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 Keep (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 03:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Scottish_Nationalist_Party → Scottish National Party (links to redirect • history • stats) 

deletion because R3. Implausible typo or misnomers. KirkJT (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating Scottish_Nationalist_Party because there is no such thing as "Scottish Nationalist Party". Rather it is the "Scottish National Party". This therefore is a misnomer and should be deleted.

• Keep. "Nationalist" for "National" is an entirely plausible mistake, especially since they are primarily known by the acronym SNP. What links here also shows that it is a real and recurring mistake. I see no potential for confusion and further note that this redirect has been in place since 2004 without causing any known problems. Rossami (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reasons 2, 3, 5 and (debateably) 6 to keep redirects. This is a very likely search term, as in addition to what Rossami has said above, there are many similarly named parties around the world that use the word "nationalist" and they are frequently described as a "nationalist party" and the SNP and Plaid Cymru are together sometimes referred to as the "Scottish and Welsh nationalists". Thryduulf (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as stated above, Nationalist is a reasonable typo for National. A reasonable number of news agencies seem to make the error, making this a plausible search term. As an aside, please note that this is a new user whose only contribution is to this RfD. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Tag with template:unprintworthy and keep, quite a likely "mis-speak".Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 : wrong forum. Discussion returned to the article's Talk page. Rossami (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Evangelion → Good news (Christianity) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Change current article to Evangelion (disambiguation). "Evangelion" literally means "good news" in the ancient Greek the New Testament was written in. It actually has claim to be the headline of the article Good news (Christianity). To argue that a 2000-year-old word that lent itself to an entire religious denomination somehow shares equal notability with an anime from 1995 is just insane. If this petition does succeed, I would like to request the redirect be locked to prevent undoing by anonymous IPs, as happened last time. Serendi^podous 15:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Serendipodous may be butthurt that his favorite obscure religious term lives at a different page name, but the status quo is best because it reflects how Wikipedia is and not how he would like it to be or his own subjective impressions of relative importance. Just look at the inbound links! There's... one link pointing at the religious term, Nebuchadnezzar II - no wait, my bad, that's actually intended to point to the anime. And there'd probably be more if at one point I hadn't done a Pywikipedia disambiguation run. --Gwern (contribs) 15:39 18 January 2011 (GMT)
• Support Common sense. If X has more than two meanings, then X should not be a redirect to Y with "X (disambiguation)" as a separate dab. It's just confusing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the main reason the disambiguation page exist is because of the Neon Genesis Evangelion pages that exist, and one of them, isn't really a link to the page, it just seems to be explaining something. Disambiguation page really isn't helping on anything.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a pagemove request, not a request to delete a redirect. Please stand by while I move the request (and the discussion to date). Rossami (talk)
  • No, it's not a pagemove request since Good news (Christianity) exists. It is, however, a request to overwrite the current disambiguation content with a single redirect - still not a proper question for this forum. Please continue the discussion which is already in progress on the article's Talk page. Rossami (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 keep. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• House Resolution 676 → United States National Health Care Act (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Incorrect bill reference.

• Delete. There was a RfD discussion starting January 4, 2011, listing four related redirects, HR 676, H.R. 676, HR676, and House Resolution 676, all of which redirect to United States National Health Care Act. I argued then that these redirects should be deleted. The decision was made to keep them. I now wish to reopen the discussion for just this one redirect. House Resolution 676 should be deleted because it is a completely incorrect name. In congressional bill numbers, H.R. or HR stands for House of Representatives and signifies a regular bill in the House of Representatives. H.Res. stands for House Resolution. The bill in question was a regular bill, not a House Resolution. The other three redirects date to 2007. This one was created January 4, 2011, less than a month ago, and the same day as the previous discussion. This redirect must be deleted because the bill was never a House Resolution and never known as H.Res.676 or House Resolution 676. Indeed, in the 111th Congress, there was a Resolution 676 introduced July 4, 2009, by Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-TX), Congratulating the American Motorcyclist Association on its 85th Anniversary. So this redirect has got to go. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was going to complain about this being opened immediately after the other was closed, but you have a good point there. I'm sorry I missed this in my original nomination -- I was being careless, and didn't remember what HR was actually supposed to stand for. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While it is inaccurate, it is an inaccuracy that is very widely perpetuated. I've done a google search and a google news archive search for "house resolution 676" -wikipedia, getting 28,000 web hits and 87 news archive hits, I've looked at the first three pages of both results. 1 of the web hits is about the resolution congratulating the AMA, the others are about the healthcare bill. All of the news hits are about the healthcare bill. It is thus very likely that people searching for "House Resolution 676" are looking for the healthcare bill. It should be noted, probably either in the lead or in a hatnote that it is often incorrectly referred to as house resolution 676, possibly with a link to a page explaining what a house resolution is (I've not found one). Where it is placed and how it is worded is an editorial decision though. I'll place a neutrally-worded note on the article talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now left the note at the article talk, see Talk:United States National Health Care Act#House Resolution 676. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep again. As Thryduulf notes, this is a common misconception - exactly the kind of mistake that redirects are supposed to help our readers overcome. Rossami (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is not a function of Wikipedia to perpetuate misconceptions. Ruslik_Zero 19:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect helps people find what they are looking for, and in the process help educate some people as to the correct expansion of the "HR". The presence of a redirect does not perpetuate the misconception any more than a redirect from a common but incorrect spelling perpetuates incorrectness. Thryduulf (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]