The result of the debate was Disambiguate. Tikiwont (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous redirect. While Pat Green did indeed have a song with this name (a very good song I might add), I think that the Bruce Hornsby song might be more recognizable, even if it wasn't a single. (Note that the Pat Green song probably isn't notable enough for its own page, which was why I redirected this.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I don't understand the deletion rationale. It seems more like a justification for creating a dab page with the multiple songs (but pointing to the artists instead of the song titles). Pat Green's "Dixie Lullaby" is not only mentioned in the target article, it has also charted on the Billboard country chart, which puts it a little further up the Wikipedia food chain than an uncharted Bruce Hornsby album cut. If such a dab page cannot be fashioned, keep. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to dab. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to disambiguation page, surely. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify - Dixie Lullaby also seems to be a notable book by Mark Kemp, a 1970 recording by Leon Russell (Leon Russell LP) that was re-recorded by Clint Black for his 2003 Ultimate Clint Black album, and a 1919 song written by Harold Dixon (music) and David Portnoy (words). B.Wind (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig - Too many plausible other uses. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Re-target to -phobia. Term is discussed at target. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense redirect. Target page doesn't even mention this "word" (is that even a word?!). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This page was discussed at AfD (here or here depending on which spelling you prefer). Both closed with a recommendation to delete and maybe redirect. The redirect appears to have been created largely to preempt the repeated recreation of the deleted content. I do consider a protected redirect to be a better solution than a protected redlink. In this case, however, I think our readers would be better served by a (protected?) soft-redirect to the Wiktionary page since this definition already exists there. Rossami (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Contrary to nom, "hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia" does indeed appear in the target article (I did the cut'n'paste from the target to this post). Any misspelling is clearly a plausible one (per WP:RfD#KEEP). Also, there seems to be no RfD tag on it - this is one of those times that it is best to just leave it alone. Keep. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the redirect to -phob-. The term is a legitimate if cumbersome piece of medical terminology and is a valid concept for inclusion in wikipedia. The AfDs have decided that we do not need a separate article for the term, so redirect to the generic phobia article. Richard Cavell (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - medical terminology? We've been researching the various "-phobia" words on Wiktionary and have concluded that most of them are nonce words, never used in the English language. This particular word (wikt:hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia) was invented as a silly word, and though it has passed now into the language, it is not a medical term. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget. -phob- is a redirect, making this a double redirect. This word is mentioned in many different sources as a phobia, but was rejected from inclusion in Longest word in English. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. Soft target not appropriate and previous target doesn't mention the topic. If it's worthy of inclusion, then a red link is better than sending folks to a target that doesn't show any obvious connection. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is going to be a redirect, it should redirect to a Wikipedia article, not wikia. Up until now I'd never seen a redirect outside of the WikiMedia foundation's projects. I'd like a consensus that we don't redirect to non-Wikimedia projects. Wiktionary: fine. Wikia: no. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We should not have soft redirects to Wikia, because Wikia is not a part of the encyclopedia and not one of the Wikimedia Foundation's projects, and because a perception of entanglement between the two entities is potentially legally detrimental to the Foundation. Preferably, we would not even have an interwiki prefix for Wikia, but that's not something RfD can accomplish. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No need to redirect outside the project. Wikia isn't part of the project. Also, Rossami's idea might work if the target mentioned the content of the redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that we should not redirect outside our family of projects. Before we just delete, though, is there a reason not to revert to the version of 13 Jun (which redirected to World of Naruto#Land of Fire)? Rossami (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One reason I can think of is that the Akimichi clan is not mentioned anywhere in the article. --76.69.168.245 (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point. From the fact that it's a redirect to the Naruto Wikia, someone obviously thinks they're related, so I'd support Rossami's idea as well, if the target article included reference to Akimichi. Until then, it's not an appropriate redirect.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator, and per my last comment.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for a short period of time to help transition. Using soft redirects like this isn't uncommon when a page is transwikied. It's useful to help prevent page recreation and helps direct both readers and editors to where the article's new home is. It's a temporary measure that helps both projects. Give it a month, delete it, then everyone's happy. -- Ned Scott 07:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ned, check out the article history. This is not a transwikied article. There has never been any "transition". This was always a redirect. So I really don't understand why you're advocating that we keep this, even for a short time. Further, even if there had been an article which was copied to Wikia, the only requirement is on Wikia to cite Wikipedia as the source. We have no obligations towards them. I question any practice which requires redirecting any Wikimedia page to a page on a non-Wikimedia project. It is not our job to "keep them happy".--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 11:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The previous content that the redirect pointed to was transwikied. The point here is not to make them happy, but to make us happy. I've used soft redirects like this for a number of articles to help prevent recreation (or in this case, recreation of overly detailed content) on Wikipedia. That can be a huge help for some of these articles. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, so it was transwikied. I still don't see the logic in having a soft redirect to an outside project. Wikia is a for-profit entity. In principle, we should not be redirecting people away from Wikipedia to a non-Wikimedia project. This is not a good precedent to set. I would think that there are better ways of preventing re-creation of articles than something like this.
      • This also seems like an end-run around our notability and verifiabilty policies; if the content wasn't notable or verifiable to stay in Wikipedia, or any of its sister projects, then it's not notable or verifiable enough for us to redirect to.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 11:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. Despite the AFD being closed as a merge, no content was actually merged. It was simply redirected so there are no GFDL issues associated with the history. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list of locations has been removed from the Woolco article as being indiscriminate and unsourced. Therefore, this is a pointless redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the list in the target article was removed was original research (not to mention only a partial one: I know of three that were not in the list). Even if it were sourced, it would be removed as being as useful as a list of locations of Sonic restaurants. B.Wind (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, about 48,000 nationwide, but only one in Michigan. Not fair. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice for recreation using reliable sources. Recreation can be either a stand-alone article or a redirect to Woolco, if the list is small enough to fit there. Given the historical nature of Woolco it would be much more useful than a list of Sonic restaurants. However, I would be inclined to support only a partial list of stores that were actually notable in their own right, either in the world or within the Woolworth company. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Wal-Mart locations in Canada? Nah, just Delete. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If there were 160 stores in Canada, and this list had just 17 of them, odds are a fully-complete list would not fit in the main Woolco article due to size. A redirect to "list of Mall-Wart locations" also won't work, as many of the stores were later closed when Wal-Mart replaced them a little over a decade later with free-standing stores in new locations, leaving nothing but a trail of dead malls and label scar. Perhaps a redirect to ghostbox would be more suitable? --66.102.80.212 (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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