The result of the debate was Keep List of cities in Italy over 20,000 population (2001 census), List of the 100 largest cities in Italy by population, and List of the 20 largest metropolitan areas of Italy to preserve their history; and Delete Largest 100 Cities in Italy by Population, List of cities in Italy with more than 50,000 residents, and A list of all cities in Italy over 20,000 population (2001 census) as unlikely redirects with no significant history. Ruslik (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirects to an article created merging several different pages. The title of the redirect is no longer entirely relevant to the argument treated in the article. Linked by very few pages, unlikely to be used as a search term. I also nominate for the same reasons the redirects below:

• Largest 100 Cities in Italy by Population
• List of cities in Italy over 20,000 population (2001 census)
• List of cities in Italy with more than 50,000 residents
• List of the 100 largest cities in Italy by population
• List of the 20 largest metropolitan areas of Italy

Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong keep some This would amount to merging and deletion, which violates our GFDL copyright requirements. I agree with the nom's statements, but we need to preserve these for legal issues. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This statement only applies to three of the six: the other three are only redirects. Keep List of cities in Italy over 20,000 population (2001 census), List of the 100 largest cities in Italy by population, and List of the 20 largest metropolitan areas of Italy for the reasons given above; and Delete Largest 100 Cities in Italy by Population, List of cities in Italy with more than 50,000 residents, and A list of all cities in Italy over 20,000 population (2001 census) as unlikely redirects with no significant history. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. It seems logical that this generic redirect should point to the parent project. Ruslik (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a request for discussion, not deletion. Historically, the redirect pointed at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways. Recently, a discussion was started at the parent project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains, asking why the shortcut did not point there. This led to one user changing the shortcut, without notice to UK Railways. This has led to a bit of ill feeling in some parts of that project, who feel that the shortcut has been "stolen" without warning. I can see arguments for both sides, and my position is neutral - I'm just raising this to create an arena where formal discussion can take place.  —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 19:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restore to WP:UKT as per WP:WP, Shortcut was moved without discussion or consensus being obtained, therefore it should be restored until such discussion and consensus are obtained. Mjroots (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong forum, and redirect to trains. It's silly to point it to a subproject. --NE2 20:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment User:NE2 moved the redirect from UKT to TWP. Mjroots (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment User:Mjroots indented my comment to make it look like I was replying to him. Can we stop with the "who did what" and start with the "what's best"? The D in WP:BRD stands for "discuss", not "filibuster". I personally think this is too silly to argue about. --NE2 20:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This is the type of infighting that drove me out of the US Roads WikiProject. Since no one "owns" an article, let alone a redirect... WP:RAIL and WP:TRAIN should go to either the parent (or more generic) WikiProject page; WP:UKRAIL and WP:UKTRAIN should go to the UK Rail WikiProject (as the target page already shows the former as a short cut). If the two sides don't come to any agreement, I'd further suggest deleting and salting any contested short cuts until there is an agreement between the two WikiProjects. We don't need another entry in WP:LAME. B.Wind (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep where it is now. It's clear to me that the generic shortcut should point to the Trains WP. On the other hand, I agree that it was extremely poor form to move an established shortcut redirect without engaging in discussion with the project that had been the target of the shortcut for over two years. --Tkynerd (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment how about a hatnote or a dab page instead?--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The shortcut has to go somewhere (otherwise it isn't a shortcut!), so a dab page isn't appropriate, but I think a hatnote at the top of WP:TWP might be appropriate...assuming the shortcut is left as it is now. If it's decided to restore it to the UK Rail WP, a hatnote there would also be appropriate unless there is already an obvious link to the generic project on that page. --Tkynerd (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should also like to note that WP:Rail ---> Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways should be included in this discussion. Simply south (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment from an outsider: It seems logical that "UK:RAIL" should belong to the parent and the UK project should be "WP:UKRAIL", etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC) (an Englishman)Reply[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep, there is no consensus to delete. The arguments of the comments section seems to be inclined Weak Keep. Lenticel ^(talk) 07:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is said to be a nickname of David Sirlin whose main article goes on to say that he is "known primarily by his surname"; so it is not a likely search term. The author of the redirect, SALAD OK (talk · contribs), was also the first author of the article but it is not clear his intentions were friendly as he has been indef-blocked for vandalism on it, e.g. this. JohnCD (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - Redirects are cheap, but I'm not sure they're this cheap...this is pretty obscure. He does, however, had this nickname (though I'm not sure how commonly it's used). It comes from a Street Fighter II match he supposedly won by only using crouching mid-strength ("strong") punches. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment here's the article that talks about Sirlin's "low strong". Personally I think he's transcended the name, but I also think the redirect is cheap enough for it to not matter. Nifboy (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep for now, as the nickname seems to be sourced. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Dab page existed in the past, but was redirected. So I will delete it now as a meaningless redirect. If somebody wants to recreate it as a dab page again, I will not object. Ruslik (talk) 08:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The disambiguation page simply redirects to Hillsong Church. From the page history it shows that this disambiguation only listed Hillsong Church and so a user just made it a redirect. It probably isn't needed if its only going to redirect the the Hillsong Church page. Killiondude (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Dabify - entering "Hillsong" and hitting "Search" instead of "Go" reveals several articles referring to "Hillsong ######". B.Wind (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - At one point there was a discussion as to how to deal with a related London church and its musical recordings. This was long since resolved, but the dab page may have arisen at that time. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Ruslik (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improper CNR to a project page, does not link to content. MBisanz ^talk 04:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Ruslik (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improper CNR, EIW is not a pseudospace, does not link to content. MBisanz ^talk 04:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. JohnCD (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Ruslik (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improper redirect to a wikipedia department, does not link to content. MBisanz ^talk 04:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 07:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improper capitalization of a pseudospace redirect. MBisanz ^talk 04:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - had that been a colon instead of a period after the "Wp", I would have remained neutral on this, but clearly this is a bit too afield from an acceptable, plausible typographical error. Formerly 147.70.242.40, now 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - WP:NEO is already there and does the job this is trying to do. JohnCD (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete -- WP:NEO follows the standard syntax. This does not. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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