Skip to current discussions.

Skip to current discussions

Administrator instructions Purge the cache to refresh this page

Shortcut:
WP:RFD
Deletion discussions
Deletion policy

Process – log – tools
Guide – Images – Admins

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

November 22

Nick George → List of Dirty Sexy Money characters

"Nick George" is a common name. If you check whatlinkshere you'll see that it refers to a) a fictional character, b) a comic writer, c) a basketball player. I am not sure if any of these people is notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. (The fictional character certainty not). My thought is that we have to delete this redirect to avoid confusion. A disamb article without any link would be funny I think. Magioladitis (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Television in Greece and Cyprus → Television in Greece

Redirect left from a previous page split, cannot correctly redirect to either page, not used in enough articles to justify the creation of a disambiguation page Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Boldly dabified as there are at least two equally valid targets for the redirect. B.Wind (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:TVChannelsinMontenegrin → List of Montenegrin language television channels

Redirect from a deleted template. Not used by any page, extremely unlikely to be used as a search term. Also, the title is not formatted. Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Revert the redirect and take to TfD. Whether it was an actual template or a misnamed list article before it was redirected should be discussed in the appropriate forum, and WP:RfD is clearly not it. The "template" was redirected by nom minutes before taking it here. B.Wind (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

WCW WCW WCW WCW WCW WCW WCW WCW WCW WCW WCW WCW WCW WCW WCW WCW WCW WCW WCW WCW WCW WCW WCW WCW WCW WCW WCW WCW → World Championship Wrestling

I don't recall typing 'WCW' 28 times. Yes delete it, it doesn't make sense. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate that the likelihood of a user searching 'WCW' for 'World Championship Wrestling' is high, I would venture that the likelihood of any user ever searching for 'WCW' x28 for the same is negligible. Silly, highly implausible redirect. Frickative 00:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The following contest, scheduled for one fall is for the WWE Championship → WWE Championship

Overly long, barely makes sense, and is generally a completely implausible search term. Frickative 00:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This phrase is said by the ring announcer before almost every WWE Championship match. It is a well known phrase amongst WWE fans and therefore must stay. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

A brief visit to WP:Redirect is highly recommended. B.Wind (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsensical redirect. It will never be used as a search item. B.Wind (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean it will never be used as a search item? How could you possibly know this for a fact? --Bravo Plantation (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Let's put it this way: "Let's get ready to suck it" is a far more likely search item, and I would urge its deletion should it ever get here. B.Wind (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Toe Knee Gore Don → Tony Gordon

Bizarre phonetic spelling redirect, completely unlikely as a search term. Frickative 00:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete this one if you must, but I have heard that this is how the character is being referred to by people as a kind of comedy term, but if it enhances your life in any way by deleting it, then by all means do so.--Bravo Plantation (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Google returns zero hits for "Toe Knee Gore Don", and as a subscriber to all the major British soap magazines in which this character receives regular weekly coverage, I can confirm that not once has phonetic spelling of his name ever been used as a "comedy term". Frickative 00:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete it then. Lifes too short for all of this arguing about pointless things like this. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete CSD R3. A one month old redirect is not too old to be speedied under these circumstances - it is a most implausible search item, and I assert that it can be considered an implausible typographical error.

November 21

A list of all cities in Italy over 20,000 population (2001 census) → List of Italian cities by population

Redirects to an article created merging several different pages. The title of the redirect is no longer entirely relevant to the argument treated in the article. Linked by very few pages, unlikely to be used as a search term. I also nominate for the same reasons the redirects below:

Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:RAIL → Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains

This is a request for discussion, not deletion. Historically, the redirect pointed at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways. Recently, a discussion was started at the parent project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains, asking why the shortcut did not point there. This led to one user changing the shortcut, without notice to UK Railways. This has led to a bit of ill feeling in some parts of that project, who feel that the shortcut has been "stolen" without warning. I can see arguments for both sides, and my position is neutral - I'm just raising this to create an arena where formal discussion can take place.  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 19:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Restore to WP:UKT as per WP:WP, Shortcut was moved without discussion or consensus being obtained, therefore it should be restored until such discussion and consensus are obtained. Mjroots (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Wrong forum, and redirect to trains. It's silly to point it to a subproject. --NE2 20:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment User:NE2 moved the redirect from UKT to TWP. Mjroots (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment User:Mjroots indented my comment to make it look like I was replying to him. Can we stop with the "who did what" and start with the "what's best"? The D in WP:BRD stands for "discuss", not "filibuster". I personally think this is too silly to argue about. --NE2 20:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • This is the type of infighting that drove me out of the US Roads WikiProject. Since no one "owns" an article, let alone a redirect... WP:RAIL and WP:TRAIN should go to either the parent (or more generic) WikiProject page; WP:UKRAIL and WP:UKTRAIN should go to the UK Rail WikiProject (as the target page already shows the former as a short cut). If the two sides don't come to any agreement, I'd further suggest deleting and salting any contested short cuts until there is an agreement between the two WikiProjects. We don't need another entry in WP:LAME. B.Wind (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep where it is now. It's clear to me that the generic shortcut should point to the Trains WP. On the other hand, I agree that it was extremely poor form to move an established shortcut redirect without engaging in discussion with the project that had been the target of the shortcut for over two years. --Tkynerd (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Low strong → David Sirlin

This is said to be a nickname of David Sirlin whose main article goes on to say that he is "known primarily by his surname"; so it is not a likely search term. The author of the redirect, SALAD OK (talk · contribs), was also the first author of the article but it is not clear his intentions were friendly as he has been indef-blocked for vandalism on it, e.g. this. JohnCD (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - Redirects are cheap, but I'm not sure they're this cheap...this is pretty obscure. He does, however, had this nickname (though I'm not sure how commonly it's used). It comes from a Street Fighter II match he supposedly won by only using crouching mid-strength ("strong") punches. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hillsong (disambiguation) → Hillsong Church

The disambiguation page simply redirects to Hillsong Church. From the page history it shows that this disambiguation only listed Hillsong Church and so a user just made it a redirect. It probably isn't needed if its only going to redirect the the Hillsong Church page. Killiondude (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Dabify - entering "Hillsong" and hitting "Search" instead of "Go" reveals several articles referring to "Hillsong ######". B.Wind (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation link repair → Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links

Improper CNR to a project page, does not link to content. MBisanz talk 04:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

EIW:Ambox → Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia

Improper CNR, EIW is not a pseudospace, does not link to content. MBisanz talk 04:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. JohnCD (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia cleaning department → Wikipedia:Cleaning department

Improper redirect to a wikipedia department, does not link to content. MBisanz talk 04:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wp.neo → Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms

Improper capitalization of a pseudospace redirect. MBisanz talk 04:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - had that been a colon instead of a period after the "Wp", I would have remained neutral on this, but clearly this is a bit too afield from an acceptable, plausible typographical error. Formerly 147.70.242.40, now 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:NEO is already there and does the job this is trying to do. JohnCD (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

November 20

The discography of Alanis Morissette, a Canadian singer-songwriter, consists of seven studio albums, twenty-eight singles, and five DVDs, as of April 2008. → Alanis Morissette discography

Delete Unreasonably lenghty and very unlikely search term Wolfer68 (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete unlikely search term, probably too old for a redir-typo. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Emphatic delete - it is absurd for anybody to look for an article by the exact wording of the article's 28-word first sentence. If this were the official title of one of her albums (like that 90-plus-word gem by Fiona Apple), it would be a valid redirect, but not this sentence. B.Wind (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

UD Almeria squad → Template:UD Almería squad

Improper CNR to a template, bot created, probably an accident. MBisanz talk 03:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel Free → Wikipedia:Be bold

The result of the debate was Deleted by the delusional kangaroo. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary CNR, does not link to content, recent creation. MBisanz talk 03:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Liberty. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I deleted it this was an erroneous CNR and served no purpose for the reader. Not a plausible search term, so retargeting is not necessary. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

TF:Suiko → Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Suikoden

Improper CNR, and improper spelling, should be capitalized and with a WP: prefix. MBisanz talk 02:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

TF:SH → Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Silent Hill

Improper CNR to a Task Force, should be at a WP: prefix. MBisanz talk 02:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

November 19

Wikipedia:Six Pillars → Wikipedia:Five pillars

We never had more than five pillars, except for one time when someone made a page with that title that got deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

ATP Series tournaments Templates

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, G7 by User:TexasAndroid. Lenticel (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Template:2009 ATP 250 Series tournaments → Template:2009 ATP Tour

It had been decided to move the contents of each of those three templates into a larger one Oxford St. (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:2009 ATP 500 Series tournaments → Template:2009 ATP Tour

It had been decided to move the contents of each of those three templates into a larger one Oxford St. (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:2009 ATP Masters 1000 tournaments → Template:2009 ATP Tour

It had been decided to move the contents of each of those three templates into a larger one Oxford St. (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Alex Bozinovski → Diego Maradona

Nothing on Maradona page suggests this is a sensible redirect; it appears to be the leftovers of a joke/non-notable article from 2005 PamD (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - if this were from last month instead of three years ago, I'd urge a CSD R3 speedy deletion as a prank, but it's too old for that... but there's still no reason to hang onto it. A check of the history tells the story. Formerly 147.70.242.40, now 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Billary Clinton → Bill Clinton

More redirect vandalism - the name of the page is an insult, and someone is trying to make this particular insult associated with the subject. Bachrach44 (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  • This is a common nickname for the Clintons...but for both of them, actually. I would Keep, but maybe retarget to Clinton. Same with Billary. --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • This was used by the New York Times (mainly the op-ed pages) when it referred to the "joint Bill and Hillary campaign in 2008."[1] Thus it pertains more to Senator Clinton's Presidential campaign and not to the former President. Retarget to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 and add a short reference to the term in the target. Formerly 147.70.242.40, now 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ted Tubes Stevens and Ted "Tubes" Stevens → Ted Stevens

These are essentially insults, and any page which ever likes to this name should clearly be modified to not do so. Bachrach44 (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak keep both in light of recent similar RfDs involving names originating in the blogosphere. "Ted Tubes Stevens" yields about 6000 hits, most having the word "tubes" in quotation marks. Formerly 147.70.242.40, now 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • As you point out it's used in the blogosphere, but that doesn't really mean much here. It's a derogatory nickname. Any wikipage which linked to either of these nicknames should clearly be changed as it could be considered a form of attack. I can't see anyone searching for this nickname either. It's only purpose is to associate a derogatory nickname with the individual in question. --Bachrach44 (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete on the general principle of avoiding unnecessary negativity about living individuals. the blogosphere is just where it belongs. DGG (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

GOBBLE SPLIP SPLOPS → Google Maps

The result of the debate was Deleted by Pegasus as CSD G3. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This redirect appears to be a test. There is no meaningful link between the redirect and its target. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

MAGGLE GOOP STRIPS → Google Maps

The result of the debate was Deleted by Nyttend as CSD G3. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This redirect appears to be a test. There is no meaningful link between the redirect and its target. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy deleted as vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

GOOBLE MEAT STRAPS → Google Maps

The result of the debate was Deleted by Nyttend as CSD G3. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This redirect appears to be a test. There is no meaningful link between the redirect and its target. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy deleted as vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

TROGGLE TRIFFLE TROOP → F Troop

The result of the debate was Deleted by Nyttend as CSD G3. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, no indication that this phrase is typically used to refer to F Troop. Only online references to the phrase are due to this redirect. -- Michael Devore (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as there is no link between the redirect and its target. I checked the user's contributions to see what he was up to, and noticed that he created several apparently nonsensical redirects in succession. I have nominated the others above. I suspect that the user was testing. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as G3 vandalism. So tagged, along with the 3 above. --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted as vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:HP Character Foreign → Template:Infobox Harry Potter character

Unused, confusing redirect. Check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 November 2 for two similar cases. Magioladitis (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

November 18

Schnitzel (Character) → Chowder (TV series)

1. It's spelled "Shnitzel", and 2. I can see someone typing in "Shnitzel (character)", but not "Schnitzel (Character)". Radda! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - redirects are cheap/it's not hurting anyone/it stops someone from creating an article in this namespace. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

International Confederation of Free Trade Unions/Summary → Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Summaries/International Confederation of Free Trade Unions/Summary

Unlikely to be used subpage cross-namespace redirect which was created after a page move. VegaDark (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

  • The contents of International Confederation of Free Trade Unions/Summary are transcluded into International Confederation of Free Trade Unions via the use of the {{Article summary}} template in the See also section (creating that "Translation summary" box). This appears to have been designed to facility translation to other languages (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Summaries). However, this effort seems to have been abandoned as that project page has had no activity in 2 years. Last year, the summary pages were move from article space into Wikiproject space without updating the template. Given the lack of activity, it's probably okay to scrap the whole system, but at a minimum, the article to Wikiproject redirects should be deleted and the template modified to import the Wikiproject content. These summary pages don't really belong as article subpages as they're just duplicate content of the main article. The redirects seem pointless when the template can be modified to call the target directly. This recommendation applies to all six (6) articles that employ this system (see Category:Articles with article summaries). -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Rule 34 → Internet pornography

"Rule 34" is an inside joke from the webcomic xkcd. It is not notable enough to have its own article. The most appropriate place to redirect would indeed be Internet pornography, but it is of utterly tiny importance compared to that topic. This diff explains it all; you can see that the sources are the original comic and urban dictionary. Since the target page shouldn't have an explanation of the term, this redirect shouldn't point there. -- SCZenz (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. The reason I created this redirect is because I figured that people don't know what this term means. No, it shouldn't have it's own article. But the term pops up enough that someone is going to wonder what it means, and this is the most appropriate target for someone looking it up (as the nom admits), and a pretty good description of the term. As for a mention in the target, a section isn't needed, but if people really want a mention, a sentence should do. And for the record, this didn't originate from xkcd. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    But there are no reliable sources that discuss it! "People might want to know" is not an excuse to ignore Wikipedia's core policies. -- SCZenz (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete because there are no reliable sources that use the term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Redirects do not require reliable sources. All that's required is evidence that the term is in use. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Even if the target article makes no mention of the redirect? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
        • If the target is an accurate representation of the target, yes. There's no requirement that a redirect needs to be mentioned on the target, it just needs to make sense. Here's a pretty simple example here...I'm sure not all of -those- are mentioned in the target. --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - there are too many Rule 34's floating around to ascertain without context. Hence, this is a confusing redirect that should be deleted. B.Wind (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • This is a "rule 34" that often comes up without context, and by far the most common one I've seen. --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as a real page, not as a redirect -- we should categorize and list these rule 34's (which have been around for years). I came here looking for more information after reading an XKCD article. Enough people have been searching for the term that the term's Google rank has actually dramatically risen.[1] There's the Urban Dictionary definition, more than two years old.[2] Although the term is dramatically gaining popularity in recent days, it's been around for a long time, as far as the internet goes. I do believe there are other links. As it's a topic that people want to learn more about, let's inform people.
  1. ^ "Google Trends; wolfram rule 34". Google (16 November 2008). Retrieved on 19 November 2008.
  2. ^ "Urban Dictionary: rule 34". Urban dictionary (21 April 2006). Retrieved on 19 November 2008.

Banaticus (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep as a real article; it's notable enough that I wound up here after reading XKCD this morning. May only need to be a stub right now, and can be referenced to primary sources until secondary sources pick it up. Jclemens (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I've been trying to find any sort of reliable sources for this for a while. Have yet to. That's why I support it as a redirect. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
      • The redirect as it stands now is useless to me, since Rule 34 doesn't appear to be mentioned in the text of Internet pornography. Frankly, this RfD gave me the info I was trying to look up. :-) Jclemens (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment if kept, I think it is better to redirect this to Xkcd#Life_imitates_xkcd where it is discussed.--Lenticel (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, I agree--MUCH better redirect, if it's to be kept as a redir. Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think I can agree with this. xkcd didn't invent the term or even really propagate it. They simply used it. If anything, . --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - ZERO reliable sources reference this - all are urbandictionary (essentially a blog and not, per WP:RS, a reliable source), the site of the webcomic itself, the blogosphere (hardly a reliable source), and google searches returning hits from the blogosphere. This has become Wikipedia's version of Google bombing; the webcomic has undue weight here, and several discussions involving the blogosphere have resulted in the keeping of things (like Obamessiah) that clearly are not supported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If this is kept, it is because of this campaign and not because of policy. Formerly 147.70.242.40, now 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Again, redirects do not require "reliable sources". If there were reliable sources, this would be an article. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
      • This still violates WP:UNDUE as the IP asserts. Regarding "the comic shows that the term is indeed in popular use": this is a circular argument, for only those fans of the webcomic (which itself has relatively little distribution compared to commercially-available ones such as Garfield and Luann) would be even close to aware of the context which UsaSatsui is promoting. Far more will relate to other Rule 34s... including those others mentioned in Urban Dictionary. B.Wind (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure distribution is a particularly good argument, since there's a known high affinity between XKCD (and probably webcomics in general, actually) and Wikipedia readers. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
          • "Affinity" is not quantifiable. Readership is. More people have seen Emily's Reasons Why Not than read XKCD... and the former was canceled after the airing of exactly one episode. B.Wind (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Signal regeneration → Optical cross-connect

The result of the debate was Nomination Withdrawn. Lenticel (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Signal regeneration is an important topic in telecommunications. "Optical cross-connect" is not really a suitable target link for this topic, however. I am not aware of a better target article right now, so I propose to return it to a red link. The trigger for this was this edit, where the only link to signal regeneration was removed because the redirect had made it circular. This redirect does not help grow the encyclopedia. Srleffler (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw my request. A better target for the redirect has been found.--Srleffler (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Alltongue → Universe of The Longest Journey

Notability/Pointless redirect 94.189.204.147 (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - fictional language is mentioned in target article. B.Wind (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Norway-related topics notice board → Wikipedia:Norway-related topics notice board

Wikiproject CNR, does not link to content, not a shortcut. MBisanz talk 04:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - I still fail to see what's wrong with cross-namespace redirects. If it helps people get to where they're going, I'd like to keep it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, but people who re-use Wikipedia usually take the Article, Template, and Image spaces, so this would leave a broken redirect in such a scrap. Also, CNRs show up in a standard search, so a user looking for articles on Norway would get results that include our discussions on Norway-articles.