The result of the debate was retargeted to an appropriate article. Non-admin close. KTC (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Target section has been deleted Fayenatic (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete R1 - "adults" appears only once in the article, "deaf adults" zero times. An argument can be made here that since the specific target (section) no longer exists, and no other part of the Hearing impairment article addresses "deaf adults" (let alone "children of deaf adults"), it would qualify for speedy deletion. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Child Of Deaf Adult, the actual article on this subject. This seems such an obvious solution, I've just retargeted it myself. Terraxos (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget Per Terraxos. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 28 May 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 without prejudice of recreation if someone actually bothers to write about this episode at the target page, or better yet at a list of episodes page for the series. VegaDark (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same as below redirect, appears to exist only to provide one more wikilink on Fatso-Fasano. Target article is a stub that does not have a list of episodes, so I can't check if it's name of an episode or something else. Enric Naval (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - article name/episode title not mentioned at all in target. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep according to IMDB, this was the pilot/first episode of the series. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if it's kept, much additional information must be added to the target to give the redirect some meaning. Right now, there is zero context. Until then, the fact that it's the name of an episode that is nowhere mentioned is insufficient for keeping this as a redirect. B.Wind (talk) 21:56, 30 May 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, but make target more specific. VegaDark (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

name of episode, redirects to a list of episodes, not even to the correct section, target does not explain if/why this particular episode is more notable than the others. Apparently the only reason is to provide one more wikilink on Fatso-Fasano, see the creator of the redirect creating the page Enric Naval (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it is the title of an episode listed in the target article. "Reason" cited in nomination are not valid ones for deletion in this case: not every editor is adept at pointing Wikilinks to an appropriate section. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no section to point the redirect to. The episode is just one more entry on the list, with no notability of its own. I stroked that part from the nom- --Enric Naval (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is actually pretty normal, and something we've even encouraged via WP:EPISODE. -- Ned Scott 06:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hum, I dunno, this was never a stub or a non-notable article that got redirected, which is the case talked about on WP:EPISODE. Someone just created a redirect with the episode name in order to make the list at Fatso-Fasano look more like a IMBD listing (with all episode names being links to the specific episode) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Ned Scott, but make the redirect target more specific: List of Everybody Hates Chris episodes#Season 1: 2005-2006. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Done --Enric Naval (talk) 15:37, 28 May 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. I agree this isn't a GFDL violation, but that wasn't the only argument for keeping. VegaDark (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect has existed for over a year now. Based on the history, the target article does not and never has mentioned this particular cocktail, making it a meaningless redirect. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep because the redirect is part of the documentation of a multistep pagemove which ended with an actual article at Fourth Estate Cocktail. That article was ultimately transwiki'd to Wikibooks. The page was pointed to a more general page on cocktails. The redirect preserves the attribution history of the content that was moved (a requirement of GFDL. I qualify my opinion as "weak" for this redirect because the pagemove was executed by the creator (and at that time only contributor) of the page and was executed soon after the page. But still a "keep" because redirects are cheap - cheaper than the costs of correcting the issue. Rossami (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah... it appears the content that was transwikied was at Fourth Estate Cocktail originally, per the history. So keeping that redirect would be the only necessary solution per the GFDL. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There is no GFDL issue as the transwiki process maintains the attribution history. The entire history, including the page moves, is at wikibooks:Fourth Estate Cocktail. Even if the redirects are deleted, the history is kept & GFDL compliance maintained. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:16, 28 May 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. I agree this isn't a GFDL violation, but that wasn't the only argument for keeping. VegaDark (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect has existed for over a year now. Based on the history, the target article does not and never has mentioned this particular cocktail, making it a meaningless redirect. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This was step 2 in the multistep pagemove discussed immediately above. Weak keep for the same reasons. Rossami (talk) 05:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah... it appears the content that was transwikied was at Fourth Estate Cocktail originally, per the history. So keeping that redirect would be the only necessary solution per the GFDL. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not strictly "necessary" - just the most convenient solution in my opinion. Redirects, after all, are cheap. Rossami (talk)
• Keep. Possible violation of GFDL vastly outweighs the cost of maintaining a redirect. -Pete (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There is no GFDL issue as the transwiki process maintains the attribution history. The entire history, including the page moves, is at wikibooks:Fourth Estate Cocktail. Even if the redirects are deleted, the history is kept & GFDL compliance maintained. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:11, 29 May 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) 16:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newly created redirect of a magazine to its founder, who appears to be no longer involved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If the magazine meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria, just be bold and overwrite the redirect with content. I can't find any evidence that's the case (though admittedly I didn't try very hard) so keeping this as a redirect to the founder who does appear to have a biography meeting our inclusion criteria seems reasonable for now. Rossami (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the time being. If there is no text for the article on the periodical, then the redirect to the article for the person whose claim to fame is founding and editing said periodical is the appropriate move to demonstrate the connection and preserve the placement for a future article on Conservative Digest. B.Wind (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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