The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purely fictitious name only used by limited users (User:RushdimIDlike and User:JustbeBPMF) for creation of pages with untrue contents.--Sushiya (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as HOAX - all Google hits of "Japan Railway Administration" are Wikipedia articles. Outside Wikipedia, this phrase earns the Golden Donut Award. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Hoax. B.Wind (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as Hoax per above. NJGW (talk) 21:43, 13 November 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. Not limited to this topic & not other articles for proper disambiguation. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search term unrelated to target article. NJGW (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this could just as easily refer to hydrogen fuel cells. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per above or Create (i.e. convert into article). --Thinboy00 @055, i.e. 00:19, 9 November 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. Current target is not appropriate and there isn't a better one. Red link is preferable unless we ever have an article on the cost of electricity. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense. Why would "cost per watt" lead to this article? NJGW (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is factually wrong 70.55.86.100 (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In what sense? The redirect is not making a factual statement. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure they meant logically unrelated. The number of watts generated by a photovoltaic cell is not a constant, so comparing the number of watts a cell produces to the initial cost of the cell makes no sense and is not a plausible search term. NJGW (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Energy price. --Thinboy00 @057, i.e. 00:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment have a look at energy price and you might change your mind. NJGW (talk) 04:50, 9 November 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. Current target is not appropriate and there isn't a better one (Electricity market is only one aspect of electricity costs). Red link is preferable unless we ever have an article on the cost of electricity. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense. Why would "cost per watt" lead to this article? NJGW (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is factually wrong 70.55.86.100 (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  In what sense? The redirect isn't making a factual statement. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure they meant logically unrelated. The number of watts generated by a photovoltaic cell is not a constant, so comparing the number of watts a cell produces to the initial cost of the cell makes no sense and is not a plausible search term. NJGW (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Energy price. --Thinboy00 @057, i.e. 00:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment have a look at energy price and you might change your mind. NJGW (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Electricity market, the only encyclopedia article that mentions it. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 22:10, 14 November 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.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 08:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term directed to unrelated page. NJGW (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. Target article does not provide sufficient context for complete understanding as to the relevance of the redirect here. There is no silicon shortage as silicon is the second most abundant element in the earth's crust; the article mentions a "polysilicon shortage" (cited) but gives no information as to what it is, what causes it, etc. No recommendation yet, but I'm tending to lean toward deletion of the redirect... and question whether the target article is indeed a useful one. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redirect makes no sense here. Silicon shortage? Doubtful as long as quartz or sand is available. B.Wind (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Common enough phrase (10,000+ ghits) and unlikely to mean anything else than shortage of solar grade photovoltaic material. --Rumping (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the change you made to the redirect. I followed the link and found an extremely poorly written section, which I promptly rewrote to correctly reflect the source. Bottom line is there is no silicon shortage, just a former shortage in silicon purification plants. This seems to no longer be the case, and there are new bottlenecks emerging in the solar industry. NJGW (talk) 21:41, 13 November 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 speedy delete.-Wafulz (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect makes no sense. There's no reason that Bad Thing should be associated with the Main Page. There's no way to accurately define Bad Thing and so make it redirect to an appropriate page; there IS no appropriate page. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mabye I should add a ((humor)) tag. It was meant to be a joke about the various essays that talked about "Good Thing" or "Bad Thing" you have no idea how pervasive it is.--Ipatrol (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might have a clue about how pervasive the phrase "Bad Thing" is... o_O ... My sense of humor is well-developed but it doesn't extend to clicking on a link to Bad Thing and being taken to the Main Page. Instead of making me laugh, chuckle or smile, it would make me think that Wikipedia wasn't working right. So, where would the reader see your humor tag? They would click on the link, be whisked over to the Main Page and not see any tagging. I still think the best thing for this redirect is deletion. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - not appropriate humor, especially for mainspace. Seems like a POINT violation. NJGW (talk) 18:37, 7 November 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 per consensus (not IAR, speedy, or other invalid criterion).--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 08:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely search term CNR, does not link to content. MBisanz ^talk 15:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Silly question: could you just be BOLD and delete this? Who can reasonably argue that anyone would enter that precise string into the search box, ever?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete per above. NJGW (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This was probably a new-user test but it's a very, very old test. It was replaced a week later with a pointer to the proper page and served it's purpose in helping the user find the correct content. The page links correctly to the page that any logical reader of the title would expect to find. It is not in the way of any encyclopedic content and is doing little harm.
  To answer the questions above, NO this can not be speedily or boldly deleted. The speedy-deletion criteria are very narrowly written. This does not qualify. In part, the criteria are written narrowly in order to compensate for mistakes like the comment above which incorrectly assumes that redirects only exist to support the search engine. In fact, redirects serve several other useful functions as well at Wikipedia. (I'm not sure at this point that any of them apply to this specific redirect but that now becomes a question of whether this will be regularly-deleted. It can not be speedily-deleted.) Rossami (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the explanation. It seemed to me a heavy burden imposed on volunteer labor like MBisanz, but if he and you are both happy and historically this is how WP has worked, I will defer to you both.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Snowball/IAR delete Unlikely search term for even new wikipedians. This is why the sidebar has that "Help" link. Does this really need to sit around for a few more days gathering dust before we delete it? --Thinboy00 @036, i.e. 23:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you read Rossami's comment? This is part of WP history and deserves proper consideration. --Rumping (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SNOW cannot apply here as it's not without nontrivial opposition (Rossami's points are hardly trivial); second, WP:IAR deletions have a nasty habit of being overturned at WP:DRV. Let's get it right the first time so this won't have to go through this again later. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 15:47, 14 November 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.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 08:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper CNR to a guideline. Does not link to content. MBisanz ^talk 15:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hum... but there are almost 200 pages linking there. I certainly created it in view of a red link (or many red links) in some appropriate context. Note that it was a redirect to WP:Vanity_page, which corresponds to the "in a nutshell" summary of the destination page Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I agree that in the narrow sense, it's a term quite specific to Wikipedia, but it might apply to similar web pages on other sites. So do I understand correctly that you are offended by the fact that the page does not contain an article about the phenomenon, but simply redirects to the guideline explaining why they should be avoided (and, nevertheless, defining them: to some extend, this IS content). Why not do this: copy & paste relevant parts from WP:Vanity_page, rearrange, and XREF to the WP: guideline page... — MFH:Talk 20:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  PS: consider the content of the oldest archived version of WP:Vanity page, http://web.archive.org/web/20041108014714/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vanity_page
• Keep. It was a commonly used shortcut in deletion and other discussions about the appropriateness of content in the encyclopedia. The accidental ommision of the 'Wikipedia:' prefix is demonstrably plausible. (The inbound links are proof enough.) The title has been superseded by the more politically-correct COI title but there is no reason to break all those historical links. There is no reasonable possibility that a reader would expect to find encyclopedic content at this title. Rossami (talk) 23:48, 7 November 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 and salt. The mention in the target article didn't seem to be justified. I'm create-protecting the redirect until such time to protect against the feared 'for a laugh' creation.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 08:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, not mentioned in target article. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, that was an oversight. It's now mentioned in the target article (in the section - it's a section redirect), complete with references. Rosuav (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unlikely search term. Content in the main article is self-referential trivia and is not mentioned in any third party reliable sources independent of the subject. Gazimoff 20:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - People who have just read the relevant edition of BOFH are likely to search for this, to see if it has been made. Redirecting here seems like a fairly bandwidth-cheap method of reducing the chance that someone will try to make this page 'for a laugh'. It's also neat and balanced. PT (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it ! We want reggie moores law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.180.79 (talk) 08:07, 9 November 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 speedily deleted by User:Tohd8BohaithuGh1.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper pseudo-redirect to a category. Does not link to content, no history issues. MBisanz ^talk 15:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unneeded and possibly confusing. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Even though it's shown to be a short cut to the target, this malformed, misnamed redirect could apply to any category. Delete. B.Wind (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to go change this to CAT:CONT. Then delete remaining redirect as WP:CSD#R3. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 22:11, 14 November 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. Potentially useful, but not used.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper CNR to a system category, no history to preserve. MBisanz ^talk 15:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - potentially useful cross-namespace redirect, unlikely to be used as an article title. Terraxos (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Anybody looking for uncategorized pages surely understands namespaces. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:43, 10 November 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) 23:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, POINTy redirect Closedmouth (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as incorrect and potentially harmful. I don't quite think this qualifies for speedy deletion as an attack page (criterion G10), but I wouldn't shed a tear if it were so deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with above.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not all atheists are communists, and vice versa. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above and highly POV. NJGW (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, maybe salt Many terrorists are religious, particularly kamikaze cases (e.g. the September 11th attacks). "Atheist terrorism" is, to my ears, almost as ridiculous as "solipsist meeting." On the other hand, I'm not an expert on this and the issues I can see in the redirect's history could plausibly be anti-vandalism efforts (ClueBot, obviously, but maybe also the others). --Thinboy00 @041, i.e. 23:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unless someone can produce cited instances of a concerted effort by atheists (as opposed to atheistic governments) in acts of terrorism, this is most definitely a redirect that causes harm to Wikipedia. I would even say that this is inflammatory and plays to the religious biases of some editors. If it's recreated after deletion, salting would be most necessary. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 15:56, 14 November 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 Re-targeted to Ussher chronology as James Ussher articles states the Usher is a valid alternative so this is a likely search term. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. "Chronology" isn't that close to "discography". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. DiverseMentality 05:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original article was a discography by an amateur editor, and I took a shortcut by redirecting it. Deletion is more appropriate.—Kww(talk) 05:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Redirect per EALacey ... coincidental, but very appropriate.—Kww(talk) 17:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for chronology, the main Usher page would be more appropriate, but not a likely search term in either case. NJGW (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC) redirect to Ussher chronology per below. NJGW (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ussher chronology. Remarkably, although this redirect was created through an unlikely error, the title is a likely error for an unrelated topic. EALacey (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as redirect to Ussher chronology per EALacey. Terraxos (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify - clearly there appear to be two (or three) worthwhile meanings here: 1) As a misspelling of Ussher chronology; 2) as a "synonym" for the history/biography of the American music act Usher (entertainer) or the Australian journalist Michael Usher. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • question are there any other instances on Wikipedia in which a person's personal chronology is listed in a separate article? If not then it's an extremely unlikely search term. NJGW (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are quite a few dealing with the chronology or discography of a musical act. I should also point out that WP:WAX is not a valid argument for deleting or otherwise removing a (potential) article... or in this case, a link in a disambiguation page. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • All I found were three articles which should have been named "List of Foo band members". I have moved them to conform with the many other similar articles. I believe that's all there were, but if you know of more (you claim "quite a few"), please list them. Since no articles with the word chronology in the title came up which were actually discographies (and no such redirects either I might add), I fail to see how this could be a likely search term for anything but the current target. NJGW (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep either as redirect to Ussher chronology (a credible mistype given James Ussher had his name written both ways), or as dab. --Rumping (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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