The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Implausible search term. Has a lot of incoming links, so don't delete recklessly. Thinboy00 @918, i.e. 21:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. This is a reasonable term for the target according to Wikipedia's disambiguation scheme, which is why there are so many links - people adding links assume the content can be found there, so having a redirect is a very large net positive. It's definitely not an implausible search term either - it happens that Cockpit has the article on the most common usage of the term "cockpit", but it might just as easily be a disambiguation page, and one would not know until one loaded the page. In this sense having the term Cockpit (aviation) available for the autosuggestion feature is an enormous benefit. It should certainly not be deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep lots of incoming links, so it is a likely usage (or else there wouldn't be alot of incoming links, would there?) 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as per above. PaulJones (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Deleted as well as the category. The proper category already exists at Category:Musical groups from Wisconsin per a previous CfD decision. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was in wrong namespace, cut-and-pasted to Category:Wisconsin musical groups, needs deletion with history merger. Ipatrol (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy merge & delete. --Thinboy00 @927, i.e. 21:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was speedily deleted per U1. FWIW, db-user does work fine on .js pages. –xeno (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My ex-monobook page; not my username anymore; would not like for blank subpages to occupy space on the wiki Raaggio 11:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion does not free up space. Deletion increases the size of the database. Wikis are not filesystems. Uncle G (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. While Uncle G's point cannot be made often enough, this appears to qualify as an obvious U1 (user request) deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

The only thing a user would get from this redirection is the mere fact that Samoa recognized Kosovo. These are not bilateral relations. Delete as a seemingly incorrect redirect. Tavix |  Talk  01:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as recognising a country is not the same as having formal relations. The logical target for this redirect, in the absence of a specific article (and there seem to be quite a few for kosovo-country relations) would be Foreign relations of Kosovo but the absence of Samoa in that implies that there are no formal relations. PaulJones (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is no harm in keeping this redirect, if this were an article at Afd, it would be a different story, because there is nothing notable about the relationship. However, as a redirect it serves to inform whoever might be searching of the extent of Samoa and Kosovo's relationship, namely that Samo has recognized Kosovo. Redirects are cheap, since this one has some use let it stay. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your argument that redirects are cheap holds no water with me. If this was a redlink, people would know that there isn't any bilateral relations between the two states instead of a semi-random list of entities that recognized Kosovo. Tavix |  Talk  00:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the biggest fan of the bilateral relations articles and I am normally in favor of deleting them, but I see no purpose in deleting this redirect. As for the red link arguement look at it this way, if this does become a red link the non-notable relationship would be able to be recreated as an article that would not be eligible for for a speedy deletion (since the result of the original AfD was redirect not delete.) It would then most likely have to go through AfD along with all the other non-notable (or in this case virtually non-existent relationship.) On the whole I believe that leaving this be is much less of a hassle and does not further contribute to the problem with bilateral relations articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As it's mentioned somewhat (even if it's just briefly) in the target article, I would say it's a useful redirect. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 23:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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