The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Swamp lizard → Alligator (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Seems like plenty of other things could be described as swamp lizards. — The Man in Question (in question) 23:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If so, maybe it should be turned into a disambiguation page? PatGallacher (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Is the term "swamp lizard" even recognized in reference to alligators? I have never heard it. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It could be turned into a disambiguation page if there are ambiguous Wikipedia articles. Nudj and Lizorr seem to be the only possible candidates (from "swamp lizard" -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  All crocodilians could be describes as swamp lizards, as well as monitor lizards, the swamp skink (Egernia coventryi), and the Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp. Whether any of these are called "swamp lizards", however, I don't know. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  My point is that they're not ambiguous Wikipedia articles: crocodilia, monitor lizard, and Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp don't mention "swamp lizard", so they wouldn' belong on a disambiguation page for "swamp lizard". -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yup, I definitely agree. Sorry if I didn't make my point clear…I was rushing out the door when I wrote that one. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and JHunterJ. Any (real or fictional) lizard or lizard-like creature inhabiting a swamp could be termed a "swamp lizard" but, as JHunterJ noted, no disambiguation is necessary in the context of Wikipedia articles. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 02:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentName of NPC in Runescape (uses I think hunter skill) 21:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

The result of the discussion was Retarget to St. Brendan School. Non-admin closure. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• St Brendan School → The Bronx (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Presumably a school in the Bronx. Not a sensible redirect. — The Man in Question (in question) 23:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - the page was created as an article about the school and later turned into a redirect to The Bronx. However, the target article includes no information about the school, so there is no point directing searches for the school to the article about the borough. Also, deleting the redirect would make it appear as a red link and encourage creation of a reliably-sourced article. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 03:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Bradjamesbrown and suggest speedy close. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 04:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget With the period, as St. Brendan School, we have an article about a school in Rhode Island. A much more logical target for this redirect. Not a great article, but it is there. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely, I should have checked. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Chicago (Ill.) → Chicago (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Nonsense or else something obscure. Also, there is an album named Chicago III. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ill. is short for Illinois. 'Chicago (Ill.)' is how Chicago is written in Library of Congress Subject Headings. Edward (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ahaha, oh, how silly. Interesting. All right, then.— The Man in Question (in question) 05:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Chicago's → Chicago (links to redirect • history • stats) 

I can't see the benefit of possessive noun redirects. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nor can I. On the other hand, I can't imagine what we would gain by deleting them. The amount of activity on this page mystifies me. — Dan | talk 02:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I would guess people searching for things beginning in "Chicago's" (e.g., Chicago's South Side) give it the traffic, very probably by accidentally clicking on it as the first item on the drop-down menu, in which case redirecting to Chicago does not help them. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The amount of activity was, in all likelihood, due to a combination of the situation described by The Man in Question and links within a handful of articles (all of which I have corrected as part of larger edits). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 04:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Seventy-two suburbs in search of a city → Los Angeles (links to redirect • history • stats) 

The subtitle of a book about Los Angeles, not a nickname for Los Angeles itself. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The Garfieldian → Chicago (links to redirect • history • stats) 

The name of an individual newspaper written in this cities—"apples to oranges" kind of redirect. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Better to know the correct city, than to have no information at all. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The purpose of redirects is to help our readers find the information they are searching for, yet The Garfieldian is not mentioned even once in the target article. It is better to not misdirect readers and to be honest about the fact that we don't have an article about the newspaper than to direct them to Chicago and let them figure out the rest on their own. I would support retargeting to List of newspapers in Illinois if the newspaper was mentioned in the list, but it is not. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 01:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's an actual disservice to readers to make them look thru the long Chicago article for info about The Garfieldian when there's absolutely nothing there. Station1 (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have enough information to write a stub article: should I proceed? NativeForeigner (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Does the subject strike you as notable? Otherwise, no. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• NY, NY, NY → New York (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Improbable search term—a "novel synonym". — The Man in Question (in question) 22:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep New York City, New York County, New York State, USA. 70.29.211.163 (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not familiar with a city being listed by its county. And is New York County actually abbreviated NY? Keeping such a redirect sets a precedent to inspire Seattle, King County, Washington, Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, and then Seattle, King County, Chicago, Cook County, et al. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It's done (including the county in the article name), but usually only in the rare cases where 2 or more cities or towns in the same state have the same name and disambiguation is needed. I am not sure who would type "NY, NY, NY" though. TJ Spyke 19:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Just for the record, New York County (far better known as Manhattan) is a part of New York City, not the other way around. The county is rarely referred to at all outside legal documents and never abbreviated NY. Station1 (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A city so nice they named it thrice. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an improbable search term. I could find no reference to such usage through a Google search (I didn't check all 43000 hits, but I did check the first few pages of results) and it seems to be virtually unused (around 2 page views per month). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 01:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Created by a sockpuppet[1] of a banned user in June, whose other edits that day look like quickly-reverted vandalism[2][3][4], it has no incoming links and no use. Station1 (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Penix → Phoenix, Arizona (links to redirect • history • stats) 

I'm pretty sure this a joke, even if it's not I can not see anyone using therm "penix" in a search. I think we should also add Pnix to the discussion created at the same time by the same user. Ridernyc (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. To avoid any doubt, the plural of penis is "penises" in English and "penides" in classical Greek. So there is no claim for it being a plural or adjectival form of "penis". Si Trew (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Similar to SimonTrew's explanation, but I interpret the article as a typo of the "P-word". I find no reason to include this redirect, so delete as such. Also, I've never seen an instance where "Penix" refers to the capital of Arizona. Schfifty3 18:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unhelpful, defamatory nonsense. — The Man in Question (in question) 00:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep

1. The content of the previous entries is unfounded. Penix and Pnix are simply abbreviations of Phoenix which may be used in internet chatting, and should be kept, as they are both recognized by Google as abbreviations of Phoenix. Words such as "pwn" are on Wikipedia.
2. Amanda Penix was Miss Oklahoma Teen USA in 1997. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jax 0677 (talk • contribs)

Comment. 1. A google search for "penix" found the first result containing the word "phoenix" at number 75, and that is for [5] whose current content is entirely "lets get it on?". I could not find any other in the first 100, at which point I stopped. So if people in Phoenix write it, they keep quiet about it. If "pnix" is an abbreviation for Phoenix, then so what? The redirect isn't for "pnix". 2. If she is considered notable enough to have an article, then we can redirect to her. The same surname lists frequently on the same search, and presumably none of them yet have articles here. Si Trew (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If a Google search is done for "Penix Arizona", "Penix Cardinals", "Penix Coyotes", "Penix Diamondbacks" or "Penix Suns", Google.com recognizes "Phoenix" as an alternative to "Penix". People might become lazy and type "Phoenix" without the "H" and the "O". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jax 0677 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  And a search for "Baltorimo Orioles" brings up "Baltimore Orioles" as the first result (along with a Did you mean: Balitmore Orioles), but that does not make "Baltorimo" an alternative to "Baltimore". –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (1st choice) per Si Trew or retarget to penis. A search for "Penix Arizona" or "Penix Suns" using Wikipedia's search engine will produce Did you mean: Phoenix, Arizona and Did you mean: Phoenix Suns, so redirects from "Penix" are not needed to find these articles. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How did the subject of male body parts even get brought up at all?--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  "Penix" could be a misspelling or typo of "penis", even if it not a particularly likely or plausible one. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was retarget Energy in Illinois to Illinois#Energy and delete Climate change in Illinois. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Energy in Illinois → Illinois (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Climate change in Illinois → Illinois (links to redirect) (stats)

Delete. Why these should be created as a redirect to Illinois is a mystery to me. If Illinois had sections about it, it might be plausible. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_22#Energy_in_Illinois. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment. There's no section in the target article which corresponds to those topics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I tried "Energy in New Mexico", "Energy in Iowa", "Energy in Texas" and "Energy in Georgia". None is a redirect, so (thankfully) this does not seem to be part of a larger pattern of creating these. One would think, for example, "Energy in Texas" might plausibly have such a redirect, being a large energy producer, but it does not (the search engine for "Energy in Texas" does show for example that Wind energy in Texas redirects to Wind power in Texas, which seems perfectly reasonable). And "Energy in Georgia" shows as its first result Category:Energy in Georgia (country), which suggests that the right way to go, if need be, would be to put articles in a category rather than via redirects. Si Trew (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rubin. — The Man in Question (in question) 00:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the second one, but definitely Retarget Energy in Illinois to Illinois#Energy, or am I missing something? That section seems a perfect target, so I'm confused by the above comments. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete second, Retarget first per Amorymeltzer. Unfortunately, I assumed the comments were true. — The Man in Question (in question) 20:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Liam Adams → Gerry Adams (links to redirect • history • stats) 

This redirect should be deleted for the following reasons: Liam Adams isn't mentioned in the article to which this subject is being redirected; he isn't likely to be mentioned, discussed, or included in said article in the near future; and the redirect has seemingly only been created so that a living person appears in the "fugitives" categories added on 19 December. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• RepublicanJacobite is pre-judging matters when he says that he isn't likely to be mentioned, discussed, or included in the Gerry Adams article in the near future. There is discussion about this on the Gerry Adams talk page, I propose it continues there. PatGallacher (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per PatGallacher. Si Trew (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, PatGallacher provides no rationale for keeping, so pull the other one, Simon. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean he said keep. I used his argument as a rationale for keeping. Si Trew (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep until such time as the subject has his own article. Liam Adams and his connection to Gerry Adams is seeing widespread media attention in Ireland and the UK at the moment. Although some people seem intent on removing any mention of the alleged abuse of his daughter by Liam Adams, his brother Gerry Adams' knowledge of the allegation and appeal for his brother to turn himself in, and his subsequent claim that Gerry Adams, Sr was abusive to some of his children, the media reaction is likely to see it being included on the Gerry Adams page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 01:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are intent on seeing it included, whether it is relevant or not. But, the redirect makes no sense as Liam is not mentioned in the article and is not relevant. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bastun is in fact arguing to delete per WP:REDIRECT, which he should really have read before commenting. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a new editor here, I find that harsh. Really one should AGF. I haven't read much of WP:REDIRECT either. I read MOS when it suits me, and was involved with it a bit, but decided that a style guide that is constantly changing under your feet is about as much use as a snake in an arse kicking competition, so I just try to write good English instead. And at WP:CONVERT it is the same, there is the fellow who acutally works to make it better, and if I suggest missing units etc. he puts them in, or kindly tells me they are there already, and seventeen thousand other people complain about what is a good template. You cannot, must not, expect everyone to know the rules. I come here because I was worried about a redirect, I spend most of my time actually editing stuff and making Wikipedia better, I DO NOT WANT to be slapped around the head with rules, and I will bet you all lombard-street to a china orange, you didn't obey the rules either. Cos first rule is break all rules. 23:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Gallacher. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Gallacher provides no rationale for keeping. So, can you provide a reason, please? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gallacher's reason? The issue is unresolved. — The Man in Question (in question) 16:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDIRECT. If there's going to be a Liam Adams article it shouldn't be a redirect at present, as redlinks encourage people to create article while redirects don't. That's what it says in black and white. If, and only if, there's no consensus for an article on Liam Adams and there's consensus for a section including Liam Adams to the Gerry Adams article, then the redirect can always be recreated. At present, there's no details about Liam Adams in the article, so the redirect makes no sense. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's debatable whether Liam Adams should have his own article, but I think this will be decided by more important factors than whether he is a redirect or a red link. At present the consensus seems to be against it, but if his case gets much more publicity this may change. PatGallacher (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also User One Night In Hackney appears to be arguing for deletion on the grounds of WP:Redirect 4.1 point 9. This is legitimate grounds for deletion under some circumstances, but implies that Liam Adams merits his own article. I am not violently opposed to this view, but is that what some people are arguing? PatGallacher (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gerry Adams article has now been locked until 28 December while this content dispute is resolved. Let's give this redirect the benefit of the doubt until then. PatGallacher (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Liam is not mentioned in the article that redirect goes to and unlikely to get a mention in it either. Leave it redlinked and if he becomes notable enough to get his own article which at present would be a BLP nightmare then lets create the article. BigDunc 19:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the editors above! --Domer48_'fenian' 21:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as he's not mentioned in his brother's article. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Liam Adams is not notable in his own right (he is an alleged child abuser who wouldn't be in the news were it not for his famous brother) and, even if he ends up being mentioned in the Gerry Adams article, I see no need for there to be a redirect page at Liam Adams. Mooretwin (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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