The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 02:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect with no incoming links. --- RockMFR 18:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No need for this CNR. delldot | talk 23:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, infoboxes are meant to be templates, left as it is someone might transclude Infobox disease – Qxz 08:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 02:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect with no incoming links. --- RockMFR 18:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No need for this CNR. delldot | talk 23:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Qxz 08:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. Gavia immer (u|t) 18:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hams Hall is a town or village that contains a nature reserve called Ladywalk reserve. Since the town isn't a nature reserve, it shouldn't redirect there. There is a BMW car engine factory in Hams Hall and I'd like to link (albeit a redlink) to Hams Hall from MINI (BMW) - but I don't want people to see a blue link and get the impression that this car's engine is made in a nature reserve!! SteveBaker 15:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Do you know enough about Hams Hall to write a short stub about it? The article could mention the presence of both the nature reserve and the engine factory... WJBscribe 17:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn - I don't know anything about Hams Hall other than that it contains a BMW engine factory and a nature reserve - but someone else has just done exactly that so we now have a stub instead of a redirect - which is great. Is there something special I have to do to withdraw this RFD? SteveBaker 17:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 02:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite how the string:

%EF%BC%B7%EF%BD%85%EF%BD%93%EF%BD%94%EF%BD%85%EF%BD%92%EF%BD%8E%E3%80%80%EF%BC%B3%EF%BD%81%EF%BD%88%EF%BD%81%EF%BD%92%EF%BD%81

translates to "Western Sahara", I don't know. Even if it does (transliteration into some weird script I don't have a font installed for?) ... who's going to search for it? – Qxz 15:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can see the font- it leads to huge spacing between the letters and may be an attempt to recreate a font used on official publcity material for the area? I admire the user's enginuity but no one else is ever going to type that! WJBscribe 15:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: On closer inspection, it seems to be Big5 encoding, used in Hong Kong and Taiwan for displaying Chinese characters. That still doesn't explain why there's a redirect to this article using it (and as far as I can tell no similar redirects for any other articles), though – Qxz 15:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unbelievably pointless redirect. Sandstein 17:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Absolutely useless. --- RockMFR 18:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - a Chinese approach to this matter. When typing Chinese, many users switch to full-width characters (two bytes per character) in order to support Chinese punctuation. When one tries to type English alphabets in this mode, the above-looking characters are yielded. A user might've tried to read Western Sahara with this search string, and found an article with a cryptologically different name, so s/he redirected the page there. --Deryck C. 13:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Re-targeted to on-board. -- JLaTondre 02:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect; target is very loosely related -- intgr 10:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, harmless. I can see "On Board Device" being used in this context, the terms share the same acronym. The redirect prevents content fork articles and can be turned into a dab page if necessary. Sandstein 18:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to on-board instead. -- intgr 19:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to on-board looks right — Randall Bart 00:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to on-board with a minor edit there. Sdsds 01:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. I also deleted Geography of Wikipedia, Economy of Wikipedia, Demographics of Wikipedia, Culture of Wikipedia, Politics of Wikipedia, & Communications in Wikipedia which were all from the same page. -- JLaTondre 02:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty stupid redirects, they don't really clearly meet a CSD though. Prodego ^talk 01:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. I can't really say much about them other than that the odds that anyone would use those two redirects is about as likely as finding a needle in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Kyra_~(talk) 02:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Either someone has a weird sense of humor or Wikipedia has some weird secrets. Either way delete them both. Gdo01 03:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - don't ask questions if you know what is good for you. --The Cabal.

• Delete both. Wikipedia is not a nation-state, to the best of my knowledge. Sandstein 17:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Probably vandalism. --- RockMFR 18:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and RockMFR. Iced Kola^(Mmm...) 21:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - they are both used at the bottom of User:Pakaran/Kingdom of Wikipedia, along with the similar redirect - Communications in Wikipedia. That should probably go as well. Carcharoth 22:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Utter nonsense. MacGuy 17:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was retargeted to wiki, withdrawn by nominator – Qxz 15:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect pointing out of the main namespace and into the Wikipedia namespace. Kyra_~(talk) 01:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just redirect it back to wiki like it used to – Qxz 16:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wiki per Qxz. Gavia immer (u|t) 18:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to wiki per Qxz. --- RockMFR 18:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to wiki per Qxz. delldot | talk
• Withdraw as retargeted to Wiki - Left the RfD tag on just to be safe, however. Kyra_~(talk) 19:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Re-targeted to Family values. -- JLaTondre 02:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects created by Nkras that reflect a definite POV. If the redirects are kept, I suggest they more naturally point to Family values.WJBscribe

• Redirect to Family Values - Pro-gay marriage groups can also lay claim to the term "pro-family". Also, even accepting that the conservative meaning is the most common in day to day use, someone typing that in could easily be looking for other issues such as abortion, adoption issues, drug policy, etc. etc. etc. - Family Values is more appropriate to the likely will of the visitor. --John Kenneth Fisher 03:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The websites of the American Family Association, Eagle Forum, Lifesite, Abiding Truth, et. al. refer to themselves as pro-family and pro-marriage. Listen to Evangelical Christian and Relevant Radio and you will find the same references. There really should be no debate about this.The movement defines itself as pro-family and pro-marriage. This is a blatant POV push by two editors - one who claims to be "a member of WikiProject LGBT studies" and another who claims he "is an ally of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans community". This is using the Wikipedia bureaucracy for political purposes. Nkras 03:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Family Values - Obviously a good choice, as it already uses the term. Sdsds 03:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redirect - just make it go away. r b-j 03:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget or just delete - Pro-marriage isn't a thing. It simply means that one is in favor of marriage, but not necessarily a subscriber to the Traditional marriage movement. Someone interested in researching views on marriage can easily start with marriage and navigate from there. Feeeshboy 20:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Family Values per John Kenneth Fisher and Sdsds - This seems like a logical move. You're walking on thin POV ice the way it is now because it seems to make an assertion that being pro-family is related to being pro-traditional marriage, which we shouldn't be asserting. delldot | talk 00:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment To reiterate, The websites of the American Family Association, Eagle Forum, Lifesite, Abiding Truth, et. al. refer to themselves as pro-family and pro-marriage. Evangelical Christian and Relevant Radio generally make the same assertions. It is a valid self-desciptor. The Ssm movement's use is a cynical attempt to co-opt the phrase. Nkras 12:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Family Values per delldot et al. One can be "pro-family" without necessarily being in favor of the traditional marriage movement. Gavia immer (u|t) 15:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redirect - Rbj has this one right. I don't think anyone is using these search terms here. They are more useful for POV-directed wikilinking than anything. If people were using these search terms, I imagine they would have been created well before this time, when a lightbulb came that such redirects, if they were suddenly created, could be used for POV wikilinking. — coelacan talk — 14:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. Re-targeting to marriage doesn't seem logical as people searching on this term or more than likely not looking for generic marriage information. However, we don't seem to have a better (neutral) target that discuses the use of these terms. Same-sex marriage does discuss the controversy of marriage types, but redirecting it there would be a really bad idea. -- JLaTondre 02:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, created by Nkras- stongly POV and not obviously related. Not sure these redirects are needed at all. WJBscribe 03:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Point pro-marriage to marriage, perhaps with a "pro-marriage points here, for the traditional marriage movement please see traditional marriage movement". Except that phrasing is dumb, but the intent is a balance between presenting what the person is probably, but not at all certainly, looking for, and what they have actually typed in. (proponents of same-sex marriage are rather MORE pro-marriage than those against it, after all, and are starting to use that terminology for that very reason.) --John Kenneth Fisher 03:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The websites of the American Family Association, Eagle Forum, Lifesite, Abiding Truth, et. al. refer to themselves as pro-family and pro-marriage. Listen to Evangelical Christian and Relevant Radio and you will find the same references. There really should be no debate about this.The movement defines itself as pro-family and pro-marriage. This is a blatant POV push by two editors - one who claims to be "a member of WikiProject LGBT studies" and another who claims he "is an ally of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans community". This is using the Wikipedia bureaucracy for political purposes. Nkras 03:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redirect - just make it go away. r b-j 03:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to marriage with no need to add text about "pro-marriage redirects here." Sdsds 03:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to marriage per Sdsds. Anything else is POV. Gavia immer (u|t) 18:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget or just delete - Pro-marriage isn't a thing. It simply means that one is in favor of marriage, but not necessarily a subscriber to the Traditional marriage movement. Someone interested in researching views on marriage can easily start with marriage and navigate from there. Feeeshboy 20:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redirect - Rbj has this one right. It's not as though a retargeting to marriage is a bad thing but I don't think anyone is using these search terms here. They are more useful for POV-directed wikilinking than anything. A "pro-marriage points here" caveat at the top of marriage, like John Kenneth Fisher suggests, while well-intentioned, would be unnecessary and unwieldy. — coelacan talk — 14:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. Improper use of redirects. -- JLaTondre 02:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No incoming links, unlikely search term. Appears to exist solely because the inclusion of Hasbara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in Category:Propaganda appears to be disputed; one editor's reaction to that dispute was to create this redirect and to categorise it as propaganda. This is not an appropriate use of redirects; such content disputes must be solved on the talk page of the respective article. See also WP:POVFORK. Contested speedy deletion, so I'm bringing it here. I've somehow messed up the history when restoring it, but this redirect only ever had 9 edits and was never an article. Sandstein 06:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am that editor. The redirect had a LONG discussion page, where its usefulness was asserted with detailed explanation. During restoring it, the discussion hasn't been restored yet, I hope it'll come back shortly. A couple of more points (from my post at User talk:Sandstein):
  • it was there for over 2 years since I had created it
  • it was created to stop an ongoing edit war
  • this drew positive comments from various participants in that edit war, and tensions did lower for quite a while
  • the article in question's inclusion in the said category is still disputed (and the dispute hasn't been resolved for 2 years!), so I am afraid that additional edit warring will happen.

Creating this redirect was the closest I could have done in an attempt to factor both POVs in w/o a threat of a revert by one of the sides. I find it quite within the wikipedia spirit. Once the categorization dispute is resolved, the redirect should go, but not before that. --BACbKA 11:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Useless redirects are not the way to solve edit wars. No one will ever type "Hasbara (disputed if it is propaganda)" into the search box. WJBscribe 17:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not useful as a redirect, and not created to be useful as a redirect, but rather as a way to add commentary on the article. That's not what redirects are for; they also aren't especially useful for the purpose. Furthermore, we should discourage creation of more redirects like this, which is reason enough to delete in itself. Gavia immer (u|t) 18:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, it WAS useful for this particular purpose -- just look at the edit history and the number of times the article was categorized/uncategorized as Propaganda. It's easy to say "redirects are not the way to solve it", but have you proposed an alternative, better solution? why not be bold and stretch the categorization/redirect mechanism beyond what's used so far, if it helps? --BACbKA 13:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Useless. --- RockMFR 18:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; the talk page could be moved to a subpage of the target article's talk page. --Deryck C. 13:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wp:point — Randall Bart 00:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Isotope23. --- RockMFR 18:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly Pointless Feeeshboy 16:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. This is vandalism- part of the hilarious Colbert's elephant campaign... WJBscribe 17:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by NawlinWiki. --- RockMFR 22:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to a page that itself was recently deleted for having no content other than a copy of a page from another site. —Largo Plazo 21:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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