The result of the debate was deleted, at the request of the author. - Mtmelendez(Talk) 16:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recently created redirect with unlikely formatting - those are multiple single quotes in the redirect title, not double quotes. As such, nobody is going to search for this or link to it. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unlikely redirect.--Lenticel(talk) 22:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --EivindJ (talk) 06:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I made this thing because I thought [[''Billboard Hot 100]] would link to the article while also maintaining the correct formatting of the title. It didn't work :( indopug (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Yale lock is a company and a brand name, and therefore "Yale lock" should not redirect to a type of lock. At the top of the new article we can include "For the type of lock, see: Pin tumbler lock" etc. HJV (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Yale lock" can be used to refer to the improved lock invented by Linus Yale, Sr., as discussed in the target. We shouldn't delete this simply because it can also refer to a business. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there were an article on the Yale Lock Company, I'd suggest retargeting it to that; but since there isn't and Yale Locks can be of any type, Retarget redirect to lock (device). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article Yale (company) about the lock company. Maybe the redirect should be changed to this article? HJV (talk)
Retarget to Yale (company), now we have an article on it. Terraxos (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per HJV and Terraxos. --EivindJ (talk) 06:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget to Yale (company). I would think anyone searching for "Yale lock" would be looking for info on a pin tumbler lock. I'm unaware that they make anything else. Retargeting to the company would make sense, but I think would be less helpful. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's close enough that we could almost have the article at Yale lock (and once did). Numerous sources attest to its near-generic use (along the lines of Xerox and Kleenex), e.g. ISBN0618221239, which says Linus Yale's invention is "the most common type in use today and still known as the Yale lock", or ISBN0761473238, which says "The most common lock used to fasten the front doors of homes is the Yale lock". It is pin tumbler lock that should have the hatnote to Yale (company). --Dhartung | Talk 15:24, 22 May 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 speedy delete as CSD G4 and with undeleter's consent (see below). Daniel (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restored by an admin after a speedy deletion. This is a cross namespace redirect that is not essential, and will only confuse people reusing our content. A Search for "Deletion Policy" will point to Wikipedia:Deletion policy by itself. -- lucasbfrtalk 06:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Daniel (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy-delete. I was correcting a large number of out-of-process speedies last night. This one, however, was deleted as a result of an RfD decision from June 2006, a discussion which I was unable to find until this morning. My apologies for the mistake. Rossami(talk) 11:54, 20 May 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 keep and retarget. VegaDark (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previously a redirect to Fishman Affidavit, never more than a stub. Geertz is a person with his own story, and if that story is not worth an article then I don't think it's appropriate to redirect his name to an article that mentions him only in passing. WillOakland (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If he does meet Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for biographies, just overwrite the redirect with content about him. There is no need to delete the redirect before creating the page. If he's not notable or until someone does write such an article, the redirect to a passing mention at least takes the reader to a page where they can learn a little about the subject. Wikipedia has many such redirects. (In fact, in some circumstances, turning a page into a redirect is the preferred solution since it discourages the perennial recreation of stubs about non-notable family members and victims.) Rossami(talk) 05:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I believed that a full article could be created, I wouldn't have come here. These are two different people who have very little in common. WillOakland (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is, however a significant connection between them, but the more prudent action would be to retarget both redirects to Fishman Affadavit as Geertz was a party to the suit in question (not to mention the purported target of a possible murder plot). There is more than just a tangental connection between Fishman and Geertz (they were connected on at least two levels); so one name could have redirected to the other, but both are more widely known because of the lawsuit and its allegations. While I agree with WillOakland that it is unlikely that more than a stub could be developed for Geertz, deletion of a redirect, in this case, would do more harm than good to Wikipedia. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert to the previous target per 147.70.242.40. Geertz was a party in the case, and if the person doesn't satisfy notability, there should be a redirect to the event. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Bebe_Drake → List of characters in the Friday series#Mrs. Pearly
The result of the debate was no action per request by Rossami, and by the fact that no real consensus developed here about what to do with these. Deleting a redirect just because the actor participated in more series' than the redirect target indicates is not really warranted, and the only real argument was that the redlink might incite someone to write pages on these actors. I see no reason why we can't maintain the redirects until this is investigated further, feel free to renominate at that time, or simply be bold and fix it the best way you see fit. VegaDark (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could understand if the actor wasn't quite notable enough for their own article, but had major/primary ties with a single character they played/once played. However, that's probably a rare situation, and doesn't seem to describe these redirects. Deletion is fine with me, and the red link might encourage someone to write an article for one of these actors if they're notable enough. -- Ned Scott 04:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If he meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, just be bold and write the article - or at least a stub. There is no need to delete the redirect before doing so. (Ned is right that sometimes a redlink will draw a new author in but that must be balanced against the needs of readers who at least learn a little bit about the subject through the redirect.) Rossami(talk) 05:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll write a small disambiguation page for the ones that participated on more than one series, guiding myself for the "what links here" special page. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uh, I changed my opinion, I finally tried to make the dab for the most famous one (sorry for taking so long), but he has only made lots of minor papers on several series, see Lobo Sebastian at IMDb. I also see that an article on him has already been speedied, and I doubt that I can do anything worth preserving. Also, the paper at "Friday" is just one of the series he has participated into, so the redirect is giving incorrect information about him, and probably also about the other actors. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comment of mine --Enric Naval (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the pattern of redirects that have been created by the same person who created these, I would now like to recommend that this discussion be postponed until a more comprehensive investigation can be completed. Whatever answer is decided should probably be applied consistently. Rossami(talk) 17:22, 30 May 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 no consensus to delete - Low participation, so I won't close as keep, but there is certainly not a consensus to delete at this time. VegaDark (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
same as below, altought this one might actually have some merit as a search term Enric Naval (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plausible search term, and a notable cross-section of nationalities, as shown by the fact that we have an article on it. Terraxos (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Terraxos. --EivindJ (talk) 18:42, 22 May 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. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unlikely search term, similar to other many similar redirects by same user Enric Naval (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire all redirects of form "(nationality)-(nationality) American" as overcategorization gone amok. B.Wind (talk) 08:48, 22 May 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 kept as soft redirect -- Gurchzilla (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per the non-free media copyright tags standardization, all non-free copyright tags should start with "Non-free" for clarity, consistency, and machine readability. Having redirects that get around this defeats the purpose of the standardization. —Remember the dot(talk) 01:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a soft redirect. This will make it so it doesn't break all the links to it in past discussion, but will make it impossible to use as an image tag. -- Ned Scott 04:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as soft redirect has a few links from past discussion, it's useful to have it point to the template that replaced it --Enric Naval (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.