The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded German-language cross-namespace redirect with no significant incoming links. It is not even useful as a shortcut, since it contains as many characters as WP:Persondata. See related discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 22. Delete. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete foreign-language redirect for an English-language non-article topic; cross-namespace redirect. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inappropriate foreign-language cross-namespace redirect not even useful as a shortcut. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:37, 7 March 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 The New Masses. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable POV redirect; orphan; doesn't meet WP:MOS anyway. At best, it's a misspelling of Smedley Butler's conspiracy article on the subject. THF (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Separately, before bad-faith allegations are made, I disclose that this article was created by User:Ikip, with whom I am in a WP:WQA dispute. I used Twinkle to create the RfD, and did not know that Ikip created it until after I made the nomination: the talk page was red and I did not look at the page history.) THF (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So "Business Plot conspiracy theory" is okay (this is the title with THF want to move the Business Plot article too), but Wall Street Fascist Conspiracy isn't? There are no sources for the title "Business Plot conspiracy theory" either:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Google books: "No results found for "Business Plot conspiracy theory".

Google scholar: "Your search - "Business Plot conspiracy theory" - did not match any articles."

Google news, archive: "Your search - "Business Plot conspiracy theory" - did not match any documents."

Google: No results but the two results of THF on wikipedia.

I could personally care less about this title, it was probably created because of yet another edit war over the title before, where an editor redirects the title in the middle of an edit war.

Hmmm... isn't assuming someone is going to make bad faith allegations, bad faith itself? Ikip (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As such a memorable phrase, seems like a plausible search term for someone who has read this article and is looking to follow up on it. No-one's feelings are going to be hurt by the POV attached, and negative alternate names for things have long been acceptable as valid redirects. Keep unless a decent argument to the contrary is forthcoming. Skomorokh 18:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Wall Street Fascist Conspiracy" does not appear once in that 70-year-old article, which suggests that the phrase that the article did use is not remotely memorable. Look more closely. THF (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said it "seems like a plausible search term for someone who has read" the article in question, not that it appeared in it. Read more closely. Skomorokh 18:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, NB the cited article's allegations that the American Jewish Committee was conspiring against the US, and I question whether a 1935 New Masses screed is really so commonplace. THF (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is not a commonly used term, even if a political site uses it (coat.ncf.ca is an overtly political site which does not remotely meet RS). The term "fascist" was a deliberately used pejorative in this instance, and we ought not perpetuate it. Collect (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS governs which references may be used to verify claims within articles. It has no jurisdiction over or relevance to redirects. Skomorokh 18:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then this is an omission in the WP:RS standard. Highly POV editorializing should require a reliable source in an encyclopedia regardless of where it occurs.--Paul (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Confirms highly POV and highly dubious alternate name without any cites to support that such alternate is in common use.--Paul (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For the record, this page got 5 hits in January 2009, and 2 hits in February 2009. THF (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and change destination to The New Masses—where Spivak's article is mentioned—as feasible misspelling of redirect Wall Street's Fascist Conspiracy, which now targets there. Redirects are cheap and valid for, it would seem, 42 hits a year, 420 hits in 10 years etc. Ty 01:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if that is done, then the caption on the graphic "Wall Street's Fascist Conspiracy" needs to be linked to Business Plot for anyone to make any sense out of this.--Paul (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Wall Street's Fascist Conspiracy" is a specific term referring to an article, so that is where it should redirect, and, in fact, does, to The New Masses#Spivak. I've put brief text about Spivak's article in The New Masses, the magazine where it was published, and a wikilink from there to Business Plot for anyone who wants to follow up on what the article is talking about. I've changed the redirect under discussion here, Wall Street Fascist Conspiracy, as a feasible misspelling, to also target The New Masses#Spivak. Ty 03:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and redirect to The New Masses. Plausible misspelling of the title of Smedley Butler's conspiracy articles on the subject, which are discussed in the article. WP:POV is not an argument to delete a redirect; hopefully the article will better inform the general reader who only knows the subject by a POV term. Similarly, nor is WP:MOS; we cannot expect the general reader to be intimately familiar with our style guide. Nor is WP:IDONTLIKEIT for that matter. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:35, 7 March 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) 12:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article about Oxford libraries in general. The closest we have is Oxford University Library Services, but that obviously doesn't cover libraries that aren't part of the university. The current redirect to OLIS (OULS's OPAC and ILS) is even less appropriate. Delete. EALacey (talk) 16:48, 1 March 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) 12:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A misspelled version of this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Castleson_Gazette&redirect=no Xeltran (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep as it is a plausible typing error. Knowing how Castleson is pronounced could be a relevent consideration. PaulJones (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete WP is a repository of all possible spelling errors? I can understand the ie v. ei errors, but the rest can not all be anticipated, can they? Collect (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unlikely search term. If this was a misspelling of the title of the main article (i.e. Catleson High), then maybe, but this is a misspelling of a redirect to the main article, so no. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:22, 9 March 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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to a "Founding Members" section without giving much background to the redirect name. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Xeltran (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep That Vilcat is a member of this umbrella organisation is information about the organisation. It is the notability of the parent article that is necessary, not the notability of the redirect term. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:09, 7 March 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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to a "Founding Members" section without giving much background to the redirect name. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Xeltran (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep That Club 43 is a member of this umbrella organisation is information about the organisation. It is the notability of the parent article that is necessary, not the notability of the redirect term. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:08, 7 March 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 Kept. Target refers to the subject so it's a valid search term. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NOTABILITY, redirects to a school article wherein no background for such person is provided. Xeltran (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Nominated December 4 2008 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Mengullo and The result was redirect to Jack and Jill School by MBisanz talk 02:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)jjska®ate 空手|道® 08:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: More recent discussion that finished on February 5, 2009 ended in a delete verdict. –Howard the Duck 13:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable and respected instructor of Jack and Jill School. Contributed a big part in propagating karate as subject in physical education classes in school.1 ^{Hoy! Pinoy ako.} 03:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But no info about him is present in the article making the redirect useless. –Howard the Duck 04:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE. - Recent contribution of Randy Mengullo was pulished by Sunday Inquirer Magazine: "Life Lessons from Karate", a national magazine of Philippine Daily Inquirer.jjska®ate 空手|道® 08:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If he was a regular contributor then yes like one of the columnists, but I think this is a one-off contribution. Think about it: there are no articles or even redirects of PDI columnists, then this guy even had an article? What the? I contributed to the "Young Blood" column before. Yay me? –Howard the Duck 08:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Randy Mengullo is a karateka, a martial artist. He only wrote/shared his ideas, work and passion in teaching martial arts to kids in Jack and Jill School. He is a full time instructor in Bacolod City not a regular contributor of any magazine nor a columnist but when it comes to karate he is very qualified based on his 14 years performance, service and achievements.jjska®ate 空手|道® 09:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think he can be notable if he has competed in international competitions, nevertheless, the merits being debated here is the redirect, and the redirect serves no purpose since he is not mentioned in the article. –Howard the Duck 09:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. - Notable instructor of Jack and Jill School and captured championship titles with 12 golds [1]this school year in karate event[2]. Likewise an active members of many martial arts organization in Negros Occidental and represented school[3] in many sport events[4][5].— MMaAsia ^{Sambon Hajime!!} 05:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. (Aside from the noms given.) Err, let's see, so the subject of the redirect is "notable" as you put it, but then, it's just a redirect to the school he's employed at, absolutely nothing is written about him. Doesn't that make the redirect useless? Xeltran (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Isn't it significant that he is the mentor and coach of the champion team in many competitions up to the national level? Kindly check his winnings as a coach/trainer and also his contribution to the school where he propagate karate as a sport and a regular subject.— MMaAsia ^{Sambon Hajime!!} 02:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the subject is notable enough (not just on local dailies and such), no, he isn't. And there are other noms too on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mengullo,_Randy that I'm too tired to type and reinstate again. Besides, like I said nothing about the subject is written about him, maybe only the part that he instructs there, and none after that. Xeltran (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How hard is it to get that we need something about the subject of the redirect on the article it is redirecting in order for the redirect not to be deleted? Questions about notability and such have been addressed on 2 or more AFDs about the subject and it was determined that it the subject is not notable. Any other questions on the notability of the subject must be directed at WP:DRV. –Howard the Duck 05:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete aside from any notability arguments, the redirect target doesn't even mention this person, therefore it should be deleted as a confusing/no context redirect. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 16:01, 6 March 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) 12:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NOTABILITY, redirects to a school article wherein no background for such person is provided. Xeltran (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete aside from any notability arguments, the redirect target doesn't even mention this person, therefore it should be deleted as a confusing/no context redirect. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 16:01, 6 March 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) 12:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Redirects to a "Founding Members" section while not giving any background to the redirect/article. Xeltran (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete aside from any notability arguments, the redirect target only mentions this org once, with no explanation or clarification; therefore the redirect should be deleted as a confusing/no context redirect. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 16:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this page provides no context for what ATLETA may be; instead, it should be linking to a page that elucidates the term. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:03, 7 March 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) 12:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main article was deleted as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aaron_Lubrico but remade into an redirect. Fails WP:NOTABILITY and others noms in the discussion. Xeltran (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. THF (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete aside from any notability arguments, the redirect target only mentions this person in the caption of a picture in the infobox, therefore it should be deleted as a confusing/no context redirect. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 16:03, 6 March 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) 12:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main article was deleted as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Guanzon but remade into a redirect. Fails WP:NOTABILITY and other noms in the discussion. Xeltran (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete aside from any notability arguments, the redirect target doesn't mention this person except in the caption of a picture), therefore it should be deleted as a confusing/no context redirect. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 16:16, 6 March 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 CSD G4 by User:Akradecki (non admin close) B.Wind (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main article was already deleted as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Razhel_Mengullo but remade into a redirect. Fails WP:NOTABILITY and other noms from the discussion. Xeltran (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No objection I just closed the AFD and have no opinion on the redirect. MBisanz ^talk 21:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete aside from any notability arguments, the redirect target only mentionx this person in the caption for a picture, therefore it should be deleted as a confusing/no context redirect. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 16:17, 6 March 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 Not applicable. This is an article and not a redirect so RFD does not apply. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This redirects to a school article. The page itself is blank but is categorized under "Biographies of Living Persons" even though nothing about the article itself is written. Fails WP:NOTABILITY, a AFD can been seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seth_Jego_Balibalos Xeltran (talk) 11:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete aside from any notability arguments, the redirect target only mentions this person in the caption of a picture, therefore it should be deleted as a confusing/no context redirect. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 16:17, 6 March 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 - SNOW, anyone? (NAC) flaminglawyer 01:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is going to type this into Wikipedia? I'm sure no-one can actually spell it properly. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 10:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as the target article does say he stood in the election. There is no need for a user to be able to type the whole search term accurately as it will come up as a suggestion, along with several spelling variations, after half a dozen or so letters. PaulJones (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is the gentleman's actual name, a reasonable redirect. In addition to PaulJones's argument, I note that this might be cut-and-pasted by someone looking for our article on him; they should be pointed to the right place without having to search. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Actual subtopic of the target article. I'm sure I have this watchlisted solely because I cut'n'pasted the name out of some newspaper article and into the Wikipedia search field, which directed me to where I needed to go – a great example of the redirect system doing its job properly. Skomorokh 18:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Skomorokh. That's very very funny, and someone should submit it to WP:DYK. THF (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- it serves a valid function in linking together names involved in a real event. AnonMoos (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - name actually gets more mention as a character that appears in the Monty Python sketch Election Night Special, which is in fact the inspiration for the (real life) candidate's name change to his current name. I contend that the Python sketch is the primary use of this, but I'm not sure that the trivial mention in the current target of the redirect would legitimately prompt a disambiguation page instead. Right now, I think dabification might be the better way to go here. B.Wind (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Per B.Wind, I agree that the redirect should point to Election Night Special--I didn't realize that individual Monty Python sketches got their own articles. I have added a paragraph about the Crosby by-election to that article. THF (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule, they don't (a few articles about Python sketches have been deleted over the past couple of years), ironically, the real-life candidate that got significant coverage in reliable sources reinforced the sketch's notability outside of the TV show itself. This is not the first time that it has happened (see Toad the Wet Sprocket). B.Wind (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For the record, this page got 1444 hits in February 2009. THF (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  rdunnPLIB  09:28, 2 March 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 as G6. Cenarium (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resulted from moving community maintained wikibook to a more descriptive name. Deletion is so that the prefix search being used can be kept clean and non-redundant. Cerejota (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per citerion G6 (uncontroversial maintenance). The public books interface is only a few days old, so nobody's going to be depending on the original title. I'd suggest making some shortcut for the current title, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:43, 1 March 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 NAC. §hawnpoo 03:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any similar redirs to 20xx in the US ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No US subsection in target article. THF (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know if the content was there when the nomination and votes were made, however there is now content about release of the 1940 US census and a NASA supercomputer which appears relevant. Given that some content is there, this is a logical redirect as part of the Years in the United States series. --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:45, 7 March 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 as prevsuious merges have been undone, until and unless covered per editorial consensus at the target page. I'll move the talk page to Talk:Masturbation/Archive Traumatic masturbatory syndrome. Tikiwont (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These formerly held an article on a supposed medical condition that was held to be non-notable and subsequently redirected. However, the target does not discuss "Traumatic masturbatory syndrome" at all, and seems unlikely to do so in the future. Both should be deleted for lack of any context and content. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleteboth per nom. Mike R (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Retain'. There is a new study about traumatic masturbatory syndrome which was recently done in Australia that replicates the findings of the original published article. Something about this will probably be added to the Wikipedia article soon.4.154.211.12 (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inappropriate redirect as it is not a common term and the link does not mention it. Speculation over future content is unnecessary. Should the stable article content contain discussion of this in the future, the redirect may be considered for reinstatement. --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom and Rogerb67. If/when the subject is discussed in the Masturbation article, then the redirects can be recreated. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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