The result of the discussion was keep. Killiondude (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Racial preservationism → Eugenics (links to redirect) (stats) 

Racial preservationism is not just an euphemism for eugenics. It is quite frankly insulting to human dignity to see a redirect in terms of movements to preserve races to an article which has at the beginning beaming 'nazism' and 'racism' in bright blue text. This sort of thing has an impact on people's psychology, you know. It's like 'nazism' and 'racism' is bad, racial preservationism is bad, despite there being nothing 'bad' about Richard McCulloch's theories.--Betmenladbroke (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as WP:Wikipedia is not censored, as articles on fuck, cunt, faggot, and midget attest. In this case, the redirect is an accurate one as racial preservatism is a form of eugenics. Is the term controversial? Certainly - we often keep redirects with controversial terms to head off the possibility of forks which can be quite inflammatory. But the redirect itself is not inflammatory. This is a case in which deletion would cause more trouble than keeping the redirect. B.Wind (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep -- The nominator is more than welcome to go through the normal channels and put together a section within the eugenics article on the topic which we can redirect to or even to create a distinct, encyclopedic article on racial preservationism at the redirect itself. I'm skeptical that an article would pass notability muster but I'll be happy to be surprised. This is a reasonable search team and should point somewhere. Eugenics is the best place I can think of, even if "'bad"' people have practiced it and it makes folks like Richard McCulloch that the nominator respects look bad. It's an appropriate redirect. The way to remove this is to create a more appropriate encyclopedic target. —mako๛ 01:58, 25 October 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. Killiondude (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia policy on permanent deletion of pages → Wikipedia:Deletion policy (links to redirect) (stats) 

I'm not clear as to why we should have a mainspace redirect to a project-space page in such an instance as this ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 15:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - although I advocate keeping useful CNRs, in this instance I think it's reasonable to invoke WP:CNR. While the term does get a lot of hits, I suspect this is more due to the search box's autofill feature. The comparable CNRs from How to delete and Deleting an article seem sufficient to me. —Zach425 ^talk/contribs 05:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete IIRC, we had a number of similar redirects that were deleted about a month ago. This one is no different.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete --- Because of the length of the phrase, I tend to think that Zach must be right about the search box. That said, I'm very hesitant to come out strong in favor of deleting a redirect with dozens of hits each day and that must certainly be taking users to the correct place unless we know for sure. —mako๛ 00:18, 26 October 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. Killiondude (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Let There Be Sound → Let There Be Rock (song) (links to redirect) (stats) 

Moved from AfD. Reason given was:

“

Entirely unnecessary redirect. Should every line of the song redirect to the album? Drmies (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

”

Procedural nomination, I am neutral. Tim Song (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for putting this in the right place, Tim. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Let there be deletion. The lyrics are in themselves non-notable, and it is highly unlikely for anybody to remember the song as other than that of the title and that is was by AC/DC. Note that some people might wind up confusing this with "Let There Be Drums", a 1959 hit for Sandy Nelson. B.Wind (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The answer to the question in general is no. And it's also no in this particular case. Once again, as per B.Wind. This gets no traffic at all. —mako๛ 03:56, 25 October 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. Killiondude (talk) 02:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Microsoft World → Microsoft Word (links to redirect) (stats) 

Implausible redirect. World and Word are clearly not the same thing. Triplestop x3 03:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : there is no such proof to support the redirect . even Google has no such entry . ^[1]
• Delete -- This is a little traffic coming into this that I can't explain but I think those folks would be better served by a set of search results. —mako๛ 03:57, 25 October 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. Killiondude (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Let there be guitar → Let There Be Rock (song) (links to redirect) (stats) 

Same as Let There Be Sound: unnecessary redirect. Wikipedia is not an article where any line from any song ought to deliver the album whence it came. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the same reason I gave for the deletion of "Let there be Sound" above. B.Wind (talk) 03:16, 19 October 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 Re-targeted to Aspect-oriented software development#Adoption as it's mentioned there. This is not the ideal solution, but it at least it directs a user to where some information can be found. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Soarian → Hospital information system (links to redirect) (stats) 

Not mentioned in target article; the subject of the original article was considered a NN example of a Hospital information system, and was redirected Intelligentsium^review 02:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is correct that “Soarian” is only one type of a “Health Information System”. Perhaps WP has a methodology for when a user searches for an instance of a class with no article that the user can receive some reference to the class definition article without using a redirect? To resign the user back to “no result” seems less than ideal given the “Health Information System” article does provide the user some guidance.

However the editor decides to proceed with the -original- redirect, this request is simply to redirect any search for “Sorian” to “Soarian” and guide users past a frustrating misspelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.13.73 (talk)

• Delete -- This is inscrutable and unhelpful as it is currently set up. If this is notable, we're better off with a red link. If it's not, we're not serving anyone well if we redirect to the HIS article which does not mention it. If someone edits to the HIS article to mention it at some length, I'll consider changing my position, otherwise, I think we're best served with the red link. —mako๛ 04:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to agree with the editor’s overall analysis of the current link arrangement. However, while the user may very well be confused when redirected to the HIS page, at least a valuable hint is provided, including the crucial fact that the term exists.

If a user simply receives the equivalent of “Not Found” (and I’ve never seen a red link that wasn’t) no information at all is provided. As a frequent, but busy user of WP, I believe reverting to a total dead end on a major term like this is a clear indication that users are being forced to serve at the pleasure of the infrastructure/technology rather than the more appropriate inverse.

So delete or not really isn’t the question here, but whether the motivation to delete will be matched by an equal zeal to fill the usability gap the deletion leaves behind.

• Delete - Redirects to a class are generally unhelpful. As for the dead end, the search function would still lead to the Siemens article where it is listed as HIS product and to Aspect-oriented_software_development the latter with more content. Still redirecting the product to its company is also an acceptable solution. The current link out of the Siemens article doesn't add any information at all. In any case there is no prejudice against an actual article if seen as important product / term.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Tikiwont’s idea of redirecting to the Siemens vendor page instead of the HIS page is an excellent solution. This will replace what is uniformly agreed to be a confusing class redirect with a logical vendor redirect and provide the user with an equal (and probably much greater) amount of guidance.

By WP speedily redirecting a user to the vendor page, the term’s existence is confirmed, the user is smoothly guided away from searching for a currently non-existent product article and the user can easily draw on the vendor’s resources to fully discover the product.

As a WP user, I thank the editor for suggesting this clever redirect replacement and I hope to see it implemented on both the proper product term “Soarian” and its common misspelling “Sorian”.

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Hall (surname). Killiondude (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr. Hall → The Invisible Man (links to redirect) (stats) 

Delete - highly unlikely and non-intuitive redirect. The Invisible Man is far from the only work of fiction that contains a "Mr. Hall". Eddie's Teddy (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Eddie Teddy's reasoning. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Hall (surname) as there are quite a bit of "Mr. Hall"s listed there. Retargeting would also discourage recreation of this redirect. B.Wind (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Wind, the surname page is a more likely target Triplestop x3 16:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per B.Wind. Targeting the surname page provides the maximum benefit. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:58, 18 October 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 Hall (surname). Killiondude (talk) 02:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Mrs. Hall → The Invisible Man (links to redirect) (stats) 

Delete - highly unlikely and non-intuitive redirect. The Invisible Man is far from the only work of fiction that contains a "Mrs. Hall". Eddie's Teddy (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Eddie Teddy's reasoning. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Hall (surname) as there are quite a bit of "Mrs. Hall"s and "Ms. Hall"s listed there. Retargeting would also discourage recreation of this redirect. B.Wind (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per B.Wind. Targeting the surname page provides the maximum benefit. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget as per B.Wind. It's a good idea and certainly seems like the most relevant place to land. And we should make sure we clean up the links to this redirect from The Invisible Man! —mako๛ 00:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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