The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion, the Polish Music Charts and Polish National Top 50 are not the same chart. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubify. Is that even a word? --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish National Top 50 was deleted per afd as being non-notable, so 'stubify' is probably not a good idea. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: They don't refer to the same chart. The main page is a legitimate, national, "official" chart. The redirect refers to a non-notable, questionable, WP:HOAX-seeming OR chart. (I said this in the original discussion that TenPoundHammer listed earlier.) SKS2K6 (talk) 04:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Taking into account the two AfDs this seems currently rather amount to misinformation.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:16, 29 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 as plausible search term. GlassCobra 11:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Snagkeouss Defence, see below. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:16, 20 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 as plausible search term. GlassCobra 11:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Corn Stalk Defense is a chess opening so obscure and so lacking in reliable coverage that I merged it into King's Pawn Game. "Snagkeouss Defence" is supposedly a variation of this line. A Google check found no reliable source that this is actually a real variation, and given the obscurity of 1.e4 a5, I doubt any analysis exists, even in the plethora of chess literature available. I think this name is unverifiable, and have therefore not merged in any mention of "Snagkeouss". These links are therefore not pointing at anything. If kept (and I am advising very strongly against keeping), it should be retargeted to King's Pawn Game, but there is no mention of the title there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have no opinion on a keep or delete, but the redirect should now target King's Pawn Game regardless to get rid of the double redirect. I've done so with both redirects. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - only sources that mention the defense by this name are blogs and forums, not reliable sources. Thus falling short of the bar of WP:V. B.Wind (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Verifiability isn't necessarily the criteria for a redirect, but rather "would someone search for this term"? Since it's referred to by this name, someone might search for it using "Snagkeouss", and while blogs and forums aren't usually reliable sources, they're certainly reliable to say that some people refer to the defense by this name. PaulGS (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. PaulGS is correct about the appropriate standard for redirects. Rossami (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per PaulGS. Insisting on WP:V is another example of criteria creep. JASpencer (talk) 08:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am a bit unsure if people are under the impression that "Snagkeouss Defense" is an alternate name for "Corn Stalk Defense". If that were the case, I would agree with keeping this. These are the only redirects I sent to RFD during the merge process, all the others I simply re-targeted as plausible alternate names. "Snagkeouss Defense" is not an alternate name, according to these blogs and forums it is a variation of 1.e4 a5, one which is not mentioned at all in King's Pawn Game (due to WP:V). By placing a redirect, aren't we in a way fooling the reader into thinking the topic (Snagkeouss) is covered in the target article when it isn't? Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:24, 26 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. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward policy redirect, does not point at encyclopedic content, not hist-attribution issues, should be deleted. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• History merge to preserve pagemove history. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and tag with ((R with old history)). Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. This is where the page first existed, long before the creation of the separate namespaces and even before the change that let us get away from CamelCase naming. Old policy pages like this have hundreds of links scattered throughout the old pagehistories of the project and an unknown number of external links. There is absolutely no reason that we should contribute to the link rot problem by deleting a page that has no possibility of confusion with anything other than the Wikipedia policy page. Rossami (talk) 19:11, 23 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 List of Dragon Ball characters. GlassCobra 11:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Category CNR, should probably be deleted or pointed at a DBZ-themed article. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or retarget CNR for categories tend to be in a gray area. We generally disallow CNRs because other namespaces are normally not considered encyclopedic content. -- Ned Scott 04:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of Dragon Ball characters, which contains several androids by both name and numeric designation. B.Wind (talk) 00:36, 26 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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject CNR, does not link to encyclopedic content. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Discuss with the Wikiproject in question. The target page does, despite it's location in projectspace, appear to have some use to it. If someone were looking for info on airline destinations in general, this would be a perfectly good place to send them. I would say try and work it out with them, see what they think (I'm dropping them a line). --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As I recall, the data was moved into the project space since many editors considered it to not be encyclopedic. The project uses this as standard list for names of airports and destinations to help keep uniformity in the related articles. However this is material that is of value to many readers. So I guess by definition this redirect is can be deleted. The question is, is there an exception reason that could apply and should it be used in this case? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it helps to document a series of pagemoves of the content in question. I can't think of any better destination for a link of this title. The fact that it points to a wikiproject does not seem inherently bad to me. Rossami (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the move to the project space was a compromise with editors who didn't believe the material to be encyclopedic. Since Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Airline destination lists is not exactly an intuitive title, this allows anyone to easily search for the page. DB (talk) 21:44, 27 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 List of earthquakes#2008. GlassCobra 11:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious CNR, should either have its own list or not be an article, halfway with a category link isn't good enough. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - too general to be useful as a redirect, and CNR is definitely not a good idea. A "stretch" would be a retargeting to a List of major 2008 earthquakes article... if one existed. B.Wind (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to dabify per IP below. It makes more sense to convert this into a disambiguation page than deleting or keeping a CNR. B.Wind (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or retarget CNR for categories tend to be in a gray area. We generally disallow CNRs because other namespaces are normally not considered encyclopedic content. -- Ned Scott 04:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or retarget to a list. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify - the current target provides a ready list of potential terms dealing with earthquakes that occurred in 2008. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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