Sex

Go to The Main Page Add Sex to favorite!

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion 

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. On the flip side, deleting redirects is cheap since the deletion coding takes up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. In general, there is no harm in deleting problematic redirects that do not contribute to improving the encyclopedia.
  • 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, if recently created.
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 should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term.

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. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

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:".
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [PageName]
    replacing PageName with the name of the redirect you are nominating.
  • To list multiple related redirects for deletion, provide a separate link for each listing under a single heading and detail your listing reasons below the last redirect (example).
  • Please consider using WhatLinksHere to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.
  • 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. For convenience, the template

    {{subst:RFDNote|PAGENAME}}

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

Current list

October 7

February 17, 2009 → 2009#Februrary

(or wherever it goes) Possibly could redirect to DTV transition in the United States, but I think it's better left red. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

``high school musical`` → High School Musical (song)

Quotes around the article name shouldn't be used as a redirect.. Anshuk (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

October 6

I want these motherfucking snakes off this motherfucking plane → Snakes on a Plane

Overlong and unlikely search term, plus a misquote to boot. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete but only because it's a misquote :D -- Ned Scott 02:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Judd Bagley → Overstock.com

I'll cheerfully admit that I'm nominating this for deletion as a result of something I read at Wikipedia Review, but I don't think that diminishes the validity of this at all.. Judd Bagley's connection to Overstock.com is that he was a onetime employee, and that he also worked for another of Patrick Byrne's companies at one point. The article to which he currently redirects does not so much as mention him, and any reader seeking information about him will not be served by being redirected to it. This is not about Bagley's tactics in the whole naked shorting affair, which I find as repugnant as anybody, but about the usefulness of this redirect, which is nil. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Note. Redirect was created in the wake of second AfD of Judd Bagley article. The discussion for the first AfD can be found here. The first AfD (January 2007) closed as "delete"; the second (September 2007) closed as "delete and redirect". 147.70.242.40 (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Since the Overstock article does not seem to mention Bagley, and thus the connection is unexplained to the reader, delete. Anyone searching for Bagley (and would anyone?) and being redirected there, might have no idea why.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep after having read the AfD. Although he's not mentioned in the article the name's more than likely to be a search term and Judd Bagley is very much associated in Overstock's crusade. JASpencer (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • So if we accept that he is likely to be used as a search term, what purpose is there in directing the searcher to an article that doesn't so much as mention him? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

6D → Sixpence (disambiguation)

The result of the debate was Withdrawn, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect does not make sense. 6D has nothing to do with sixpence. A rather unlikely search item for the target specified. Nsk92 (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Withdraw the nom, in view of the comment by 147.70.242.40. I did not know that 6d. was an abbreviation for sixpence in UK pre-decimal coinage. Nsk92 (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Neutral - "6d" (with lower case "d") would be the appropriate way to abbreviate six pence in UK pre-decimal coinage, but a capitalised D would seem to be more confusing than not. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WP:COMMUNISM → Wikipedia:Ownership?

I have serious concern with this. It looks like an off hand, anti-communist gag that REALLY doesn't belong here. I would like to propose the speedy deletion of this redirect. --Ipatrol (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

October 5

TheEnvironmentalist → Andrew Tait

This redirect is the name under which the target article was created two days ago. I moved the page to the more appropriate title Andrew Tait. Although I am not asking for a deletion of this redirect, I can think of many much more appropriate targets.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete malformed title (it should be "The Environmentalist" with a space). There is already a standalone article with the appropriately-formatted name. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you suggesting that's where this redirect should be retargeted? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I've suggested that it be deleted, not retargeted. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverse funnel system → Pyramid scheme

The result of the debate was Delete and salt, per unanimous consensus including RfD nominator. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

After an AfD, the article was deleted for non-notability and replaced by a redirect. Everybody involved, including me, agrees that it is a pyramid scheme. However, I don't think a redirect is appropriate here, since the term is not mentioned on the target page and the reader is left in confusion about how the term he typed in the search box relates to the page he ended up with. I was one of those confused readers once.

Pyramid schemes are controversial, since the ones participating usually don't believe it is one. A redirect such as this one is essentially a POV of the one who placed the redirect. If there are no notable publications that assert that the scheme is a pyramid scheme, then there is also no support for this POV or mentioning the term at all on Wikipedia. Han-Kwang (t) 07:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

  • This is more or less what I have been saying from the get-go, yet at the same time I think that this may help discourage a re-create. I have to agree, it does seem an obvious pyramid scheme, (gee, what would a "reverse funnel" resemble?) but without sources to support that, we are engaging in WP:OR and or violating WP:NPOV, but, if I could link to just one more bit of alphabet soup, I think we should WP:IAR and leave it as a redirect. Failing that, it should be create protected so that it is not re-created without sources again. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, it was a redirect in the past and when I ended up in the pyramid scheme article, I suspected that the content was there in an older version (it was, although not at time of creating the article) and moved that old content to replace the redirect with the AfD as a result. Which shows that (a) the redirect invites people to add content to the target article and (b) the redirect invites people (me) to expand the redirecting article, both of which are apparently undesirable. I didn't notice before that RFS was already deleted many times[1], so I support salting now. Han-Kwang (t) 08:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I have to admit after thinking this over that Hankwang (talk · contribs) and Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) make good points here. If there is consensus I will delete the redirect and then create-protect it. Cirt (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Works for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Works for me as well. Please salt both capitalizations: Reverse funnel system and Reverse Funnel System, as despite the redirect in question being on the lowercase, the scheme is usually capitalized and is likely to reappear that way. Reswobslc (talk) 04:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Tropical Storm Norbert (2008) → 2008 Pacific hurricane season

Remouns Norbert article Leave Message orYellow Evan home 03:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:WPTC consensus about articles on non-impact EPac storms, this article should not exist at this time. — jdorje (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What does "remouns" mean? I don't understand what Yellow Evan is saying. Plasticup T/C 03:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. It is a redirect, so technically not an article. If someone is to look for the "N" storm of 2008, there you go. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

An article is trying to be created.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 03:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There is consensus to not have an article at the moment. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

We he gets back he will see a big surprise.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 16:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the new Norbert article.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 16:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. If it is determined this storm is significant enough to have an article, the article can be created. There's no need to delete the redirect first. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Discussion not necessary per UsaSatsui: The only discussion is whether an article needs to be created. That's a discussion best handled on one of the tropical-cyclone discussion pages, not here. If someone jumps the gun and creates an article before it meets the criteria agreed upon by the editors of tropical cyclone article editors, well, that's what WP:MERGE discussions are for. Recommend speedy close of this RfD by an un-involved editor as wrong venue for discussion and/or discussion not required at this time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Ammended If there is a draft of a suitable article in user-space, and this redirect has no history other than a redirect but for whatever reason move-over-redirect fails, it can be speedy-deleted under category G6 to make way for a move so the history of the draft can be preserved. Again, no discussion is required so this RfD can be closed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect as Tropical Storm Norbert does exist (as of 3 October). The redirect can be overwritten by an appropriate article whenever the Wikiproject members deem appropriate. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral as even though Nobert does exist, not sure anyone would type in the (2008) part. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 21:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As of October 2008 → October 2008

I don't see the usefulness of this redirect. Not an obvious delete, but it should be discussed nevertheless.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The usefulness is in categorizing dated statements in a way that they can be checked, but these pages are deprecated by use of the special {{as of}} template. The redirect isn't necessary.--chaser - t 06:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Create artcile → Farigo The International Club for Adventure and Appreciation

The result of the debate was Deleted by FreplySpang as Housekeeping (G6). -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely to ever be used ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy deleted as housekeeping, note that the person requesting deletion here is the sole author. FreplySpang 00:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: I was not the original author, the page was moved by me earlier. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

October 4

Albany Firebirds → Indiana Firebirds

The name Albany Firebirds has been shifted to the af2 team Albany Conquest. The Conquest article needs to be moved to the Albany Firebirds namespace. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete redirect. This whole proposal is uncontroversial, because we have the website up www.albanyfirebirds.com. Just waiting for an admin to come over and make it official. Tom Danson (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Uosdwis R. Dewoh → Homer Simpson

Implausible search term. David Pro (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, police chief wiggum did confuse Homer with this name, why not others? Bambinn (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Chief Wiggum is not entering searches on Wikipedia. Delete. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete the relevant episode here is Mother Simpson, but not every nickname Homer ever went by needs a redirect. JuJube (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Game Center CX: Arino's Challenge → Talk:Retro Game Challenge

Unnecessary talk page redirect. jj984jj 15:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Documents the page move. No real reason to delete. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

St. John's Lodge, (New York) → George Washington Inaugural Bible

Inappropriate redirect. Target article is about a notable bible That this bible is owned by the the subject of the redirect is mentioned only in passing in the target article. The redirect was created as a last ditch attempt to save an impropper dab page from deletion. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Created as a redirect because they own that particular book. This entry was already listed on the dab page in question before deletion was proposed so the idea that it would somehow influence the argument is a misconception. Indeed, the original entry for the page that would later become a disambig page was a redirect to to the Bible (I later changed this because there where other entries and so I thought a disambiguation page was more in order). JASpencer (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • keep Is a logical place to redirect since someone might be looking for info about the book. Moreover, since the article actually mentions the lodge there's no compelling reason not to have a redirect. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete improperly named redirect. Had it been St. John's Lodge (New York), or (shakily so) St. John's Lodge, New York, I would have urged a "keep" (although the latter appears to be inconsistent with Wikipedia disambiguation policies and guidelines). Nominated redirect is some hodgepodge between the two disambiguation methods, and having both the comma and the parentheses stretches the boundary of plausible search terms. Delete as confusing as to disambiguation. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough on the hodgepodge of styles. I've created a redirect on the suggested style and replaced it in the article in which it appears. Not sure if it's the end of the world if it stays, but certainly not the end of the world if it goes. JASpencer (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY → Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Identity

Cross-namespace redirect, should be from WP:MOSIDENTITY. -- how do you turn this on 11:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. There are several "MOS" redirects that point to the Manual of Style. They're probably there for a good reason, and not really cross-namespace. Talking about deleting them all probably deserves a wider discussion. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - actually shown as a shortcut (similar to MOS:DAB) at target. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Castle Jeweler → White Castle Building No. 8

Nothing in the target article mentions this other name. So the redirect target has nothing about the subject. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, while it could be more explicit in the writing, the article does mention (in the first paragraph) that the former White Castle building houses a jewelry shop. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A Apodis → Alpha Apodis

A Ursae Minoris → Polaris (= Alpha Ursae Minoris)

A UMi → Polaris (= Alpha Ursae Minoris)

A Pictoris → Alpha Pictoris

B Comae Berenices → Beta Comae Berenices

B Cassiopeiae → Beta Cassiopeiae

B Lyrae → Beta Lyrae

D Cassiopeiae → Delta Cassiopeiae

D Doradus → Delta Doradus

D Octantis → Delta Octantis

D Pegasi → Alpha Andromedae (= Delta Pegasi)

D Peg → Alpha Andromedae (= Delta Pegasi)

G Cassiopeiae → Gamma Cassiopeiae

I Cassiopeiae → Iota Cassiopeiae

K Cassiopeiae → Kappa Cassiopeiae

L Cassiopeiae → Lambda Cassiopeiae

N Cassiopeiae → Nu Cassiopeiae

These redirects are all from a Bayer designation of a star with a Roman letter to the corresponding Bayer designation with a Greek letter (a → α, b → β, etc.) Unfortunately, Greek and Roman letters are not interchangeable inside Bayer designations. In the list above, although the Greek-lettered designations specify stars, the Roman-lettered designations do not—they are meaningless. These redirects should therefore be deleted. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 16 for previous discussion on similar redirects. Spacepotato (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

M Arae → Mu Arae

Another bad Bayer designation Roman→Greek redirect, see Spacepotato's rationale for the group of redirects above Icalanise (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete for the same reason as A Apodis → Alpha Apodis et al. above. Spacepotato (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

October 3

Pyramonster → Eye of Providence

Portmaneau that does not seem to be anywhere in the target article. No context. Term scores a whopping 103 hits in Google search. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Dead-end pages → Wikipedia:Dead-end pages

Cross-namespace redirect Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2

Jebus (The Simpsons) → The Simpsons#Influences on language

No mention of "Jebus" in target section or anywhere in target article. No history worth preserving. Mike R (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Joey Jo-Jo "Junior" Shabadoo → Homer Simpson

No mention of "Joey Jo-Jo "Junior" Shabadoo" in target article. Mike R (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Retarget to The Last Temptation of Homer, which is where I should have targeted this in the first place. This is a name actually mentioned in that episode; although it currently isn't mentioned at the proposed target, that can be changed - it's a likely search term. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Way too obscure, and not a plausible search term...particularly with the quotes. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with UsaSatsui, way too obscure. Redirects are there for convenience. -- how do you turn this on 14:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete that's the worst redirect I've ever heard. JuJube (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Rock Strongo → Homer Simpson

No mention of "Rock Strongo" in target article. Mike R (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Neutral - the more appropriate target is The Dad Who Knew Too Little, but name is only nominally mentioned there. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Really, does every alias Homer has used need a redirect? Shall we point Max Power there too? (Oh hell, it's the top link on the disambig page...) --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete not a well known alias. JuJube (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Homie (The Simpsons) → Homer Simpson

Improbable search term. Mike R (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - appropriate disambiguation involving wife Marge's often-said nickname for Simpson. See "Homie" for other uses of word. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, it's an improbable search term. Redirects are for convenience, not for obscure phrases. -- how do you turn this on 14:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • It's used in over 200 episodes of the series, hardly an obscurity. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think this is going to be reasonably searched for or linked to. Homie, however, should probably have a hatnote saying it's a nickname for Homer. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Marge does call Homer "Homie", but nobody else does, really. JuJube (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Lance Uppercut → Homer Simpson

No mention of "Lance Uppercut" in target article. Mike R (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Homee → Homer Simpson

No mention of "Homee" in target article. Connection of "Homee" to "Homer Simpson" is tenuous at best. Mike R (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

H.J. Simpson → Homer Simpson

Improbable search term. Mike R (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep as Simpson's full name is Homer Jay Simpson. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely search term. -- how do you turn this on 14:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. There could be any number of "H. J. Simpsons", and it's unlikely someone searching for this would want to find info on Homer (or would at least already know his name and how to find him). --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete not a well known alias for Homer in any respect. JuJube (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

H. J. Simpson → Homer Simpson

Improbable search term. Mike R (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep as Simpson's full name is Homer Jay Simpson. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely search term. -- how do you turn this on 14:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. There could be any number of "H. J. Simpsons", and it's unlikely someone searching for this would want to find info on Homer (or would at least already know his name and how to find him). --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete not a well known alias for Homer in any respect. JuJube (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeebus (The Simpsons) → Homer Simpson

No mention of "Jeebus" in target article. Mike R (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons/Jebus → Homer Simpson

No mention of "Jebus" in target article. No history worth preserving. Mike R (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - malformed redirect title as it is not a subpage. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely search term. And why is there a / there? -- how do you turn this on 14:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wow, that's an old one. Anyways, I think it is needed to document a page move. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

'Barry' Obama → Barack Obama

Highly improbable search term –– Lid(Talk) 08:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

  • It is the single quotes that makes it an improbable search term. Delete. Mike R (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The reason for the quotes is that sometimes people put nicknames in quotes. Since "Barry" was Obama's name in childhood, I would say Keep. Plus some news sites like this http://www.france24.com/en/20080831-barry-barack-obama-fifth-grade-high-school-hawaii-dean-aldo-democrat-convention-usa-president refer to "'Barry' Obama" WhisperToMe (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - while the quotation marks are discouraged, keeping them is not without precedent (see [2], although none of the nominees actually start with quotes). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Those nickname links were justified via their linking in article lists, however I can think of no possible circumstance where 'Barry' Obama would be linked by a wikipedia article. Perhaps if it was Barack 'Barry' Obama, and even then that's pushing it. –– Lid(Talk) 23:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • There is a possibility a user can link from that kind of name. Reasons for not deletion for RFD says "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."
      • Reasons for deleting says "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, if recently created." - The style 'Barry' Obama is not particularly obscure or implausible. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely search term. -- how do you turn this on 14:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The section about this says "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, if recently created." - 'Barry' Obama is not an obscure synonym. This is not an implausible typo (see the French news article). WhisperToMe (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
      • That article also uses his actual name. Sorry I disagree it's a likely search term (and it's certainly not a typo.) --