better pages to redirect to so I boldly turned the redirect page into a stub. --Anonymaus (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

/yugioh → Yu-Gi-Oh!

Semi-useless redirect — the leading slash interacts badly with search and linking, so actually using it is not as straightforward as it appears. No explanation of why this particular text string is a useful reference to the target. I suspect, however, that it's a reference to a website or filename somewhere — quite probably an unimportant fansite. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Obviously a typo, or a filename. It's useless seeing as no-one's just going to happen to put a / in front of an un-capitalized, un-hyphenated title. Yamakiri TC § 07-4-2008 • 18:25:06

George Frederick Cassell Elementarey School → George Frederick Cassell Elementary School

The result of the debate was Deleted (db-author). -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I moved a page and made a silly spelling mistake. Reyk YO! 00:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

July 1

Voivodship_of_Podlasie → Podlaskie Voivodeship

Nothing links to this redirect. It is the only page for Poland that says Voivodship_of_xxxxxx for any province. Not to mention the fact that the province name isn't even spelled the official way. Please delete. Ajh1492 (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Podlasie Voivodeship → Podlaskie Voivodeship

The province name isn't even spelled the official way. Please delete. Ajh1492 (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  • This redirect has a significant number of inbound links. That would seem to suggest that either this is a reasonably common alternate spelling or that it is a plausible typo. Either way, keep. Redirects are not an endorsement of the title but merely are an aid to our readers and editors. Rossami (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep both. This is a reasonable one-letter typo in a foreign language term, and as Rossami says, it appears to be a somewhat common error. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Zaffaroni → Raúl Zaffaroni

The result of the debate was Converted to disambig. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Zaffaroni is a last name shared by more than one individuals featured on Wikipedia WikismithZ (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Create disambiguation page. In fact, I'm doing that now. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Dapper → Ubuntu

Dapper, Edgy, Feisty. Gutsy. and Warty are absolutely senseless redirects. The Ubuntu releases are never referred to by the adjectives alone, but by the full proper names, Dapper Drake, Edgy Eft, etc. Having redirects for the full proper names Warty Warthog, Hoary Hedgehog, etc. is sensible, but for the adjectives alone it is not. It has been argued, truthfully, that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that it is impractical or even impossible to have trans-wiki links for all dictionary words. However, the fact stands that these are still useless redirects. Someone searching for information about the Dapper Drake version of Ubuntu is going to search for "Dapper Drake", not just Dapper, and users searching for the adjectives alone are probably not looking for information about a Linux-based operating system (see this talk page entry). It has been argued that nothing else of note uses these adjectives. This being the case, the confusing redirects should be deleted altogether instead of misleading the end users.

Users who honestly search for adjective definitions in Wikipedia can quickly learn to use Wikitionary instead. —71.181.210.51 (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - They are sometimes referred to by these adjectives alone and you can see that with simple google searches like "edgy -eft" or "gutsy -gibbon". Soliloquial (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I retract some of my previous comments. I was indeed wrong to state that the versions are "never" referred to by the adjectives alone: they are, admittedly, rather frequently. But does every colloquial shortcut justify a redirect page here? I continue to maintain that someone searching Wikipedia for information on a specific Ubuntu release is going to type the full name, e.g. Gusty Gibbon, not just Gusty, in the knowledge that the shorthand way, being both colloquial and a generic adjective, will return a prohibitively low signal-to-noise ratio, as demonstrated by Soliloquial's Google searches as well as the other adjectives Hoary and Intrepid, which together disambiguate into twenty-one completely unrelated articles. This, however, is still not the main issue. The implied assertion that Ubuntu holds a monopoly or even a majority of use of these generic adjectives (which, as Google searches demonstrate, is false) is ridiculous.—71.181.210.51 (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Additional Comment - A new Ubuntu release is made every six months, each with a different, similarly styled name. If the precedent (which I insistently assert is meritless) were to continue, the list of redirects and disambiguation links would grow out of control. —71.181.210.51 (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all as far more likely to be confusing to readers than helpful. These are common word with significant meanings that go far beyond this narrow usage. Note: While none of these redirects have many inbound links, exactly zero were in a context that applied to the redirect target. Rossami (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to Ubuntu#Ubuntu 4.10 (Warty Warthog) etc. and adorn section with either {{wiktionary}} or {{redirect}}. It is pretty implausible that anyone should expect any more than a dictionary definition. Pages like Warty might do better as a disambiguation page also linking to Wart. However, it seems clear from the discussion that somebody could look up one of these titles for information, and a red link is not the most helpful solution. BigBlueFish (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I still disagree with keeping the redirects, but your suggestion with Warty was a good one; I've retargeted it. —71.173.7.34 (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC) (same user as 71.181.210.51)

June 30

Jack Surtess → Jack Surtees

Page was wrongly created originally with the incorrect name Surtess. I've moved the article to Jack Surtees.Mick Knapton (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete under criteria R3. So tagged. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep because it documents a recent pagemove. The redirect will point the original editors and readers to the new correct title for the page where their contributions will be appreciated. (R3 can not be applied since it was the result of a pagemove, not initially created as a redirect.) Rossami (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Meh, good point (I misread the creation date). Keep for now, then, but this should probably be deleted eventually. I don't see where R3 doesn't apply to pagemoves, but this wasn't recently created regardless. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The author made that mistake, others probably will too. It should saty for that rason.--Serviam (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ginormous → Neologism

Ginormous is not a neologism (it is at least 60 years old according to the Oxford English Dictionary), and more importantly, the target article, neologism, doesn't discuss the word at all. Even worse, the redirect is protected, so note that I wasn't able to post the RfD notice there. If an admin could do it, I'd be thankful. Since this used to be an article that was deleted and re-created in the past (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginormous), I imagine that the protection was meant to prevent re-creation. The intent is fine, but redirecting to an irrelevant article is not the solution. Please delete and salt, or turn it into a soft redirect to wiktionary and protect. Itub (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Soft redirect to wikt:ginormous as suggested above. The repeated placing of content there is evidence enough that we should have something. However, I don't believe we need to protect this; the evidence at hand is that that did more harm than good, since the change could have simply been made editorially otherwise. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Sure, I don't really care about the protection. I just suggested that to keep the status quo, but it is probably not necessary. --Itub (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect per Gavia imer. It is not mentioned in the target article at all. --Mizu onna sango15/ 15:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect Redirect was protected to prevent article creation, but a {{wi}} will point people to something useful (the definition). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary as a better way to prevent the recreation of the deleted content. Rossami (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Broadway (Brooklyn) → Broadway (New York City)

The redirect confuses and misdirects visitors looking for information about Brooklyn's Broadway to an article about Manhattan's Broadway, a completely separate, unconnected street. Mosmof (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Convert to article Broadway in Brooklyn is notable enough for inclusion, it meets Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Notability. Unfortunatly I don't know mucvh about it and wouldn't feel comfortable writing it myself.--Serviam (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That's what I was thinking too, and I would've replaced the redirect with a stub myself, but I couldn't find much info after a quick Google search. --Mosmof (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for now, and post at WP:RA so that it may be recreated as a legitimate article when someone gets to the request. --Mizu onna sango15/ 15:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Obviously confusing as it is, and I can't find any references either, making it pretty hard to stubify. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

June 29

Alexander the Great Airport (Disambiguation) → Alexander the Great Airport

This is a Redirect page masquerading as a disambiguation page redirecting to the disambiguation page?!? - Canglesea (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Documents the movement of content from one page to another. And since in this case the move was executed via copy-paste, this is the only record we have of the attribution history. (History-merge is not worth the effort in my opinion.) Rossami (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Rossami, but also because redirecting pages like foo (disambiguation) to the actual disambiguation page foo is useful in and of itself. The minor capitalization issue here doesn't change that. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Tanya D → Tanya Dziahileva

I'm sure that there are probably lots of other notable people named "Tanya". I'm also sure that there also other notable people with the name starts with a "D". Maybe we have 1 source refering to her "Tanya D",but even so,it's only 1 source, not a lot of webpages. If there were a lot of webpages calling her "Tanya D", I could understand, but that's not the case here. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

1 source? Er... Not really. :-) — Pladask (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
As long as there are tons of pages referring to her as "Tanya D", I can't see that you have a valid point. — Pladask (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless someone can demonstrate that there are other people known as 'Tanya D' which would make this redirect confusing. Terraxos (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

June 28

Starcraft 3 → Starcraft II

Non-existent video game. Babedacus (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Its a common error that blizzard's next game is starcraft 3, since they have warcraft 3. According to this link: http://stats.grok.se/en/200805/Starcraft_3 , the redirect has been used 460 times last month. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and because this redirect really doesn't make sense (if someone searches for information on 'Starcraft 3', why would they want to be sent to the page on Starcraft 2?). Terraxos (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Because what they are really searching for is the next version of starcraft. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep common error as some may see StarCraft: Ghost as StarCraft II, and when in doubt about the name of "the new StarCraft game", may type in StarCraft 3. The usage statistics above prove this point. User:Krator (t c) 20:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Also Blizzard announced Diablo 3, combined with warcraft 3, adds to the minor number confusion. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo's bimbos → Bomis

Orphaned, no edit history, borderline inflammatory and not supported by any search I made for prior usage anywhere, especially related to Bomis let alone Jimbo. Veritable mess lying around in Special:Allpages/Jimbo linked to by Jimbo BigBlueFish (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Jim Bohannon has Jimbo's Bimbos, and is certainly more widely known, considering the decades of radio work. 70.51.9.241 (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, this has been deleted before, apparently for the exact same reason. Speedy G4 if possible. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete under G4 or G10. Maybe retarget per above if some evidence of use in that way can be shown. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy-delete again. Rossami (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - another WP:POINT violation from two years ago by one of Wikipedia's most prolific - and most controversial - former editors. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Dutch Acadie → Dutch Occupation of Acadia

as mentioned in talk:Dutch Acadie, this is neologism that is not used outside of Wikipedia mirrors and sites that use Wikipedia as a source for Dutch Acadie. (all 4 of them). 70.51.9.241 (talk) 07:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Although it is a bad neologism of a title, which is why the article was originally moved to its current title in the first place, GFDL generally requires us to keep the original title in place in order to preserve the edit history. There are a few circumstances where you can get away with deleting the original article title, but generally only in extreme cases where the original title is actually libellous. This isn't one of them. Although I still don't believe that the event actually needs a separate article from the one on Jurriaen Aernoutsz, because it's such a minor and essentially trivial bit of history that only needs one article, as long as the articles are separate GFDL requires us to keep this particular redirect in place. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, the redirect in question doesn't have an edit history because it was left behind by a pagemove. No GFDL problems here. However, redirects are cheap, and isn't the target what somebody who entered "Dutch Acadie" would looking for? It made enough sense to one user to start an article under that title. BigBlueFish (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Not really, considering that "Acadie" is French but "Dutch" is not. Since Dutch is English, it should be Dutch Acadia, Acadia being the English term for "Acadie". If we were doing it French-style, it might be Acadie Hollandais. The original author of the article turned up a picture that called the territory "Nova Hollandia" (and it's an English sign, not a Dutch sign) within a day of writing the initial draft. If we were writing the title in Dutch, it might be Nederlands Acadia or Holland Acadia. So, I don't think it's likely someone would write it that way, unless they're going to mix English and French for a Dutch territory. 70.51.11.91 (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
      • You're misunderstanding me. The redirect is the title at which the article was originally created, and therefore per GFDL it has to be kept — not because it has a distinct edit history of its own, but because it's part of the moved article's edit history. Outside of very extenuating circumstances (e.g. if the original title is libellous, nonsense or vandalism) that this case doesn't meet, GFDL does require us to keep redirects that result from page moves. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
        • The GFDL does not require us to keep redirects that result from page moves. The GFDL requires us to keep the history and that history, including the page move, is maintained at Dutch Occupation of Acadia. The only times redirects would need to be kept (or a history merge performed) would be in cases of copy-n-paste moves or moves that occurred prior to the Wikipedia software documenting the move in the target history. Neither of those cases apply here. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep because it documents the pagemove. As Bearcat said, GFDL applies to page titles, too. It also helps point the editors and readers who found the page at the original title to the new title. Rossami (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: No opinion on the redirect, but the claim that GFDL requires us to keep the redirect is incorrect. The GFDL requirements are satisfied by the history at Dutch Occupation of Acadia. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • While technically true that GFDL can be satisfied for recent moves solely by the target page's history record, it can require a fair degree of expertise and a great deal of effort to reverse-engineer the page titles and contributions just from the history of the target pages. The existence of the redirect makes finding the previous title (and if there are more than one previous titles, sorting them out) a lot easier. Rossami (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
      • It does not "require a fair degree of expertise and a great deal of effort" to page through an article's history and see (moved Dutch Acadie to Dutch Occupation of Acadia: No such place as Dutch Acadie). Keeping such redirects as a convenience is fine with me and fully in keeping with 2-5 of WP:RFD#KEEP. However, citing GFDL as a need to keep them is a red herring. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
        • You are correct that it doesn't require that much effort on this short and relatively new page. It can be quite difficult and confusing for older pages which have had thousands of edits and been moved multiple times. Your original comment about GFDL seemed to be a more general comment than a specific statement about this particular case. I was attempting also to respond to the general question of the utility of redirects resulting from pagemoves (hence my use of "can require" rather than "does require"). I will try to be more clear in the future. Rossami (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Given that no one with any revelant history on the matter (or maybe a french person who speaks broken english) would search it, it probably should be removed although the history of the dicussion is important. If nothing changes in regards than it should be removed, if so, than it should not. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

June 27

List of cults → List of groups referred to as cults in government documents

Inappropriate and contentious re-creation of a deleted redirect. Wikipedia does not have a "list of cults", that was just settled at AfD for "List of groups referred to as cults" and this was deleted as a direct result of that AfD. I prodded the redirect and ask the creating editor to speedy it which he did but both removed by a third editor hence this AfD. Full disclosure - I mistakenly listed this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cults, since closed to bring it here. Justallofthem (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Per nom. This is better handled in a link from the Cult article, and it's been added there. --GoodDamon 19:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The AfD did not deal directly with the issue of having a "list of cults" - it dealt with a specific article. That article was deleted because many people expressed oppostion to aspects of the article, such as its title ("...referred to as...") or the criteria for inclusion. Few people expressed outright opposition to having any sort of list. It would be a mistake to use the AfD as justification for deleting every article or redirect with a similar name. This redirect does no harm and serves a useful purpose to readers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Neutral I created this redirect, but upon reflection feel that the link I subsequently added in Cult to the List of groups referred to as cults in government documents achieves the same purpose in a more effective way, without the POV drawbacks of the "List of cults" title. Jayen466 20:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Jayen466 (20:02): "achieves the same purpose in a more effective way"
Illogical. A search for "list of cults" won't find the link.
POV drawbacks are of no concern in redirect space. "redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy" (#Neutrality of redirects). Milo 23:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the WP:RFD quotes; I confess I was not aware of the finer points of redirect policy. Given that policy exempts redirects from NPOV requirements, I've retracted my delete vote. Jayen466 23:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
1. "List of cults" greatly exceeds merely plausible as a search term – a 2008-06-27 Google search got 13,300 hits for "list of cults". "If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect." (#The guiding principles of RfD)
2. The redirect is not offensive. "Cult" is now legally neither "threatening, abusive or insulting". See Cult#Stigmatization and discrimination (diff). (#Reasons for deleting)
3. The often claimed issue of the previous and identically named redirect (with a different target) being a POV term is not a reason for deletion. "...redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy" (#Neutrality of redirects)
4. The subject matter (lists of named groups identified in connection with cultic concerns) is commonly represented outside Wikipedia by terms considered non-neutral within Wikipedia. "The subject matter of articles may be commonly represented outside Wikipedia by non-neutral terms." (#Neutrality of redirects)
5. I find it useful. Only one person needs to do so to keep the redirect. "Someone finds them useful." (#Reasons for not deleting)
Milo 22:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is a move to rename List of groups referred to as cults in government documents to "List of government documents on cults". I see that as all the more reason to get rid of this "List of cults". Wikipedia does not have a "list of cults" and it is misleading and a disservice to imply that we do. Let people that type that in find nothing and then go back to the cult article which includes relevant links. No-one will get lost. --Justallofthem (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You keep saying that we don't have a list of cults. List of groups referred to as cults in government documents, bar one or two short sections that talk about government publications rather than cults themselves, is, in all but name, a list of cults, so this should redirect there. It's useful, helpful and logical.--Serviam (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Justallofthem (22:36): "Let people that type that in find nothing"
This suggestion violates #The guiding principles of RfD:

"The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for."

Furthermore, redirect space is not a POV spin zone. When real world readers search for "List of cults", the current redirect will lead them to what the vast majority of global citizens considers a list of cults. Save your political incorrectness arguments for article space where they may have some validity. Milo 23:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
the vast majority of global citizens ROFL!!!! Milo now has the uncanny ability to predict what the billions of Chinese and Indians think. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
You may disagree with a particular conclusion for cause, but mocking literature-survey sample theory is not the mark of an educated person.
Milo 20:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
What is the mark for an non-educated person (I would use a stronger word here, if I could), is the uncanny lack of ability to understand that the Global village include other countries besides the the US and Europe. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
See my reply comment below. Milo 06:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have a "list of cults" I understand and respect your point. On the other hand, it is true that a number of countries, notably France and Belgium, have generated such a list, causing concern for religious freedom in these countries abroad, notably in the U.S. ([1]). As such their "list of cults" is a notable topic that users might conceivably look for, no matter where they stand in this debate. Jayen466 13:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages are for disambiguation. A search for "list of cults" is not ambiguous any more. The second one (redlink) was the navigation plate name for List of groups referred to as cults and it's gone. The present target has the only remaining list of (referred-to-as) cults at Wikipedia. Milo 02:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Right now we may have only one page that fits the search-term "list of cults' with great accuracy. But others may slot into a disambiguation-page in the future, and some people regard the List of new religious movements as overlapping. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as disambiguation page as Pedant17 suggested above - that editor took all my ideas out of my brain all of a sudden! If that doesn't work, I support the redirect the way it is. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't work. When a reader wants to see a "list of cults", they don't want an egghead list of cult researchers. They want to see a list that has Scientology on it. Milo 02:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
For example. Unless they want to see also a list relating to cults, such as List of orgs founded post 1920 and referred to as cults. -- I agree that List of cult and new religious movement researchers has only marginal relevance here. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page is something completely different: Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title. Not applicable here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Occasionally we do agree. One of those times was about the "overwhelming infobox", at some cult template I think. I've taken the liberty of moving Pedant17's giant inline reference, a navigation plate, to a footnote section below. Milo 02:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
People associate the single word "cult" with more than one topic: it makes this redirect a good candidate for turning into a disambiguation page. And we get more flexibility as well. As WP:RFD says: "Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia." A "disambiguation link" page offers a little more flesh than a re-direct. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Jossi (02:10): "...non-educated person .... lack of ability to understand that the Global village include other countries besides the the US and Europe."
No problem here – by that standard, the evidence is that I'm educated.
• I was one of the leading global-perspective editors at LOGRTAC, and I regularly mentioned the global citizens concept to make that point (hits in LOGRTAC talk archives 7,8,9,10,12).
• I began such global work with the French Report (unofficial translation), the single most important document in the history of cultic controversies.
• I worked through the criteria issues for foreign words meaning "cult", with the result being a consensus method for unambiguous references to such words in all foreign articles.
• I initiated the Cyrillic Russian portion of the debate about "cult of personality", with a successful result. (Had LOGRTAC continued, written Chinese was on the horizon, since they have an anti-cult law. Japanese, language of Aum Shinrikyo (candidate for the worst cult of all), may have a lot of sources.)
But are you hinting that the vast majority of global citizens outside of the US and Europe, don't dislike what they perceive as cults?
Jayen466 convinced me at the LOGRTAC DRV that non-anglo Europe is much tougher on cults at the populist and newspaper level than is the USA, and he also provided a Washington Post report of rabid anti-LDS sentiment in Russia.
ROC China is a particularly poor choice for your counterexample. • China Issues Anti-Cult Law - 1999-10-30 "Religious cult is a problem faced by many governments in the world." • Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), 1999-11-19: 'China's U.S. ambassador, Li Zhaoxing, .... "In America, you don't like cults," ... "Neither do the Chinese government and people."' China is literally worse than death on cults (but the evidence links are just too ghastly to post).
India, reputed as the land of a thousand religions, must be fairly tolerant of groups that elsewhere would be considered cults. But Sathya Sai Baba as a shocking government-'untouchable' cult scandal seems to be legend in India. The government has struggled with cult-listed Ananda Marga for decades. And surely few in India have not learned about centuries of Thuggee horrors as one template for what is a cult.
An India Google search turned up an apostate (to whom I won't link as a courtesy), who wrote: "A crucial change came from the Jonestown cult suicides of 1978. When 912 people died in Jim Jones's Guyana compound, from cyanide poisoning or bullet, the whole world noticed how dangerous cults could be."
Finally, while Al-qaeda seems to have tepid support in some radicalized populations, the majority of the whole world dislikes and fears it. The latest Google search yields 1,070,000 hits for Al-qaeda & cult.
Milo 06:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per