The result of the debate was no consensus. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Created and immediately redired, this is not a likely search term - it refers to the very lengthy official title of what is more commonly known as (even according to the article) the Supreme Council, Southern Jurisdiction, AASR. MSJapan (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep although not as strong as the next redirect below as it is conceivable that someone would forget to include "Supreme" as part of the name. Thus it is a useful redirect. B.Wind (talk) 04:10, 4 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. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Created and immediately redired, this is not a likely search term - it refers to the very lengthy official title of what is more commonly known as (even according to the article) the Supreme Council, Southern Jurisdiction, AASR. MSJapan (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - foreseeable search item (missing only "Mother" and not far from widely-used "Supreme Council"). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree with part of your reasoning. It's the "of the World" portion that makes it particularly unlikely as a search term, because while it may be, no one really refers to it as such. MSJapan (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep very likely search term that is missing only one word from target title. Regarding the comment above: it is easy to forget just one word from a long title... and it would be just as valid a redirect as Supreme Council - which is actually a dab page - or Mother Supreme Council (all three are portions of the actual title of the target article). Please keep in mind WP:RFD#KEEP #2, #3, and #5. B.Wind (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, shouldn't the article should be renamed as "Supreme Council, 33°, AASR, Southern Jurisdiction, USA" which is the most common name for the entity (with the "official" full title listed as an alternate)?... and all of these variants should redirect to that name. Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not here This is for discussion of redirects, not moves. --Thinboy00's sockpuppet alternate account 01:55, 6 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. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic sobriquet bestowed by a blogger is not a probable search term, not a reasonable basis for a redirect. Russ (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm torn. Google returns 43 non-duplicative hits for this phrase. While they do all seem to refer to Hillary Clinton, that usage is awfully trivial. (Unlike the creator of this redirect who asserted that there are "multiple reliable sources" documenting this usage, all I found were blogs.) There are zero inbound links and unlikely to be any more since all the blog entries are pretty dated. BLP doesn't apply because she is clearly a fully-public figure. And while probably intended to be derogatory, the redirect is not patently inflammatory. On the one hand, it's a pretty useless redirect. On the other hand, redirects are cheap. Still thinking... Rossami (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - phrase is nowhere to be found in the target article. The redirect would be appropriate if there some sourced, non-trivial mention of the phrase placed there. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we don't have redirects for every nickname that's been bestowed on a celebrity at some point or another, only the most notable (and frequently searched) ones. Dubya, yes; Lioness of Tuzla, no. Terraxos (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's see here... only 43 non-duplicative hits and virtually all of them blogs (not exactly reliable sources? It's not even worth incorporating into the target article. Delete. B.Wind (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of reliable sources to back up the nickname.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete attack. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:51, 10 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. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant redirect, causing inconsistencies with search engines such as Google - which usually refers to this redirect rather than the article directly. Usually redirects to outdated version of an article - takes over a day to be fully consistent. Dark Prime (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because it documents the pagemove. The page had existed at the other title for a long time. Given the edit history, there are probably a large number of inbound links to that title (which is probably why google still finds it preferentially). But even if you accept that Google is malfunctioning, that's their problem, not ours. The redirect is working correctly and takes the user to the proper page regardless of which target is attempted. Rossami (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can assure you, the problem is not Google's. Each time I enter the redirect in the URL an outdated version of the page comes up. Dark Prime (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're going to have to show us what you're talking about here. I can't replicate any error that takes a reader to any old version of the page. What exact URL are you entering? Rossami (talk)
      • For instance, if I use the abbreviation for RFD instead of 'Redirects for Discussion', it redirects, but none of today's discussions appear. Dark Prime (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That sounds like you have a problem with your own browser cache failing to purge properly. You can change the browser settings or you can manually purge the cache for an individual page by typing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PAGENAME&action=purge into the browser. Some pages like WP:AFD have a link at the top to make refreshing easier but that's usually only needed for the very highest volume pages. If you're seeing it for routine pages, I'd check your local browser settings first.
          Or it could be something else entirely. It's very hard to diagnose a problem like this remotely. But it does not appear to be a problem with the redirect. If it were, the rest of us would be seeing it, too. Rossami (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there are many incoming links to the former name of the target article, thus making it a useful redirect. Whatever Google or Yahoo or Ask does with their search engines is their business, not Wikipedia's. B.Wind (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because of incoming links and to keep article history. The redirect problem has to be on your end somewhere Dark Prime. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 16:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It is the former location of the article. Its existing incoming links are not harmful and could be useful in the event of ambiguity in the future. Khatru2 (talk) 05:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per even if Google were to show the redirect, Wikipedia's servers would still redirect them to the appropriate article, as if someone was accessing the page from inside Wikipedia. --DA PIE EATER (talk) 22:45, 4 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. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly sure why this very vague term is redirected to an article about a specific type of software, but it seems a little counterintuitive to say the least. Since there's no speedy deletion criteria covering this, I'm bringing it here for comments on what to do. jonny-mt 12:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - more than one software package can be used to maintain construction schedules. Primera P3 is only one of them (and it doesn't appear in List of project management software). Schedule (Construction) could perhaps be a redirect to Project management, but that, too, is counterintuitive as it overlooks the obvious link to Schedule (disambiguation) or Scheduling. Note that Schedule (construction), with lower case "c", is a redlink. B.Wind (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, and because nobody is going to use an uppercase inside the parenthesis. Also, is there really any encyclopedic usage for "schedule" in the context of construction? I can't think of any, and I see that Schedule (disambiguation) has no entry for such a thing. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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