The result of the discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Banner → Template:WikiProjectBannerShell (links to redirect • history • stats) 

The name is confusing. We have many redirects to WikiProjectBannerShell already. Magioladitis (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - (with the disclosure that I am coming here from this discussion). –xeno^talk 19:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete plus deletion of several others - eight redirects is a bit many. If people are too lazy to enter "WikiProjectBannerShell", or don't like CamelCase, a max of two (Wikiprojectbannershell and WPBS) should remain. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The vast majority is using WPBS. IMO, WBS has to be deleted as well, since it's more like a typo. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Bizarre is what this discussion is. Redirects are cheap and helpful, "Banner" is not needed for anything else, and is much easier to remember and to type than the woeful "WikiProjectBannerShell". Deleting this will only make life harder for editors, to the gain of what exactly?  Skomorokh  01:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, yes, however - for the banner shells, WikiProject tagging bots need to be able to recognize them. Having many redirects is counter-productive. –xeno^talk 17:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm going to have to agree with Skomorokh here. I'm no fan of clutter, and some of the redirects to WikiProjectBannerShell might do well to go, but Banner seems pretty straightforward and appropriate. — The Man in Question (in question) 02:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it's not about a banner, it's about banners. Moreover, they are banners of WikiProjects not all banners. This may confuse people and start putting inside non WikiProject banners. Plus, why it had only 20-30 tranclusions? -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentWhilst investigating a number of recent bad edits unrelated to the above, I had occasion to look at a user's contribs page, where I came across this group of redirect creations --Redrose64 (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The more of these that are created, the harder it is for WikiProject tagging bots to keep up and recognize shells. –xeno^talk 21:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per xeno's comment regarding WikiProject tagging bots, but also because the redirect name is misleading. Template:WikiProjectBannerShell is designed to accomodate multiple banners and it is incorrect to characterise it as a single banner. There seem to be only a handful of transclusions of this template, so replacing it should not be any trouble. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hazza Potter → Harry Potter (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Nonsense. Implausible search item. — The Man in Question (in question) 18:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Harry--potter → Harry Potter (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Implausible search item. — The Man in Question (in question) 18:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unless, perhaps, my spacebar was to be damaged in some way, I can't think of any situation in which I would search for this. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Savez Izvidaca Srbije-1 → Savez Izviđača Srbije (links to redirect • history • stats) 

deletion, the rationale being that I made the -1 when I was new to Wikipedia and did not know how to sandbox things. It is an improper redirect, was never the name of the organization and nobody will look for it under that. Tried to speedy it, they sent me here. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Implausible. Very few pageviews. — The Man in Question (in question) 19:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was  Relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 20#Immoral Study. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Immoral Study → Immoral Study 2 (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Found this in the new page patrol: Reason for deletion: R9

"If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject. In these cases, it is better that the target article contain a redlink pointing back to the redirect."

If Immoral Study 2 is the second in the series, why does the first redirect to it? Seems quite odd to me. Taelus (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to encourage the creation of an article on the actual topic. Right now it actively serves as a hindrance to anyone who wants to know something about Immoral Study, because Wikipedia will come up in Google search when other sources will actually discuss the topic. — The Man in Question (in question) 19:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep / turn into softredirect since the target is a sequel, it is quite plausible someone will search for it without the number, as people will forget if things have numbers on them. Note, I've tagged the redirect with ((R with possibilities)) 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I know this game series, the first game was very crappy, though the second one was interesting, If someone will want this crap, I'm 100% sure that they'll want the second game PornoBoyz (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment you could always turn it into a "series" article. From Google, it appears there's an "Immoral Study 3"... 76.66.192.35 (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Retarget to The Urantia Book. Non-admin closure. — The Man in Question (in question) 02:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Christ Michael → Michael (archangel) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Nonsense. Michael is not the Christ. — The Man in Question (in question) 04:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget but I know not where; 34 hits in the last month. Josh Parris 06:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it appear on Christ (disambiguation)? Josh Parris 06:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to The Urantia Book as nominator. — The Man in Question (in question) 19:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Image of God. Non-admin closure. — The Man in Question (in question) 20:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Divine Similitude → Jesus (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Retarget to Image of God or else simply delete. — The Man in Question (in question) 04:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom, more relevant. Josh Parris 06:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom - I'm not sure why I redirected this to Jesus two years ago and not to Image of God in the first place. Neelix (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Jezor → Jesus (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Nonsense. The Jezor already deleted. This (blocked) user has created a number of inane redirects to Jesus, several of which have been deleted. I would list Gezuz, Gesuz, Gezus, and Jezuz (all created by him) too, but someone will probably point out they're not doing anyone any harm. — The Man in Question (in question) 04:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment my initial reaction was redirect to Jerry. Then a gsearch shows:

512 for Jezor Gerry

9,160 for Jezor Jerry

17,800 for Jezor Jesus

So I was wrong. I'm kinda leaning towards delete instead of redirect now. Josh Parris 06:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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