This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 11, 2013
Feature-rich
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 ~ Amory(u • t • c) 06:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to a product as "feature-rich" is utter marketing hype. The term should not be appearing in encyclopaedia articles per WP:NPOV and WP:ADV. The articles which link to this buzzword should be rewritten to remove it and any similar WP:PEACOCK language promoting the subject products. K7L (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree this term should be avoided in articles, but a redirect is not an article. Directing this to a neutral article is not spam or promotion - directing it to a specific software program would be. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:RNEUTRAL, redirects do not have to be NPOV. This one correctly directs a user that types the buzzword into the search box to an article that discusses the term in a neutral manner. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:46, 12 May 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.
List pf programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Canada)
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 Delete ~ Amory(u • t • c) 06:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Implausible typo. Would qualify for R3, but it was created ten months ago. TCN7JM 19:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Technically a plausible typo, since O and P are adjacent to each other on a standard QWERTY keyboard layout. But it's not a plausible misspelling, and we can't go around creating thousands upon thousands of redirects for every single plausible typo because there would simply be so many of them that we could no longer call them "cheap". Better to focus on misspellings, meaning what someone might actually think is the correct spelling, which this is not. jcgoble3 (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Implausible misspelling. That's what I meant. Thanks. TCN7JM 03:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It got 46 times back in January, and 22 in March. This is suggestive of some outside link. Deleting it would disrupt a large number of people, for a redirect. Tideflat (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then they'd need one more click to get back to the correct page. This random typo doesn't need to exist as a redirect. TCN7JM 03:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How many clicks you need to get to the article depends on the method you are using to search/browse Wikipedia. Search results are not guaranteed to be available, reliable or consistent. Thryduulf (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First of all, note that List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network is a lot more popular than List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Canada), getting 139967 hits vs. 1364 hits. And yet the corresponding List pf programs broadcast by Cartoon Network gets no hits at all. (Note that nonexistent pages do log hits, like Asdfasdf.) I think the only reason List pf programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Canada) gets hits is because the redirect exists; if you removed the redirect, then people would stop searching for it. Canadians aren't any worse at spelling than Americans AFAIK, so why else would there be absolutely no one searching for a much more popular article misspelled in exactly the same way? -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 09:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The number of hits recorded for redlinks has always seemed inconsistent to me. It seems that it records only hits for people who actually visit the non-existent page (i.e. the creation edit window) and does not record anything for people who search for the non-existent target and who get search results but do not click to create the page. I'm not sure whether views of the interface message about there being no article and would you like to create it or search for something else gets recorded as hits or not, it might not be consistent. This means that while hits for a redlink indicate that people have searched for it, the inverse does not prove that people are not searching for it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing we keep or delete the redirect, Thryduulf? TCN7JM 16:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither, at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is one of these typo redirects that is not helpful (and yes, sets a bad precedent, if you're into that kind of thinking). — This, that and the other (talk) 11:42, 14 May 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.
Wikipedia:AFDEXISTS
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 Delete ~ Amory(u • t • c) 06:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recently created, unnecessary, and pointless shortcut. The only two uses of this shortcut, other than its "announcement" at the top of WP:AFD, are by the creator in running text to tell people that "WP:AFD exists", which can be said just as easily without the redirect as I just demonstrated. jcgoble3 (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Creator says keep, the redirect is used for stylistic means and there is no reason I can see to toss it. It's not unclear, it's not ambiguous, and redirects are cheap, so why worry that it's redundant? Red Slash 01:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Redirects are cheap" should not be used as an argument to keep every redirect. This one makes no sense and should be deleted. TCN7JM 02:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not useful. If you want to tell someone that AfD exists, you can link it like "WP:AFD exists." -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 09:38, 12 May 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.
DNA Media Comics
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 Ichijinsha ~ Amory(u • t • c) 06:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a publishing company an imprint of Ichijinsha. It shouldn't redirect to a series. DragonZero (Talk·Contribs) 08:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and retarget to Clannad_(visual_novel)#Manga section It's common practice to redirect the name of a non-notable subject to an article on a notable subject that it is affiliated with. A very quick Google web and news search seems to indicate that DNA Media Comics is not notable on its own, but a manga anthology of the target series was released under that name (as mentioned in the proposed target section). Ichijinsha might be a better target for this redirect, as it seems to be one of their imprints, but that article is in far, far worse shape and does not appear to be notable itself. jcgoble3 (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then it could very well link to Tales of Symphonia or Tales of Xillia. It makes no sense to have it redirect to a series. If it can't be deleted, then it should just redirect to Ichijinsha. If for some reason it has to redirect to Clannad still, I'm going to get more opinions at Wikiproject Anime/Manga for this discussion. DragonZero (Talk·Contribs) 08:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ichijinsha Obviously.--十八 01:27, 13 May 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.