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 reestablish article. Sasquatch essentially attempted deletion by redirection. This is procedurally valid, but there appears to be greater support for retaining the article at this time. AfD may provide a more final answer. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Directed Electronics → Darrell Issa (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Directed Electronics, Inc. → Darrell Issa (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

The redirect from Directed Electronics to Darrell Issa's page should be deleted. Searches for information about a company that produces car alarms should not redirect to a politician no matter what connection this politician has to the car alarm company. Renduy (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-establish the article. What happened was that an editor took an article and made this redirect. Such bold redirects are absolutely fine because the content remains in the history. However, if we delete this redirect then we are, in effect, deleting the article by proxy, without consideration of the article's merit. In this case, however, the company is NASDAQ listed and pursuant to WP:LISTED is most probably notable particularly if the article's claim that it is "one of the largest makers of after-market electronic automotive accessories in the U.S." is correct. In the event that the company proves not to be notable, perhaps through AFD, I see nothing wrong with the redirect since it provides perfectly useful information on the company. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural addition of Directed Electronics, Inc. to the nomination. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Allow re-establishment if anyone really wants to (they might need to face an AFD). If not, 'keep the redirect per TWW. Siuenti (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My understanding is that anyone who wants to reestablish the article can simply do so, there is no need for permission at RFD. If an RFD'd redirect is converted (or in this case restored) into an article, the procedure it to the close the RFD as moot. If after that someone wishes to delete (or redirect) the article it can be sent to AFD. 02:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs)

Whispering Wind does have a good point about how deleting redirect would delete the article by proxy. I could be mistaken, but I don't think we have much precedent when it comes to former articles at RFD, at least in cases like this where someone hasn't restored the article but objects to deleting the article by proxy. In this case I would say that a keep or retarget outcome should (as usual) carry no prejudge against restoring the article, and a delete outcome should result in restoring the article on procedural grounds (tuss removing the redirect). Weather we should then delete or keep that article is beyond the scope of RFD, and can be decided at AFD (or another appropriate venue), should anyone wish to delete it.

To sum it up, we should probably limit our discussion to the redirect and not the article, sense this is RFD not AFD, but with the understanding that this RFD will not delete the article by proxy. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:31, 31 October 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 retarget to Context-sensitive language#Examples. --BDD (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Bach (programming language) → Bach language (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Erroneous redirect: the Bach language isn't a programming language at all. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Context-sensitive language#Examples. This is where, shortly after this nomination, the nominator merged/redirect the article at the present target. I fully accept that the term is inaccurate but inaccuracy is not a ground for deletion. Redirects are purely search aids. In this case it has been around for several years and, for a few months, was the title of the Bach language article. Consequently, deletion may well break external links. It has small but consistent use as a search term. If searchers were looking for a different language that would justify deletion as misleading but since the target is likely what they are seeking, then keeping is merited. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:08, 24 October 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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Cycle path debate → Segregated cycle facilities (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete non-notable topic name B2C 00:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - entirely proper redirect. As can be seen by the various 'controversy' headings it does deal with matters open to debate. Further, this was once an article and WP:RFD#KEEP point 1 applies. Notability is not relevant to redirects and no WP:RFD#DELETE criteria apply. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1 (valuable history) might apply in theory here - but in practice there doesn't seem to be anything notable and referenced in the final version prior to redirect that isn't covered in the target article. Don't 8 & 10 of WP:RFD#DELETE apply? --B2C 01:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Cycling_infrastructure#Bikeways, the same as for Cycle path. Siuenti (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the original target remains the better one since the 'debate' concept is relevant to the 'controversies' sections. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment TWW's target is fine too. Siuenti (talk) 19:41, 24 October 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 delete. WJBscribe (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Other uses → Word-sense disambiguation (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I'm not really sure what to do here, but this redirect is not helping navigation. Check out Special:WhatLinksHere/Other_uses, in most cases this is linked to from a hatnote that means to say "see article XYZ (disambiguation) for other uses." I'm pretty sure that the majority of people who end up here are not looking for word-sense disambiguation but a disabmig page for something else. Also, the target doesn't make sense outside the context of Wikipedia, it's like, we can't redirect to Wikipedia:Disambiguation (the context in which this phrase usually comes in Wikipedia) because of the cross-namespace rule, so an article about disambiguation is the next best thing. 71.58.108.187 (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The vast majority of links to this redirect will come from incorrectly-structured hatnote templates, and making this a redlink will help enormously in getting them fixed. I don't think people are legitimately searching this phrase in order to find the present target, though I'm open to seeing evidence that it's actually used constructively. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a likely search term, and no obvious target. Siuenti (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Template:Other uses and tag with ((R to template namespace)) - To my knowledge, no page in the article namespace can be used as a template in the "(( ))" brackets; so, this redirect's name put in those brackets would refer to Template:Other uses anyways. Might as well leave this as a useful search term for new users who are attempting to learn Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 07:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I am rather taken by 168's reasoning. Once the hatnotes are fixed then there is no real use for this redirect. The Whispering Wind (talk) 03:09, 31 October 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.