The result of the discussion was Speedy delete (G11). Looks like an advertisement to me. Ruslik_Zero 16:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Getallthefacts.com → Comcast (links to redirect)

Originally nominated at Afd by mistake, here, by User:Sme3. The rationale was "This page appears to have been set up by User:Boyhere for the purpose of promoting the Comcast web site getallthefacts.com. See other edits by Special:contributions/Boyhere" This is a procedural nomination on my part. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: to be honest I could probably have just tagged it for speedy with G11, but I've done the new nomination now. An admin can speedy it if they see fit. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also suggest speedy delete, per WP:G11, WP:NOTADVERTISING, and because this redirect is for a section unfit in the Comcast article. --> RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 19:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Guess I didn't understand that it belongs here and not at AFD, but web-site URL's are not appropriate for article titles unless they are used in general context. This is strictly advertising-based. -Sme3 (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete along with all the other useless URL advertising redirects this user has made. I'd also recommend an ANI thread or RfC started on this user for his overall-disruptive contributions. GraYoshi2x►^talk 16:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I left a note [1] on the User:Boyhere's talk page explaining this. Maybe we should assume good faith and allow him to respond, and hopefully agree to remove these articles before taking it up on ANI (although I admit, I first thought of going to ANI too). But - if we need to undo this user's work, note that some hatnotes have been added to articles ("xyz.com redirects here..."), which should be removed as well. -Sme3 (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful to quickly find out who is behind the address. I don't see why anyone would think te redirect is for advertising purposes. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:36, 7 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. US does not seem to be a full synonym of MUPS. It may also have meanings outside medicine. Ruslik_Zero 16:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Unexplained symptoms → Medically unexplained physical symptoms (links to redirect)

Request delete because redirect is inaccurate, misleading, and over-reaching. The common term (unexplained symptoms) isn't a common synonym for Medically unexplained physical symptoms nor is it particularly accurate according to a literature review pg 829, Table 2. Consensus on talk page discussions they are not equivalent here and here. Ward20 (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - for all the reasons Ward20 cited. --RobinHood70 (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as above. Sam Weller (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, misleading and vague. -- œ^™ 05:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, when "unexplained symptoms" does not mean "unexplained symptoms"?? "Support" Ward20 has is opinions of Ward20, Sam Weller, RobinHood70!! RetroS1mone talk 12:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as above. 140.239.216.226 (talk) 05:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to seem paranoid here, but this vote is the only edit from an IP that's geographically very near the same location as the votes earlier today from an IP that was banned. Even though this vote agrees with my own, in all fairness, I believe it should be discounted. --RobinHood70 (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The votes Robin's talking about are here, for reference. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:31, 9 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Separation of males and females in Jewish law → Tzniut (links to redirect)

Implausible search term and not discussed in the main article. Tavix |  Talk  15:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Highly improbably search term. --RobinHood70 (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep People might enter some or all of those words in a web search. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just wondering Apoc; are you actually aware of the guidelines at WP:REDIRECT or are you just making the reasons up as you go along? After all this search term would be both extremely hard to just randomly type in and the redirect target doesn't even have anything to do with the redirect in question. GraYoshi2x►^talk 14:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - See reasons in my comment above. GraYoshi2x►^talk 14:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is the closest translation of the Hebrew term Tzniut into English. Agree with Apoc that it may show up in searches for those unfamiliar with the Hebrew term (or the English phonetic spelling of the Hebrew term). -Sme3 (talk) 14:26, 13 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. Consensus is clear. Ruslik_Zero 15:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:SANDY → User:SandyGeorgia (links to redirect)
• Wikipedia talk:SANDY → User talk:SandyGeorgia (links to redirect)

This appears to be a little used redirect which I think falls under the same umbrella policy that was applied during the deletion of WP:JJB at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_22#Wikipedia:JJB. If there is a consensus to delete all project-space redirects to userpages, then we should apply it to all. There is both WP:SANDY and WT:SANDY, created separately by different authors. I am not aware of SandyGeorgia having ever used these redirects herself. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 04:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per previous consensus established for WP:JJB -- œ^™ 04:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Is it possible to be aware when anyone uses a redirect? I happen to use these redirects several times a day. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Yes, it is possible to know, see Soap's link above; these are bad because everyone would want one if we let people have them. Prodego ^talk 06:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the point was that you can't tell when a specific person uses a redirect, as Soap seems to think he/she can (of SandyGeorgia having ever used these redirects herself.) Woody (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Usually the stats.grok.se site is reliable, but I think it has trouble with redlinks and certain redirects, and will only record a "hit" if someone views the page in a certain way. So I assume, anyway, if Andy Walsh says he uses these links several times per day. And to clarify, when I said Sandy wasnt using them herself I meant she wasn't using them as a signature, as the previously deleted WP:JJB had been. Sorry, I should have been more clear. My deletion rationale still stands, however, and I'm just posting to get rid of any misinformation in the nomination. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That site is wrong. I actually have bookmarks in my browser to several pages here and WP:SANDY is one of them. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I assumed your keep !vote was because 'WP:SANDY' is quicker to type than 'User:SandyGeorgia' and you use it a lot, Andy - but obviously it makes no difference for a bookmark. Given that is there actually any advantage? Olaf Davis (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You have a point there. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as should all userpage redirects. Majorly talk 13:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As much as I know how trafficked Sandy's talk page is, I don't agree with special dispensations for certain users, and I also echo Prodego. No cross-namespace redirects, please. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't agree with special dispensations for users either—I wouldn't care if anyone had one of these. What is the harm? Of all the comments here, I don't see anything approaching a demonstratable harm. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per predicent and the fact that it isn't used. Tavix |  Talk  15:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Delete per SandyGeorgia's statement - Her talk page is highly trafficked and deserves it more than most of the pages linked. However, if she does not want it, then it is unnecessary. This is clearly a user's preference situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I truly have no opinion. (And I'm often on the wrong side of deletion discussions.) It it's convenient for other editors, it's their decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with others that all userpage redirects outside of User space should be deleted...with the possible exception of Jimbo Wales. --RobinHood70 (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We should not have this kind of redirects to user pages. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  According to Wikipedia:CSD_explanations#Redirects this could even be a speedy. -- œ^™ 00:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That only applies to mainspace → userspace redirects. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per the many other ones that have been deleted in the past, including my own. I'll also encourage more participation in the discussion here since the last time it was proposed, back in June, it went stale. As it's now back, I think it's time more people weighed in on it. -    allstar▼echo    22:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I dislike vanity redirects that go to someone's userpage/talk page (as opposed to ones that go to a relevant subpage). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for the variety of reasons provided above. Also, I plain just don't like cross-namespace redirects...  [ mad pierrot ]  05:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  So CAT:CSD and CAT:BLP should be deleted? EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but I'd rather see Cat:/CaT:/CAT: turned into a true namespace redirect the way WP is. Same for the other pseudonamespaces. –xeno^talk 18:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No I didn't say they should, xeno pretty much stated my position. I don't think this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (for me), I think it's a shortcut that sets a bad precedent. What's to stop me from claiming WP:MADP for myself?  [ mad pierrot ]  19:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Eh? How does CAT:CSD set a precedent for WP:MADP? EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per EVula. There's not an essay on a subpage or anything. There's just no reason for it. hmwitht 18:42, 12 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 Deleted. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Jghedhgpeiurhgpier → Six Flags New England (links to redirect)

Had this been created within the last month of so, I'd ask for a speedy deletion as it is a most improbable misnomer (assuming good faith of the creator of the redirect). But this was one of the last edits its creator made... in 2005! I don't see the usefulness in this at all. B.Wind (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Jghedhgpeiurhgpier? Is this some obscure Welsh word or was the editor just bashing his fist on the keyboard? -- œ^™ 04:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to be made up random letters. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, I don't know - when I'm trying to find a page, I quite often just throw my keyboard against the wall. I think this type of redirect could start a very useful trend. Keeper | 76 04:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Out of curiosity, how did you find this page? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:34, 9 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. Ruslik_Zero 15:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• List of conferences → List of college athletic conferences (links to redirect)

Misleading and vague, "Conferences" can mean many different things, not just college athletic conferences. œ^™ 00:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since I can't find any more general article it would make sense to redirect to. The current target is clearly inappropriate as OlEnglish says. I didn't even know Conference (sports) was a meaning of the word until I saw this! Olaf Davis (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vague and confusing. Ward20 (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd much rather see this turned into a disambiguation page rather than simply deleted. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it could still be useful for something in the future. Notice I did not even recommend deletion, I simply put it up 'for discussion'. Thank you for actually providing a useful alternative. -- œ^™ 23:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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