The result of the discussion was keep both (non admin close) B.Wind (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Template:Indo-Pak relations → Template:Indo-Pakistani relations
This is not needed, as the template has been renamed, and all links fixed to point to the correct template. Cerejota (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep first redirect for two reasons: 1) this is a former name of the current template (analogous to a page move with history), and 2) Putting in the countries' names instead of the more "formal" terms (isn't English wonderful?) makes a very plausible search item. No opinion at present for the second nominated redirect as I am unaware of how likely someone would be looking for "Pak" in place of "Pakistani." 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both as unharmful if anyone uses alternative names. ("Indo-Pak" is common enough: [1] including [2])--Rumping (talk) 23:23, 19 February 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 Resolved. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comments subpage was redirected back to the talk page because the comment had already been posted there. However, the biography project banner is designed to transclude the subpage, and the redirect is causing a template loop (i.e. the entire talk page is being transcluded in the banner). PC78 (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just blanked Talk:Subhash Kak/Comments, so the loop should be gone. I don't think there's anything more needed here, except to make certain the template documentation says not to do that. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:48, 18 February 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. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this redirect violates WP:BLP. It also violates WP:V because there is no evidence that this term was ever used in a reliable source. *** Crotalus *** 14:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm... I'm torn. The article was originally located at Reid Smear Letter, before I moved it to Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy due to these similar issues being raised at the Afd for the article (probably a good read regarding this RfD). However, this is how it was referred to (I think... I don't listen to Limbaugh, but enough of the ghits lead me to believe) on Limbaugh's show (which has enough listeners to perhaps warrant the redirect) and in the eBay auction (which is arguably the most notable part of the whole debacle). So while not the most neutral title (obviously), I can see a case made for the term being used enough to warrant a redirect. I'll think about this and (may) voice a stronger opinion later. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a misleading and potentially confusing redirect title. Reid did not smear with the letter, nor was the letter a smear of Reid. There are much more objective, non-misleading, titles than this one. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there was no "smearing" by the letter, by Reid, or by anybody else connected with the letter.... with the possible exception of Limbaugh (depending on your perspective and politics). B.Wind (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing to be neutral, and appears to be miscapitalisation. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:01, 26 February 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. Lenticel ^(talk) 12:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Sheldon → American Idol (season 8)
Cody sheldon → American Idol (season 8)

Delete all. Contestant who didn't reach the top 36. ApprenticeFan (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Tavix (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I posted a broad deletion of previous contestants in past seasons (it did not pass), but this has no redirect value at all. CrazyC83 (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - had this person become a semifinalist (top 36), I would have had a different recommendation. No such luck. B.Wind (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as valueless link of a patently non-runner, per above. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:03, 26 February 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. Lenticel ^(talk) 12:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol season 6 contestant who didn't reach it in top 24. ApprenticeFan (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - appears nowhere in the target article, nor should it as neither brother figures in the success (or lack thereof) of the other. A recently-closed AfD resulted in the deletion of Michael Castro because of lack of notability, and redirect was not an option. B.Wind (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for now - I disagreed on the status of Michael Castro (I suggested redirecting to his brother Jason), but for consistency sake (even if IMO it is not the best idea), I would delete this. That being said, if she does appear in the spotlight once again, I would resurrect it (unless she becomes article-worthy herself). CrazyC83 (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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