The result of the discussion was no consensus. As a compromise, I'll keep those that could realisticly be tpyed in the search box and delete the other two that would require an ndash, since it's not realistically searchable. Wizardman 14:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan-United States relations

Bhutan–United States relations

United States-Bhutan relations

Delete as a misleading and potentially harmful redirect. The only mention of relations in the article are: "Other countries, such as the U.S. and U.K, have no formal diplomatic relations with Bhutan", which proves that these two countries do not have relations. Tavix |  Talk  22:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All things considered, this is not a necessary redirect, since we do not have and should not create redirects from every possible bilateral relations page to a corresponding Foreign relations of (Country) articles. The only reason that these redirects exist is because Bhutan–United States relations was redirected to Foreign relations of Bhutan rather than deleted (see Talk:Foreign relations of Bhutan#Bhutan–United States relations). However, since no content seems to have been merged (i.e. no requirement to preserve page history per GFDL) and there are no useful incoming links to any of the four nominated redirects, I say delete per nom. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• normally for this type of redirect I would say delete. However, in this particular case because the target makes specific mention of the relations in question I say keep. Even though in this case the target says that there are no relations, the fact that it is mentioned raises the possibility that users may think that there are. This redirect will enable such a user to easily identify the actual situation. And no, I am not suggesting that such redirects, and lines added to a 'Foreign relations' target, for every pair of countries! PaulJones (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Since the question posed by the redirect is actually addressed in the article, I think it's a useful redirect. (And like User:Paul Jones, I would also add that this vote isn't a vote for redirects for every possible pair of countries, this is just my opinion on this one.)Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 23:46, 20 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 delete. Wizardman 00:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Highly unlikely search term. JaGa^talk 21:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely delete per nom. I don't understand why the PROD tag was removed, since there is absolutely no value in this redirect. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very unlikely, almost impossible search term. tempodivalse [☎] 23:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as unlikely term. PaulJones (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because I disagree with the redirect. They make more of a spraying sound than a kaboom. Tavix |  Talk  23:33, 19 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 RFD not applicable. This is page move request (flip redirect & target) so it should be listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves instead.-- JLaTondre (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NAME - - Ankimai (talk) 09:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Why delete the redirect - one would think that "prayer mat" (or "prayer rug") are terms better known to an average English speaker than "Janamaz" (even if the latter is more "correct" in some way)!
• Comment Once we're are at that, look at this old edit! Apparently a few months ago an anon editor had removed most of the content of the article (perhaps accidentally, or as vanadlism). The edit, however, has never been reverted, and since then the article has "grown" back to a respectable size, but without the lost content beein ever restored. Anyone cares to bring back the old content and merge it into the current article? Vmenkov (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (changed to speedy delete under G6, see below). WP:NAME says "A redirect should be created for articles that may reasonably be found under two or more names", which seems to apply perfectly here. Which part of WP:NAME do you think indicates we shouldn't have this article, Ankimai? Olaf Davis (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon if I got something wrong here. I would have thought that the article was renamed and moved over redirect (see edit summaries). In that case I would recommend to undo it all. It should be Prayer mat, not Janamaz. --Ankimai (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I didn't realise you wanted to delete the redirect to make way for a move. In that case I withdraw my objection. You can accomplish this with speedy deletion criterion G6, without need for a RfD, next time. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:12, 16 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 delete. Wizardman 00:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect redirects to page where the term doesn't crop up again under any circumstances, nor is there a reason for the redirect to exist. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Delaney = Corey Worthington. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Corey Delaney discussion. Keep. Daniel (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As his notoreity didn't arise from BBA2008, but from an entirely different event. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there's no other logical destination for the redirect, and he certainly gained some notoriety from BB08...plus the BB08 article has a little spiel on why he's semi-famous, iirc. Daniel (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, doesn't show up anywhere. Tavix |  Talk  23:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does show up, as "Corey Worthington", his other name! Daniel (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, regardless of the name confusion, if he's mentioned in the target article, I see the redirect as useful. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 23:49, 20 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 speedy deleted (criterion G8) by User:NawlinWiki. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; a redirect to an article speedy deleted as a hoax. Reyk _YO! 01:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per criterion G8 (dependent on a deleted page). I have tagged it. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:30, 16 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 delete. Note that this could've/should've been speedied, didn't need to go here. Wizardman 18:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors that search for "List of Books and DVDs" are probably not looking specifically for an article about Jon & Kate Plus 8 books and DVDs. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 00:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not useful as a term for the target article, and not useful for any other purpose I can think of - we don't have any general list of both books and DVDs. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too general to be a useful search title. The redirect currently has no useful incoming links and the pagemove history is preserved in this revision of the target article. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete...I think that the only reason it exists is because he had originally created it as "List of Books and DVDs" then moved it after realizing that it should be called "List of Jon & Kate Plus 8 Books and DVDs"...thus the reason for the redirect. On a side note I listed the article on AfD here because it probably doesn't need its own article (merge it with Jon & Kate Plus 8). _scootey^talk 05:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. As Scootey says this is left-over from a page move that doesn't require a redirect, so G6, non-controversial maintenance, applies. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Alternatively, R3. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete for reasons given above. Term is far too general. PaulJones (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete if possible, excessively generic. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 04:58, 17 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 keep.. bibliomaniac15 The annual review... 02:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, Or Proper Article written. The reason i would like this to be done is the page that it is redirected to, doesnt have any information about that book but it has multiple links to that book in it, it would be nice if because there is no information the page is deleted because then people will see that, that page has not been created Joezach (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, since it's a likely search term and redirects are cheap. Anyone looking for information on the book will be better served by the redirect than an empty page. And people coming from the target article will still see that it's effectively empty if they actually click on the link. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes but normally when it redirects you expect some information about it on that page it takes you to. And there are other books on the page that dont have a page yet anyway. Joezach (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It tells me the authors and the series it's part of instead of nothing at all, which has clear use to readers. I don't see all that much use in people being able to see that it's a redlink - is someone that likely to come and write an article on this as-yet unpublished book when they see the redlink? Is it even notable enough to deserve its own article? Olaf Davis (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It does give you the authors and series, but as the book is not released yet and on hold, and that article is 1 of the 2 leaked names for a book that hasn't even been finished yet or named by the author. Joezach (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as After the Fall is mentioned in the target as a planned book (I am taking the target article in good faith on this point). If the title of an unwritten book is publically known then a user may try to find information on it - particularly if they do not know that it has not been written. This redirect could thus serve a useful purpose in allowing this fact to be found. Unless there is actually something encyclopedic to write about this, and the other unwritten books mentioned, then the target article itself really doesn't need to link to them, but that is not relevent to this rfd discussion. PaulJones (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• After the fall is the planned title of a book that probably wouldnt be out until 2010 or later, two titles were leaked in 2007 and here is a quote about the current progress of the book.

New Pern book by Anne put on hold! We would gladly bring better and more promising news but unfortunately Anne told us not too long ago that, at the age of 82 and with recurring health problems, it is very hard to find the energy to dedicate to the necessary writing and rewriting needed to get the book ready to send to the publishers again. We, as fans, need to be realistic and must resign ourselves to the fact that it might take much loger than expected for this book to materialise. News about this book (working titles: New Era Pern and After the Fall (is Over)) leaked out in 2007.

Joezach (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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