The result of the debate was Keep. Lenticel ^(talk) 04:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. David Pro (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. It's a possible misspelling and is harmless. Redirects are cheap. Midorihana みどりはな 03:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Possible misspelling. —Lowellian (reply) 19:22, 14 October 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 (non-admin closure). Since this is an alternate name of Tyson, the redirect should be kept. Ruslik (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. David Pro (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as name Tyson adopted in the 1990s after he converted to Islam [1][2][3][4]. There should be a mention of this name in the Tyson article as it appears that he still uses it from time to time. B.Wind (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was the one who created the redirect. I forget why I was searching for Malik Abdul Aziz, but I was, and the information I wanted wasn't on Wikipedia, so I found it elsewhere, then created the necessary redirect. Even if very few people are likely to search for it, it doesn't mean that there's any reason not to keep the redirect for those few that do. KeithD (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If, as others say above, Mike Tyson actually used the name, then this is absolutely a keep. We always redirect from alternate real names. —Lowellian (reply) 19:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Tyson's Islam name is in the lede of the target article. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:22, 15 October 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. Tikiwont (talk) 08:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the usefulness of this redirect. Not an obvious delete, but it should be discussed nevertheless. David Pro (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 5 (As of October 2008 → October 2008). I cannot add or amplify the points made in the previous discussion. B.Wind (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think that almost all the "As of" redirs should be nominated as well. David Pro (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and replace with ((As of)) where appropriate. Terraxos (talk) 22:45, 18 October 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 Symbols of Queensland. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward cross-namespace redirect to an image. If the image is notable on its own, it should have a stub article. MBisanz ^talk 14:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Government of Queensland and add at least some content about the logo to that article. I'm actually a little surprised that a redirect from articlespace to imagespace isn't speediable. WODUP 18:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per WODUP if a citation if the term's origin and use can be provided. There is no mention of the term "Beattie Burger" - cited or otherwise - in any article containing the image. If no such citation can be provided, delete the redirect as potentially confusing (and a possible hoax). 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Symbols of Queensland, where I've just added a note on this phrase (taken from the image page). I have no idea how notable it is, or if it's worth including at all - but if it is, that's where it should be. Terraxos (talk) 22:38, 18 October 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 Retarget to Swing bridge#India. Lenticel ^(talk) 04:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward cross-namespace redirect to an image. If the image is notable on its own, it should have a stub article. MBisanz ^talk 14:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Swing bridge#India, which lists this as an example. In addition, the current target should be added to the swing span page as another example of such a structure (currently the image is orphaned). B.Wind (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Swing bridge per B.Wind, although a standalone article (with the image) would be a much better option. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I have just noticed that the title is malformed (there should be no space in front of the hyphen). I'd still recommend the aforementioned retargeting (as a plausible typo) and the creation of a Poira-Corjuem Bridge redirect that could later be overwritten into a standalone article. Fixing typo on image caption... 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  New redirect boldly created. B.Wind (talk) 02:47, 22 October 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 Retarget to Marietta, Ohio. Tikiwont (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward cross-namespace redirect to an image. If the image is notable on its own, it should have a stub article. MBisanz ^talk 14:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Marietta, Ohio - cross-namespace redirect to an image page that an editor tried to write a stub article under the summary header. Whether or not the misplaced stub article should stand on its own should be discussed in a different venue. B.Wind (talk) 00:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Marietta, Ohio per B.Wind above - the logical destination here. Terraxos (talk) 22:33, 18 October 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. BJ^Talk 01:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward cross-namespace redirect to an image. If the image is notable on its own, it should have a stub article. MBisanz ^talk 14:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no requirement for every notable stamp to have an article or even stub about it. Redirect will do provided a description is clear, the original stamp image and description on English Wikipedia was deleted in favor of mediawiki image, that explains crossnamespace. Of course a stub can be created if necessary, but where is a policy that requires to have a stub for an stamp to have a redirect? In fact it is discouraged and if anything underdeletion policy. I will create the stub anyway. Wikidās ॐ 14:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the stamp goes, it isn't used anywhere except by inclusion in the redirect (!) and does not have proper copyright information (you are claiming that you have copyright over the original stamp design, which isn't likely to be correct), so the image itself ought to be deleted. That's not for RfD to do, of course. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete these and any similar redirects from article space to images. As noted, if the images are important enough to search mainspace for, they should have a stub article. Further, making non-free images available by random mainspace searches, without the context of a relevant article, might conceivably violate fair use provisions. Further still, redirects to images from outside image space don't really act as a proper alias for the target image (they link images, but cannot be used to display them), which could lead to buggy syntax. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or appropriately retarget all redirects in question. It is inappropriate to redirect into Image-space from mainspace. It would also confuse people looking for an article. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as target image is orphaned and may itself be deleted. Not only is it a CNR, the orphaning of the image indicates there is no appropriate target for the redirect to begin with. Note to those who deal with deletion of images: how close to speedy territory is the image? B.Wind (talk) 00:28, 14 October 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. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed as the only link here has been changed to head directly to the new page. This page created following a renaming and is not a typo likely to be repeated. Too old a redirect to qualify for speedy delete.  Barliner  talk  14:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - too generic a disambiguation to be usable. Furthermore, The Pavilion is actually the governor's residence in Montpelier. B.Wind (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - target article renamed to be in line with other "Pavilion" article names. Redirect has been retargeted accordingly. B.Wind (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Pavilion. Old enough for inbound links and should not be deleted. JASpencer (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too generic for appropriate disambiguation in this case; JASpencer's suggestion would be a good one if the proposed target/dab page had a strong indication as to which of the Pavilions were office buildings and which were not. Even "The Pavilion (government building)" (the original target, itself now a redirect) is a shaky title at best. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:39, 16 October 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. Tikiwont (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely improbable redirect. I would speedy it as an obvious typo but it's been in place for nine months. Otto4711 (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this seems to be a product of a finger slipping while holding down a shift key. I'd bet that if the originator is notified, he/she would request deletion per CSD G7. B.Wind (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible search term. (Casino Royale (1954), on the other hand, is obviously worth keeping.) Terraxos (talk) 22:31, 18 October 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 (non-admin closure). Ruslik (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caused by an uncommon misspelling of the artist's surname. Wavehunter (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - for those unfamiliar with the spelling it's a plausible error. Some apparently reliable sources make the error, as does Christies. Otto4711 (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Such typos ("a" for "o") occur with regularity. B.Wind (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plausible misspelling. —Lowellian (reply) 19:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not just a plausible typo but one that's been used by Christies. JASpencer (talk) 21:33, 15 October 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 --Allen3 ^talk 12:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

non-existent entity, improbable redirect. Minor nuisance for searching, as the redirect comes up before the actual entry, minor, non-zero potential for causing confusion Jd2718 (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As a former proposal, this is a plausible search term. See User talk:NE2#Forked River Borough, New Jersey. --NE2 07:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Based upon the discussion that NE2 (the redirect's creator) cited above, the redirect's usefulness depends on the following:
  1. Someone must be unfamiliar with Forked River, New Jersey.
  2. He/she must nonetheless encounter the text of or a reference to an 85-year-old failed proposal to incorporate Forked River as a borough (something so obscure that it has zero Google web hits and that I was entirely unfamiliar with despite residing in Forked River for 23 years).
  3. He/she must somehow do so without realizing that said proposal pertained to an existent (both then and now) unincorporated area called "Forked River, New Jersey" (which he/she otherwise would type instead).
  4. He/she must decide to type "Forked River Borough, New Jersey", despite the fact that Wikipedia never uses this format for the title of an article about a New Jersey borough unless there is a separate incorporated New Jersey municipality with the same name. (This applies to six of our 294 articles about past and present New Jersey boroughs.)
  5. He/she must have JavaScript disabled. (Otherwise, the article's actual title would appear before he/she could type more than "Forked Ri".)
  It seems substantially less plausible for all of the above to occur than it is for someone to be confused by the incorrect reference to Forked River as a "borough" that appears before the article's actual title for most users performing a search. —David Levy 07:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects have always been very "cheap" and only deleted when there is a good reason to do so. The only possible such reason you give would be appearing first in the search, but a recent change should not affect long-standing practice. (Would you have BNSF Railroad deleted for the same reason?) --NE2 08:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. You've continually implied that the software change's relative recentness renders such a concern invalid or weak. Why is this? To our readers, what is the timeline's relevance? Are we trying to make the encyclopedia user-friendly, or are we staking claims based on chronology?

2. BNSF Railroad is a highly plausible search/link term (and one that doesn't mislead anyone regarding the subject's basic nature). For the reasons noted above, this is not true of Forked River Borough, New Jersey. Redirects are cheap, but they aren't free. —David Levy 08:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes it clear: "Forked River (pronounced fork'id river) is a census-designated place and unincorporated area". --NE2 08:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. That text makes it clear to people who are familiar with New Jersey's governmental structure (and therefore realize that the above cannot apply to a New Jersey borough). That describes you and me, but not most readers.

2. As explained above, Forked River Borough, New Jersey is an extremely unlikely target. The redirect's potential harm might be minimal, but its potential usefulness is negligible.

3. You didn't answer my question about your repeated references to the software change's recentness (which you also ignored when I posted it on your talk page). —David Levy 08:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I point out that it's a recent change because we shouldn't go changing current practice without discussing it somewhere like Wikipedia talk:Redirect. --NE2 10:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I wouldn't support deletion if I felt that the redirect were useful. —David Levy 15:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting redirects is also cheap. A user wanting the borough (extremely unlikely) will find Forked River, New Jersey, with a zero chance of confusion. And I presume you will add information about the non-existent borough to the article about the existing town? However, a user wanting the town and not knowing about the borough (far more common, right?) has a real chance of being confused. I understand that you are working towards consistency, but when consistency interferes with the encyclopedia, you need to consider what the goal here is. Jd2718 (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see why this redirect must be deleted. Someone could conceivably encounter the reference to Forked River as a borough when doing research on New Jersey municipal history. This naming convention is what is used by the U.S. Census Bureau, for example. This name also makes it easy for automated tools to create links because of its standard format. There should be some mention of the borough proposal in the township article though. --Polaron | Talk 12:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, someone could conceivably encounter this information (though I didn't in the 23 years that I resided in Forked River), but how could this occur without the person knowing that the actual (85 years ago and today) place is called "Forked River, New Jersey"?

To what "standard format" are you referring, and why would we want to create such links? Forked River is not (and has never been) a borough, and while "Foo Borough" is a format used by the U.S. Census Bureau, it isn't one that we usually use in our articles' titles. —David Levy 15:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - agree wholeheartedly with Polaron with this one. Nom is reminded that not all research is online (with is still less than 15 years in this form); by far the majority of research and reading involve material that is much older than the Internet. Deleting a mention of a 90-year-old concept simply because there is no direct mention on the Net smacks of recentism. Because the U.S. Bureau of the Census acknowledges this name, this is further indication that keeping the redirect (with a brief mention of this in the target) is the appropriate move. B.Wind (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the U.S. Bureau of the Census acknowledge this name? (I believe you, but I haven't seen that.) —David Levy 15:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it does. --NE2 21:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As noted by others above, this is a name mentioned in some records - even if it is not correct because incorporation was not carried out, those records exist and make this useful for research. I don't see any reason to delete this, other than the assertion that it is Pure Evil to redirect from incorrect names, a sentiment that doesn't have support in general. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that anyone has asserted that it's "Pure Evil to redirect from incorrect names." It's just my opinion that this particular redirect has an infinitesimal likelihood of being useful (outweighed by a comparatively significant likelihood of generating confusion). —David Levy 15:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/question: If NE2 could kindly use his sources to create a small section covering Forked River's proposed incorporation as a borough, I would view redirecting to this section (rather than simply to the article) as an acceptable alternative to deletion. Would the rest of you be satisfied with this outcome? —David Levy 15:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be just as fine with that as I would be with the original redirect. Of course, i can't speak for anyone else... — Gavia immer (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would too, but I had to return The Story of New Jersey's Civil Boundaries to the library. --NE2 21:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My local library appears to have some copies. I'm away at the moment, but I'll stop in upon my return. —David Levy 23:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is mentioned in some historical records. It causes no harm. Therefore keep. —Lowellian (reply) 19:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Simply tired with the presumption towards deletion. It's cheap, used and does no harm. JASpencer (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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