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 Unanimouskeep, I boldly retargeted to Slick Willie, which seems to be a best target, and edited it accordingly] Nabla (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Slick Willy → Bill Clinton (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I get it, I really do. I totally remember that Clinton's political opponents branded him with this nickname as a response to what they saw as evasiveness on his part. But it just redirects to the main article on Bill Clinton, as if that is all that is necessary. Needs to be assigned a more specific target that clarifies its meaning. If that is not possible it should not exist. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either it should indeed redirect to a section that includes an explanation of the nickname, or it should continue to point at William Jefferson Clinton. There is no question that people will encounter this phrase and look it up. If anything, that may increase as time goes on, because the old references to it on the net will never go away, but kids will not be taught about embarrassing things like this nickname in school. —Kaz (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it should exist either way, it is a valid nickname and search term for this politician. Just as Tricky Dick is a valid redirect to Richard Nixon -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a well-worn nickname for the subject which is likely to be seen in editorials of the time. bd2412 T 16:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Changed to redirect to Slick Willie. Upon review, clearly an ambiguous term. bd2412 T 00:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Valid ((R from other name)), but no prejudices against retargeting this somewhere that describes the "nickname". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as known nickname or dab to Bill Clinton and Willy Wise.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note If this is kept, Slick Willie should redirect to the same place Ego White Tray (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Slick Willie. Unless there's something I'm missing here, as long as that page exists in it's present form as a disambig that should be the target. If these should be redirects to Bill Clinton instead of a disambig, make an RM at the disambig page. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• IPO → Initial Public Offering (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Two different editors have recently retargeted this page to point to IPO (disambiguation), which is stylistically improper (if there is no primary topic for "IPO" then the disambiguation page must be moved pursuant to a move request discussion). Also, there are hundreds of incoming links which should be fixed before any such move is made. In any case, since no discussion has been had with respect to the redirect itself, I am initiating one. I propose that Initial Public Offering is the correct target for this link, and that is should be kept as is. bd2412 T 22:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Move disambiguation page to IPO (was unaware of the stylistic problems, sorry). I would agree with keeping if this change was going to affect many articles, but there are links from other articles, and only 70 links from other namespaces. Presumably not many of these would be hugely impacted by the change from a redirect to a disambiguation page, considering the first link on the disambiguation page is the target of the old redirect. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was bought up in the history, but I disagree that "Initial public offering" is highly likely to be the target of a search for IPO. Worth noting that Initial public offering is the first result in a google search for "IPO", but there are other results immediately after it. Dunno how good a measure of primacy that is though. --naught101 (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the reason that there are no links from other articles is because I went and changed the 200+ incoming links to be direct links to their appropriate target, which was in every case but one to Initial Public Offering. The one exception was a record label for which we have no article. bd2412 T 16:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Ok, convinced. Happy to Keep. --naught101 (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is. It is the primary topic gnewsbgcdiscussionsscholar -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as redirect to Initial public offering (different capitalization than in the proposal), which appears to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Worth noting that, at least for me, that "initial public offering" is the topic for 9 of the first 10 search results on Google for "IPO". --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but add a hatnote to IPO (disambiguation) at Initial Public Offering.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks :) --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Game Show (Dexer's Laboratory episode) → List of Dexter's Laboratory episodes (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Another redirect exists with the correct spelling (only a 1-letter difference). Incidentally, when searching for "game show dex" in the search bar, only the other redirect shows up in suggestions. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 01:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - plausible typo, redirect is six years old and may be externally linked, no argument has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Dexter's Laboratory (Season 2, Episode 11) → List of Dexter's Laboratory episodes (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

No other episode redirect in the series has this format. Can't see it ever being used. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 01:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the stats show this is used 6-12 times a month, which is greater than the 2-3 ascribable to bots, etc. so deleting this would inconvenience real users for no benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is not the title of the episode -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plausible search term, redirect is five years old and thus may be externally linked. No argument has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 both non-admin closure. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Last But Not Beast (Dexter's Laboratory) → List of Dexter's Laboratory episodes (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Last But Not Beast (Dexter's Lab) → List of Dexter's Laboratory episodes (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Title has unnecessary disambiguation. There is already another redirect pointing to the same place that doesn't have the disambig part. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 01:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both. Redirects from unnecessary disambiguations are harmless at worst and often very useful (c.f. ((R from unnecessary disambiguation)) and it's category). No benefit would arise from deleting this. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Last But Not Beast (Dexter's Lab)", as the disambiguation term is incorrect -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plausible search term, redirects are six years old and thus may be externally linked. No argument has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.