The result of the debate was Deleted with the exception of The Host 2. That one redirects to a discussion regarding the sequel. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox 2 is a redirect to XBOX 360; there is no Xbox 3 article or redirect (as the item doesn't exist); clearly Xbox 4 doesn't exist now, nor is it expected to be in the foreseeable future. I'm bundling this nomination with this collection of redirects will similar crystal ball problems:

Fight Night: Round 4 → Fight Night: Round 3 (there are rumblings of a possible Fight Night Round 4 release in 2009, but that seems to be it)
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 3 → Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 (Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 was released in March 2008, no announced plans for a sequel yet)
V (Grand Theft Auto) → Grand Theft Auto (series) (GTA IV was released April 2008; no mention of a possible sequel yet)
The Ring Three → The Ring Two (no indication of existence of "Ring Three". Forums are discussing a possible 2009 release. Unlike the other entries in this list, there is at least a mention of the possibility of this sequel in the target, but the WP:CRYSTAL problem exists nonetheless)
The Host 2 → The Host (film)#Sequel (announced for 2009 release, but still early in the process)
Dr. Dolittle Goin' Hollywood → Dr. Dolittle (discussions in blogs and fansites indicate a 2008 release, but no reliable sources seem to confirm it.)
Jak IV → Jak and Daxter (series) (there no plans for a Jak IV, according to target article - Jak X exists)
AVPIII → Alien vs. Predator: Requiem (target is second film in series; no plans yet for a third)

Also, I offer 3.71 (PSP update) → PlayStation Portable for further consideration as there is no mention of "3.71" in target article. B.Wind (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikepie2221 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTAL.--Lenticel ^(talk) 10:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL. Sunderland06 (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply to redirects...so all per nom then...--Serviam (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Send it to the Wikinoose I meant Delete per the 1st 3 who wanted it deleted. -iaNLOPEZ1115 11:33, 21 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) 14:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is Thomas Alvarez not mentioned in the indicated section, it can be found nowhere in the target article. This nomination is bundled with the following, each of which having the name of the redirect nowhere to be found in the target article:

Morgan Strode → List of characters in the Halloween film series
Strange Frequency 2 → Cinema of Canada
Strange Frequency → Cinema of Canada
The Survivors Club → Canadian Film Industry
Slow Dancing in the Big City → Cinema of the United States
Psycho Cop Returns → Cinema of the United States
Encounter with the Unknown → Cinema of the United States
The Crown of Vysehrad → Cinema of the Czech Republic
Julius Caesar (1979 film) → Julius Caesar (there is no mention of the 1979 film in Julius Caesar (disambiguation), either)

B.Wind (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Everything from Strange Frequency 2 and below. All are films listed in the imdb. They might have articles in the future but as of now they are not plausible redirects. Morgan Strode, the father of Laurie Strode, seems to be a minor supporting character and might be an unlikely search entry.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ww2censor (talk) 14:27, 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) 15:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of Gullu (who could be a non-notable relative) in the target article. With similar arguments (possible non-notable relatives that are not mentioned in the target) I offer the following for further discussion and consideration:

Jamie Lee Schwartz → Jamie Lee Curtis
Buster Keaton, Jr. → Buster Keaton (he was born Joseph Frank Keaton – no “Junior”; no sons named “Buster” mentioned in target)
Tony and Elizabeth Bandiero → Al Bandiero
Charles Pusser → Carl Pusser (Buford Pusser’s father’s name is Carl, not Charles)
Elizabeth Angela Plank → Scott Plank
Martha Stewart-Ryan → Timothy Ryan
Richard James Ryan → Timothy Ryan
Kёn and Anniё Plank → Scott Plank
Antonio Emilió Sanchez → Lola Sanchez
Kay Lopez (stage actress) → Lola Sanchez
John Sanchez (stage actor) → Lola Sanchez
Marlene Dawson → Richard Liberty
Elizabeth Anne Keaton → Joe Keaton
Joseph Francis Keaton IV → Joe Keaton
Joseph Francis Keaton V → Joe Keaton

B.Wind (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete More useless redirects from banned user User:Hashmi, Usman ww2censor (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - where the person in question isn't mentioned in the target article, the redirect is probably unhelpful. Terraxos (talk) 00:35, 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) 15:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Target article has no mention of this episode title, and no apparent "List of episodes of All That" (or similar title) exists for appropriate targeting.

For the same reason, I adding Ben Don't Leave → Felicity (TV series) for further consideration. B.Wind (talk) 07:55, 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 Kept. This has been its target for years. Hatnote at destination solves dab concern. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should point at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight as that is the more critical page for individuals seeking assistance. Or it should be a disambiguation page, as many individuals use it as a shortcut they mean to point at WP:NOR. MBisanz ^talk 05:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete in favour of MBisanz's proposal. While it should point to WP:RFO, (or just become a disambig page), one could also just as easily add a WP:O redirects here. You may be looking for... template at the top of the article. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 06:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Office as a more appropriate short cut. B.Wind (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to WP:OR or Weak Disambiguate to WP:RFO, WP:OFFICE, WP:ORPHAN, and WP:OR as it seems that all of them are likely redirects. I've been randomly punching in single letter shortcuts for sometime and all of them are dedicated to a single page. If this precedent is followed then I'll go with MBisanz and Mizu's proposals but I think a dab should still be considered.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've added disambig hatnotes to the top of the WikiProject Orphanage page, which should satisfy Mizu onna sango15 and Lenticel as far as disambiguation is concerned. MBisanz, I did a spot check of Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:O, and found no links to WP:O that were meant to point somewhere else. Could you please provide some diffs to demonstrate that people are actually linking to this incorrectly? Otherwise this sounds like a case of WP:AINT.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or some kind of weird disambig shortcut page. Hard to say what sticks out most when I think of just the letter O.. -- Ned Scott 03:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Diambiguate per Lenticel. WP:O could stand for nay of the pages WP:OR, WP:ORPHAN, WP:OFFICE - it is therefore probably a good idea to disambig--Cailil ^talk 14:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the current status, where WP:O goes to WikiProject Orphanage, where there are prominent hatnotes to disambig to OFFICE,NOR, and Oversight, makes it very clear who belongs to what shortcut. Also, WP:O has been associated with orphaned articles at least since early 2005, probably since fall 2004 at the latest. So that's a 3-4 year history, there, and people still haven't figured out that WP:O = Orphaned Articles? I think you will find the vast majority of links and references to "WP:O" are done with the full knowlege that WP:O is WikiProject Orphanage. Should it become clear that this is not the case, then I would agree that there should be some sort of disambig page. However, it is not clear now.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 20:02, 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 No consensus (kept). -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created out of frustration by someone unaware that Wikipedia already had a policy on assuming good faith. When I pointed him to the actual policy, he converted his comment into this redirect. The problem is that this redirect is in the article mainspace. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Assume good will should solve the problem. Well, the namespace problem at least.FX (talk) 10:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that would work. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 13:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep. I say delete the problem child. FX (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Creating the page prevented frustration. And I learned about the article Wikipedia:Assume good faith, a win-win situation in my book. FX (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an an unuseful cross-namespace redirect. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 06:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I keep running into things like article mainspace, which has no entry. If you create a new language, that nobody understands, you might want to add entries for the made up terms. That way, there is a small chance you might be able to communicate effectively. FX (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you may mean "article namespace". You will find it described in Wikipedia:Namespace. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not useful. Any newbie with editor potential will soon learn to look in the other namespaces for self-referential stuff. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The fact that it was created in good faith and that we are having this conversation is clear evidence that new users do not and never will understand these archane separations about the namespaces. Unless a redirect is actively in the way of an encyclopedia article, we should not be biting newcomers by insisting that they learn to navigate the same way that you and I do. The theoretical downsides of cross-namespace redirects just don't justify the pain and confusion we're creating for our own users. Rossami (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and re-examine in two months - It's a new article (from June 12) and we can't tell just yet how needed/redundant it is. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DA PIE EATER (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I change my mind. Moving assume good will to wikipedia namespace is a better is a than deleting it. A new editor would recieve the "new editor message" and would notice that the title at the top would be Wikipedia:, so any sensible editor would realize that all Wikipedia policies, notices, etc. would be in Wikipedia namespace. Another suggestion would be a soft redirect, but I'd strongly oppose that as soft redirects are mostly used for cross-wiki use. DA PIE EATER (talk) 20:25, 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 nothing to do. There is no redirect here. Bduke (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something obvious, there's a redirect page named "The Prince's Trust" which directs to an article with the same name. I didn't think this was possible, but I can't see any obvious difference in the two page titles .... Romney yw (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, there are several redirects. You must be thinking about The Prince's trust (with a small t), which is a perfectly valid, even desirable, redirect. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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