The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most highly unlikely that a person would use an eight-word-long example of bureaucratese for something that is only two words long. "Person of German Origin" at least is a plausible search term. This is not (this is yet another redirect from our favorite redirect and catalog maker B.Wind (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unlikely redirect, "Non-resident German" and "Person of German Origin" are plausible, but the plausibility drops with the combination of the two long phrases. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless it can be demonstrated that this specific construction is actually a term in common use, which seems unlikely. Terraxos (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom ww2censor (talk) 12:13, 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. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No apparent connection whatsoever with the target. "No brains at all" appears nowhere there. B.Wind (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I think there is a possibility that "No Brains At All" might be an album by some band, but if the album itself is not notable to have an article, I don't see why we should keep it, unless the album can be redirected to the band that made it. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It seems to be the debut album of Clint Howard & The Kempsters (no idea regarding the notability of the band). Anyways delete as implausible redirect.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Clint Howard (younger brother of Ron) is a notable actor. The band never released the album, but Clint Howard is now distributing autographed copies a quarter century after recording it. B.Wind (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Aren't there a few politicians this could be retargeted to? Kidding... delete as an implausible typo; no value as a search aid. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:35, 1 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) 18:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

target article talks about police department, but not about FBI, "Rockport FBI" is an unlikely search term (and does not exist), and the name of the organization appears to be a non-remarkable element of the game, so people would most surely search for the name of the videogame in order to find this sort of info Enric Naval (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm noticing a pattern here of redirects being created by user:Hashmi, Usman that don't have an obviously notable connection to the page. I also notice that he/she has been resistant and even openly hostile to requests for explanation on his/her talk page. While I would generally be tolerant of redirects like these, such redirects for non-notable aspects of a topic are usually the result of a merger to the parent page (which is considered a less "bitey" solution than outright deletion). I do not understand the purpose for the preemptive creation of these redirects.
  Note that according to Wikipedia policy, I don't have to agree with someone's assertion that a redirect is useful. We are explicitly enjoined to assume that others are telling the truth when they say that a redirect is helpful to them because they may well navigate differently than I do. But the lack of any communication at all is stretching my ability to assume good faith. I am starting to wonder whether this is a subtle form of vandalism that deserves investigation beyond merely this series of isolated RfD discussions. Rossami (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that we're not supposed to discuss a user here, but I've followed some of this person's edits and (in case investigation is followed up) feel obliged to add that creating looping redirects (and implausible categories) is counter productive IMHO. By repeatedly blanking the user talk page, the user makes checking previous reports very difficult. Some previous discussions are in AIV archive 420 Blanking user talk page, with a list of alleged sockpuppets. --Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct that this is not the correct forum for an investigation into a user's general behavior. It may, however, be appropriate to bundle all the redirects since they seem to have such similar issues. Other thoughts? Rossami (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • After review of this user's contributions, my thought is "go for it". — Gavia immer (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Update: In the time I was considering it, another admin looked into the issue and indef-blocked the user. Rossami (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no disambiguation was needed in the first place as "Rockport FBI" appears only in this redirect article (and now, this discussion). B.Wind (talk) 14:44, 3 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 both, no prejudice to recreate the second to a new target if it seems appropriate in the future. VegaDark (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too long to be a likely search term, all keywords appear already on target article. Notice that it's only a placeholder for the award on Jay Hernandez (only page linling there, linked by creator of the redirect. Allowing one redirect for every type of award given by a certain award type would create a *lot* of redirects, this is not the way to go, notice that Teen Choice Awards has sixty (60) different types of awards. This user is known for creating lots of redirects, so let's cut it here and now, please.

I also nominate ALMA Award for Outstanding Actor in a Motion Picture which redirects to ALMA Award (which does not even have an award list on its stub). Identical situation and circumstances. Enric Naval (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both - excessively specific, and particularly in the case of the first one, unlikely search terms. Terraxos (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete first, neutral on second - "Choice Scream" would be a plausible search term if it were actually used in the Teen Choice Awards article, but it's not. The second nominee is a hairier issue - the award exists, the category exists, but the context in which the incoming Wikilink is being used would be more appropriate for a redirect to 2001 ALMA Awards... if the target article existed (2007 ALMA Awards is here but needs work). B.Wind (talk) 15:12, 3 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 Disambig. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are (were) two stations in the Finnieston area of Glasgow:

• Finnieston (opened 1886; now closed) built by the Glasgow City and District Railway, now part of the North Clyde Line;
• Stobcross (opened 1894; closed 1955; reopened 1979) built by the Glasgow Central Railway now part of the Argyle Line. Upon reopening in 1979 it was named Finnieston, however when the SECC was opened it was renamed Exhibition Centre

The two articles cross refer to each other. This redirect was created by an editor who went on a mass creation of redirects spree, some of which (including this one) are not deemed appropriate or misleading.

A possible alternative, in this case, could be to make the page a disambig page. --Stewart ^(talk) 11:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion is not appropriate as this is clearly a "reasonable alternative designation and search term". Convert to disambiguation if necessary. Rmhermen (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless there is a strong view to keep as is I will convert to a disambiuation page. --Stewart ^(talk) 13:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated I have now created a disambig page, which this redirect now points to. --Stewart ^(talk) 22:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Turn into disambig I think you could have done this without a deletion discussion, seems uncontraversial to me, but no need to delete.--Serviam (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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