The result of the debate was keep. Wizardman 16:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page that does not disambiguate Kevin McE (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh wow, this is really FUBAR :) We used to have a disambiguation page at Foo. In November 2006, content from Foo (disambiguation) was merged there. In January 2007, someone hijacked Foo with some kind of Habbo Hotel crap - this page was then moved to Foo quest and later deleted - I have now restored the pre-hijack revisions. So, we've got history at Foo, Foo (disambiguation), Foo quest, and we have foobar which is very similar in scope to Foo. I've got no idea what to do :P --- RockMFR 22:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the redirect and its pagehistory. As RockMFR notes, there is a lot to clean up here. We're going to need the history to do that. (Incidentally, the current version of Foo does include some of the alternate usages which were on the disambig version, though they have been incorporated into the prose rather than itemized.) Rossami (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the page history; as already said, it's needed for cleanup. Also, keep the actual redirect; redirects like this are helpful, both because people might well search for them (they don't know whether the appropriate dab page has this form of title or not), and because it clearly documents that the target is a disambiguation page, which may not be clear without the suffix. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be very surprised if anyone were to search for Foo (disambiguation) without having first tried searching Foo. It is a disambiguation page only in name, not in function. But if it is worth keeping for its history, then I have no objection to withdrawing the proposal: it was only intended as a tidy-up. Kevin McE (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, the target (Foo) is not a disambiguation page. --Russ (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the page and move Foo quest to this title - that seems to be the actual Foo disambiguation page, although how it got to that title I've no idea. It would be good to preserve the history if possible, though. Terraxos (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See RockMFR's history of the page above. It got moved when an anon editor hijacked the page with a reference to a searching game (hence, "quest"). The hijacked version was moved, then deleted, then history-restored of the non-hijacked versions but never moved back. In the meantime, someone put substantive content at Foo. You're probably right that the content currently at Foo quest could fit at Foo (disambiguation) but 1) deleting the pagehistory would make this even harder to sort out next time and 2) it's already mentioned in the prose of Foo. Rossami (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus (kept). -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant prose is a cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia:Featured articles. Seeing as its history was merged a long time ago, it has no history other than as a redirect. Thus, it is an unnecessary self-reference, and I suggest that it be either deleted or redirected to an article in the main namespace (such as prose). Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep again. The page dates back to 2001 and has existed as a redirect since 2002, long before the creation of the separate namespaces. There are many links to this page scattered all through the project's pagehistory. In addition, given the nature of the page and its age, there is a significant likelihood of external links to the page. Breaking those links is bad for the project. Rossami (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Although there seems to be a nice number of clicks to the page, there's really no connection between brilliant prose and Wikipedia definitions for a featured article. Deleting admin must replace all "what links here" with a link to the FA page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thank you for providing that link. I'd never seen that widget before. That will be very helpful. To answer your comment, though, the connection won't be obvious when merely looking at recent usage. You have to care about the project's history before the connection matters (and admittedly, some don't care about history but others do). The connection between the pages is that this is where the pagecontent lived before we switched the name to "featured articles" and before we created the separate namespaces. To your second point, fixing the currently-visible inbound links won't help with any of the links in old pagehistories nor will can we fix the links to the page from outside the project. Rossami (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion if this gets deleted could the deleting admin put a direct link to Wikipedia:Featured articles in the deletion log. That way a user will see the link right away if they were to follow a redlink, but wouldn't really be a "redirect". -- Ned Scott 03:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Replaced with Acheri (legendary creature). A hatnote has been added for Luc d'Achery. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect appears pointless, as this spelling is not mentioned in the article, nor does it seem likely that it would be searched for. The term also applies to Acheri (legendary creature) Kivar2 (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The alternate spelling should be added to the article and the redirect maintained. If another article references the name then a disambig page should be set up. The alternate spelling can be found in many historical books (e.g. General Biographical Dictionary) and should be redirected so users can more easily find what they are looking for. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-06-11 20:49Z
• NOTE - the target is itself a redirect, making this a double redirect (see below). Both redirects should be targeted to the same article, not deleted, as both appear to be likely search items. Naturally, acheri would not be found in Luc d'Achéry until/unless a recent article move is reversed. Keep as redirected. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to make room for a page move of Acheri (legendary creature). The latter article may get a disambiguation note (that is, an ((otheruses)) template) about Luc d'Achéry.
  • That works too. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-06-12 12:45Z

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel ^(talk) 11:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. I'm moving this discussion from AfD to help the user who mistakenly nominated it there, The Founders Intent, and am expressing no opinion. Deor (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I believe this is a misspelling of an intended article that where a redirect was added or an attempt to account for misspellings, and does not qualify for a redirect. Redirects should be reserved for commonly expected search terms, acronyms, etc... and not for every possible misspelling. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 16:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The combination of Title Case and the odd misspelling makes it extremely improbable that anyone would search for it. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The creator of this redirect user:Rich Farmbrough, is usually a very solid editor. Unless there's a better reason to delete that "improbable search criteria", I'm inclined to give him the benefit of doubt. Please remember that redirects do much more than merely support the search engine. Rossami (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I sway towards delete. if it were just a misspelling or just a miscapitailsation, then I'd say keep, but the combination seems unlikely. Mind you, it's impossible to prove that no-one would type this, isn't it? :) Grutness...wha? 03:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It will catch both capitalisations. Unless there's been a change in policy, redirects from misspellings are almost always left. Rich Farmbrough, 11:45 12 June 2008 (GMT).
• I think too much time is spent trying to appease people who can't spell. They'll learn to spell a lot quicker if you require it. Well I think the policy of maintaining misselled words is pure lunacy, imagine the millions of misspellings that sit around as redirects. No wonder the cleanup work never ends. Vandals could create articles all over Wiki with misspellings knowing that redirects will be added. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 12:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - 20 bad spellers in comparison with 90000 people who know how to spell is not worth the page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - nice one, where'd you find that site? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 03:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. That this page was viewed at all is evidence enough that it is a good redirect. --- RockMFR 21:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found it by searching scientific. Please, don't be a packrat. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 00:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per evidence by Jaakobou DA PIE EATER (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Lenticel ^(talk) 11:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imposible search term. It is highly unlikely for an English language user will search for Shōnen using its Kanji form. --Farix (Talk) 15:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, harmless. And why shouldn't you cut&paste the kanji and search for them? Kusma (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages, this would appear to line up with the first bullet of the acceptable uses of a foreign redirect. Rossami (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Harmless foreign redirect. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirects are cheap. -- Ned Scott 03:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep native language redirects should always be created, since you might not know what it's called in English. Besides, shonen itself is spelt in three ways in English sources. Shōnen, Shonen, Shounen. 70.51.8.9 (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article - not surprising since Ice Age 3 (Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs) is scheduled for a 2009 release. I am also adding Ice Age IV → Ice Age (film), with the same justification. B.Wind (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL. The third film is still in production; it can't be verified yet whether or not there will be a fourth installment. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 08:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mizu.--Lenticel ^(talk) 13:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL DA PIE EATER (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 16:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete title (should have been "Pi to the millionth decimal place") and too long to be a useful search item even if the "correct" name were indeed used. While the article mentions that Pi has been calculated to trillions of places, nowhere in the article does it show the first million places of the irrational number, or even discuss the first million decimal places of pi (π). B.Wind (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 08:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• There's precedent for this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pi to One Million Digits, though I don't think either makes a particularly good redirect. Since this actually started as a listing of the first million digits, not a redirect, it should be deleted; redirecting only makes sense as an alternative to salting. —Cryptic 08:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that a redirect is a better answer than salting the page. Keep and protect with a comment on the Talk page to the prior discussion to make it very clear to future editors that we've already considered the question and that this is not content appropriate tot he encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target section (or target article at all). The article previously here was deleted at AFD; it was re-created so many times (here and at Spyware Terminator) that the title was salted for most of a year. —Cryptic 04:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not a useful redirect, as it isn't mentioned in the target article; perhaps deletable as spam. Terraxos (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "hood rat" at all at the target, which is a disambiguation page B.Wind (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Slut - seems to be the closest relevant article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe they're talking about pack rats that go under your car and eat the wiring and make a nest, right under the hood (for warmth, etc). Little bastards have gotten me a few times.. Just throwin' it out there. -- Ned Scott 03:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete contextless redirect created by a banned user. Nuttah (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is "Vennsenne Klan" not mentioned in the target, the only mentions of the phrase turned up by a Google search are here in Wikipedia. B.Wind (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there seems to be a few clicks on the page, but google certainly doesn't give much weight to this term. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another odd redirect from banned user User:Hashmi, Usman. ww2censor (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 16:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too general a target to be a useful redirect ("Trimmed in Furs" is nowhere to be found in destination article) B.Wind (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC) With the same justification, I add to the nomination:[reply]

Way Up Thar → Silent film

B.Wind (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible redirects. Both are 1930's American films with sound mix set to mono according to their entries at the IMDB.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lenticel. While I would note that "Implausible redirects/misnomers" are a criterion for speedy deletion, this isn't a recently created redirect, so RFD is a more practical approach. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 06:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Wizardman 16:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most highly unlikely that the entire title of the redirect - including quotation marks - would be used for a search when Billy Zane would be sufficient (most likely the occurrence of the nickname inside the quotation marks would be bluelinked would be if there is involvement of a piped link. B.Wind (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the same justification, I add the following to the nomination:

William "Bill" Clinton → Bill Clinton
Tip "T.I." Harris → T.I.
Antonio "Tony" Montana → Tony Montana
Victor 'Vic' Vance → Victor Vance
Luciano "Lewis" Liberatisciolli → Richard Liberty
Captain Joseph 'Joe' Grusinsky → We Own the Night
Robert "Bobby" Green → We Own the Night
Deputy Chief Albert "Bert" Grusinsky → We Own the Night
Edward "Eddie" Frank Plank → Scott Plank

B.Wind (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. I agree that the redirects wouldn't be helpful in a search, but names are often given in formats like these in Wikipedia articles (mainly lists). I have seen names like this as redlinks in lists, even though there was an article about the subject. Since then, I've started to create redirects like this when appropriate. Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These redirects are clearly there for a reason and the assertion that they are unlikely is not supported by any evidence. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Redirects are cheap; these clearly serve a useful purpose (for linking in lists and such), and they don't do any harm. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' Redirects are cheap, and these ones might be used as links. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawing nominations - please close per comments above. Many thanks for giving me great reasons for defending the redirects. B.Wind (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Wizardman 16:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Target article does not have a list of episodes of the series, thus making the phrase most highly unlikely to be a useful search item. B.Wind (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the same justification, I add the following for additional consideration:

List of Pacific Palisades episodes → Pacific Palisades (TV series)
List of USA High episodes → USA High
List of Undressed episodes → Undressed (TV series)
List of American Family episodes → American Family

B.Wind (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all Sometimes episode lists will start out in the parent article. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per Ned Scott - these are 'redirects with possibilities', in that they could eventually be turned into articles themselves. Terraxos (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this redirect is erroneous: the target article doesn't say anything about the 1894 strike. It's marked as "R from alternative spelling", which makes me think that the redirect creator got it confused with 1891 Australian shearers strike. —Paul A (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the fact that the titles describe different subjects, one of which probably doesn't exist. DA PIE EATER (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No, they both exist. But they're separate events, and the article about the 1891 strike doesn't have anything to say about the 1894 strike. —Paul A (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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