The result of the discussion was keep (non admin close) B.Wind (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name. Bdb484 (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Harmless and may serve to discourage a persistent forker. Bdb484 - what about Techniques in hip hop and Hip hop techniques as well? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep but as Rapping is only one element of Hip Hop there may be a case to retarget to the latter article, but I don't know enough about the subject to have strong views. PaulJones (talk) 10:25, 22 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 keep per above discussion (non admin close) B.Wind (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name. Bdb484 (talk) 18:46, 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 keep (non admin close) B.Wind (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-reference (it was linked from the parent page as a main article, but redirects back there) and unavoidably empty as an article since there are no passenger stations in Afghanistan. Should be deleted until passenger services actually begin, which might be later this year on the Herat line. — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 14:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is a whole section on railway stations in this article; there don't need to actually be any yet. If reliable sources are discussing current plans, this is legitimate content and thus a legitimate redirect. --Rogerb67 (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly useful redirect.--Patton^t/c 22:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as it is a useful way for someone who is looking for stations to find that there are none.PaulJones (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plausible, related search term. Letsdrinktea (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - most other big countries have a stations page, and AF is reasonably likely to get some more stations in the future. Tabletop (talk) 05:40, 24 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) 12:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unlikely combination of spelling and grammatical errors combined with no significant edit history means this link is of no utility Rogerb67 (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - vanishingly unlikely that someone would come up with this grammar- and spelling-deficient search term on their own. Maralia (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete this appears to be the original article title that has been moved at least twice to become the current target. Probably no particular reason to keep it. PaulJones (talk) 10:33, 22 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 Re-targeted to History of Pomerania (1933-present). It does no harm and helps in cases of external links. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion: left from splits/reorganization of too long articles, no value in keeping (orphaned, no history, not expected that someone types that title into the search form Skäpperöd (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• After converting History of Pomerania (1933-present) into a disambiguation page, retarget History of Pomerania (1933-1950) to it. While a person would be more likely to be looking for material now covered by the current target, the post-World War II material would be found in History of Pomerania (1945-present). There is no real reason to delete this redirect as it was a historic remnant of an earlier article - a proper retargeting is better here. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete as it clearly isn't needed anymore, I could even see this speedied under G6. Tavix (talk) 00:08, 20 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 Disambiguate. It does no harm and helps in cases of external links. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion: left from splits/reorganization of too long articles, no value in keeping (orphaned, no history, not expected that someone types that title into the search form Skäpperöd (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate - clearly "1933-present" has been split into two periods, both with articles. Both should be listed on a dab page with this title to maintain external links, for example. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DAB says "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might use the "Go button", there is more than one Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." Who will ever use the "Go button" for "History of Pomerania (1933-present)"? Concerning "external links" - There are none. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the expected article was split; so both articles would appear to be logical endpoints, especially if the reader had seen a previous article with this title. A lack of links to a particular title is neither a reason to delete a redirect (see the top of WP:RfD) or a disambiguation page (in the case of the latter, incoming links are expected to be held to a minimum as direct links to targets are recommended). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete as a disambiguation page causes problems that can be fixed with deletion. Tavix (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a disambiguation page because this was the name of the original article before it was split into two. B.Wind (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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