The result of the discussion was delete both--Aervanath (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both redirects should be deleted -- they both point to the Johnston_(surname) article, with a subanchor where the redirect author inserted what is essentially a stub article, see [1] for the diff ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—"Sigh", not sure what punched the noms buttons, but after searching the web for about half-an-hour with lots of hits but no content (WHERE'S THE MEAT!!!), this seemed best way to handle a fairly minor actress (Character roles and child role) who it seems to me had no hope of satisfying notability guidelines, and every right to be in a list of "Johnstons"... four movie credits, one (known) tv credit (Where I was working) and a total dearth of biographical information on the web, at all and especially via IMDB and four competitors sites.
     Note the Nom was so high handed as to kill my careful edit without saying so here, Here's my revert of that, and I must say, the short time between my initial work on those three pages and then the noms RFD messages here (3!!!) leads me to believe a bit of WP:OWN is in play here. Sigh, again.) I wonder why the nom didn't ask a question, don't you? If we have one standard saying surname pages shouldn't list people without articles, and another saying none without notability, where do the people that fall in the cracks like this actress go?
     So I say, Keep the redirects, as best way to give sufficient coverage of a potential search subject that has something of a name, and if she becomes known and sufficiently notable instead of private and mommyish (As I suspect), we can then have the redirect to turn into a bonafide article... eliminating a redirect makes no sense... this is one good reason we have them. // FrankB 01:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment : What "punched my buttons" was a pair of really odd-looking redirects that popped up in a new pages search, which anyone can do -- I like patrolling new pages, and it certainly isn't a case of ownership, given that in the grand scheme of things, I really don't care about Charmed either way, but I do care about Wikipedia. But, enough about me.
    The entry in Johnston (surname) doesn't belong there -- like all disambiguation pages, it's reserved for a list of existing articles, not for what is essentially an excerpt from what would be a stub article inserted into the list. I removed your edit since it didn't belong there (and I left a link to it here), but I'm not going to edit-war over it -- somebody else can review that. That edit is not the subject of this RFD, the actual redirects are. I nominated the redirects for deletion since they are redirects to something which shouldn't be there. Why not try creating a stub article for Katie Jane Johnston, like I suggested on your talk page? There's nothing wrong with a stub. I'd do it myself, but I don't want to interfere with this process. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So we disagree with where, how, and why disabig pages exist. In four, no five years of editing here that's the FIRST time I've heard a claim any disambig page needed to have an article page. There are plenty of line items in my experience where a link isn't necessary, but an explanation unworthy of an article suits fine. Consider you average dic-def that works it's way into the popular culture as a term for starters. Tech terms in many fields for others. Not everything needs a link off a diambig page. Many should end right there. Shrug.
  
  I don't give a flying intercourse at a rolling peice of pastry as to whether the lass has any coverage, but being a credited actor or actress is is deemed an achievement by some, so having a credit, and researching same, I made my prelim work (with three ext links) available should someone turn up a later need for an article. That's called planning ahead, and stubs get deleted too... and in this case, if she is indeed retired and raising kids, the current lack of information is likely all that will ever be available. Not deleting purpose-serving redirects is most generally the most sane non-voting alleged consensus process we have in this society. // FrankB 02:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, we've each said our piece, and I guess it's up to the community, then. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep but would probably be better as a stub in its own right. I don't have a problem with having unlinked info in a disambiguation page, but normally only when it is for an exact match for the term being disambiguated for something that does not warrant an article of its own. PaulJones (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • changing to delete as the target has now been removed. PaulJones (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubify or Delete - target section doesn't exist on the dab page to which the redirect is pointing. I removed the "Katie Jane Johnston" entry to the dab as it violated MOS:DAB on four counts: 1) It had external links; 2) it had more than one Wikilink; 3) one Wikilink led to an article with no mention of her; and 4) the other Wikilink was piped to an article that is not mentioned at all in that line. B.Wind (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubify - writing a stub article is the best option, whether or not the redirect winds up deleted (if there is no stub, there is no reason for its existence with current Wikipedia content - but if there is a cast list someone containing her name, then the redirect could be retargeted to it). As far as whether or not she meets WP:BIO, it seems that the key is whether or not she is mentioned in reliable sources. If the nom (or anybody else) has a problem with a stub regarding WP:BIO, there is WP:AfD... but after the stub is written. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is a non-notable person, and shouldn't have her own article. She shouldn't have been added to the list in the first place. Terraxos (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is not a good way to handle such cases. The biographical note has justly been removed form the target page. Entries there should be accompanied at least by a relevant link elsewhere. If someone can come up with a credible stub that's fine but no reason to keep at this point the redirects either.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:49, 30 January 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 except Gustéris, which was speedily deleted.--Aervanath (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these redirects. The first three are Greek words, with lots of hits in the Greek Google, but not in the English Google. The last may also be a Greek word, and is a redirect to an article which itself has been nominated for deletion.Brian Kendig (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment should the Gusteris article be deleted, the last redirect would be subject to speedy deletion under CSD G8. I have no comment or suggestion for the first three... yet. (see below) B.Wind (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Gusteris was deleted, so I've also deleted Gustéris. - Brian Kendig (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep first as a plausible typo (capitalization) of the scientific name stated in the first line of the target article; weak keep second and third as both are redirects from foreign languages (a Yahoo search has indicated that both are synonyms for the bird). We have Category:Redirects from alternative languages for such redirects. B.Wind (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that WP:NC(UE) would only encourage the second and third redirects to be kept if "Κιρκινέζι" and "Kirkinezi" were the native names of "Lesser Kestrel", like "Sverige" is the native name of "Sweden"; but that's not the case here. - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely true for articles - but I suggest that WP:R#Alternative names and languages would come into play here instead. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all remaining (the last was deleted already) as potentially useful redirects - we do have redirects from foreign languages per WP:R#Alternative names and languages. The capitalisation issue with the first redirect is not sufficient to require deletion. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say that Wikipedia should not be a translation utility - that we don't want to be in the business of linking indiscriminately from foreign-language words to their English equivalents - and I was going to use the French "vache" as an example, but then I discovered that it exists as a redirect. Vache → Cattle. So, that weakens my argument. - Brian Kendig (talk) 20:13, 29 January 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 both.Tikiwont (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also Chaucer Portal → Portal:Geoffrey Chaucer

Delete - Needless cross-namespace redirect into portal space and incorrectly named at that. B (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Terraxos (talk) 01:26, 28 January 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) 06:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. misspelling name error. 121.96.125.80 (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This seems like a likely mistake, so it's useful to have it redirect to the correct spelling. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per Gavia immer. Seems a likely mistake. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. PaulJones (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this spelling error of the targeted article should be deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.96.121.199 (talk) 20:11, 2009 January 23
• Keep - plausible spelling error as "McKee" and "McKey" are pronounced the same in English, thus making this a potentially useful redirect that can be easily overwritten should a person by the name of McKee Sullivan merits a Wikipedia article in the future. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:26, 26 January 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 speedy delete by User:Redvers (Non admin close) B.Wind (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Result of vandalism redirect MrMarmite (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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