The result of the discussion was Delete. Killiondude (talk) 01:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weekday4 → Thursday (links to redirect)

Delete - pointless redirect created 2005, delinked today by Smackbot. No rds exist for other numbered Weekdays. PamD (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Implausible search term. — Σxplicit 01:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Absurd (albeit amusing) concept. The topic is covered exhaustively in the main articles 4, Week, and day. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Implausible redirect, should have been speedied at creation. Intelligentsium 23:16, 29 August 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Schife → Ruthless (Ace Hood album) (links to redirect)

Redirect of a non-notable producer to an album he produced, which seems like an improper target if he has production credits on other albums. — Σxplicit 20:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A search turns up evidence (ex.) that Schife is a producer in the same way Ben Stiller is a director or Fred Durst is a producer. Schife was featured on two songs on this album, and it seems to be about the only work he has done. People liking the songs (as it appears some do) may want to know more about Schife and since he is as of yet not notable, we might as well redirect them to the one work he had a part in. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:22, 24 August 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. In case the album history can be clarified further, this can be revisited. Tikiwont (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Something to Burn → The Used (links to redirect)

This was redirected after an article was created here in anticipation of their third album. Their third album, as it turns out, wasn't called Something to Burn; the name was changed to Lies for the Liars, and so now this redirects to The Used for no real reason. Requesting Deletion as improbable search target. Chubbles (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm having some difficulty looking up information on this due to the band by the same name. However, is there a reason why last.fm lists both Something to Burn and Lies for Liars as The Used albums? Normally I'd say that it should retarget to Lies for the Liars but with the other band as what seems to be the more likely subject, the redirect is probably likely to cause more confusion than help a this point. I think I'll wait until I get some more info, but consider this a very weak Delete. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there's no mention of the title in the target; then there's the matter of the band of the same name that doesn't have an article yet... Should the title be incorporated in an article for either the The Used or an article dealing with its discography, I'd be inclined to switch to "keep."147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the band of the same name. Otherwise, like Amory, I would have suggested retargeting to Lies for the Liars. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 09:10, 1 September 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 all. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WTOV-DT → WTOV-TV (links to redirect)

User has created several redirects in violation of the naming convensions. Redirect gives the idea the station has changed it's callsign. Back in June of 2009, the FCC gave the stations the option of changing their callsign when they switched to digital. Some, like WTVQ-DT, did...some, like WTOV-TV, didn't. Having a redirect like this gives the wrong idea to the reader. NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC) 01:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I bulked these all together so there would be a ton of them. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The key question is how likely a search item would be even if it's incorrect? If all of these are television stations that transmit digital signals (as opposed to low power or Class A stations), I'd recommend keeping them as likely searches in the same sense that many AM and FM radio stations are searched with the appropriate band afterwards even though they might not actually use them (like, for example, WTKZ-AM). This is a case in which the redirect makes Wikipedia a little more "user friendly." Note that many - if not most - broadcast television stations show both "-TV" and "-DT" variants in their legal identifications. B.Wind (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment... The article should be titled with what ever designation/name the station itself uses, and the alternative designation/name should be a redirect to that article. This will mean that some TV station articles will use TV (with DT as the redirect) and others will use DT (with TV as the redirect). Blueboar (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't agree with Blueboar more. I'd further recommend that those missing either -TV or -DT have redirects to "fill the gap" as in this era of digital television, the two are synonymous in the public/promotional viewpoint. We do not delete redirects because they are technically wrong: we keep them to help guide the reader to the correct title.147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "-DT" redirects as plausible search terms. youngamerican (wtf?) 14:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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