The result of the discussion was Keep, as redirect to Transsexualism#Alternative terminology The original AfD discussion was clear enough, the current AfD did not result in consensus to have a separate article either and there is agreement here that the redirect(s) lead readers to a place where the term is being discussed. Such a redirect does not necessarily imply that the terms are completely synonymous. Tikiwont (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Harry Benjamin Syndrome → Transsexualism (links to redirect) (stats) 

Please delete Harry Benjamin Syndrome and the redirect. I am one of the original major contributors, and we knew each other off-line. Yes, I admit we had an agenda we wanted to push. We are the guardians and custodians of the term HBS. C.G., T.B., J.P., myself, and several others coined the term and did a lot of the original research. The problem is that a group of TGs who dislike those with our condition and want to control us started editing our page. There was a dispute, and it was recommended that the page be redirected. That contradicts the spirit of the original article and contributes to a myth and bigotry. Every person with HBS considers it a medical condition, only a few do. Every person with HBS by definition wants/needs corrective surgery, but there are many who call themselves "non-op 'transsexuals'" (an oxymoron by the way). We know that HBS is not another word for TS because *WE* coined the word and invented the definition. It is arrogant, misleading, and self-serving for them to say it is a form of TSism, when WE coined the term for our condition, and WE live with the condition, not they. So we have the right to say what our condition is and what it is not, since we invented the terminology (and are even seeking legal protections for the term around the world).

There was no real consensus reached in the dispute. Only transgendered persons and those biased towards them aginst us, who opposed persons with HBS, participated. There are many of us who would have objected, and we can provide proof that fits Wikipedia criteria, but we needed more time. The odds were deliberately stacked against us by editors with an agenda - the opposite of ours. No true consensus can ever be reached at this point due to TG editors who keep interfering in HBS matters, despite the HBS community never being a part of the TG/TS community. So, the only fair way to resolve this would be to completely delete the article and make it as if it was never written. Having NO article on Wikipedia is better than having the misleading redirect, that is harming the very things my own organization is seeking to achieve. So the redirect was done as continuing abuse by TG editors against HBS editors and as a form of retaliation.

So, due it being created to push a view point, it being edited to push the opposive POV, it being original research, and the redirect to transsexualism is inaccurate and serves only to harm persons with HBS, the only responsible thing is to delete the entire article, including the redirect. HBS is not used to refer to transsexualism but by a fringe element who misuse our term and is therefore not newsworthy. If I made an article falsely claiming to be the President of the US, you would not redirect my article to one about Barack Obama, but would delete it. So please use the same common sense here and completely delete the article.--74.124.187.76 (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

In addition, the rational for deletion is as follows, using the list on the RFD page:

2. The redirect might cause confusion. The redirect would cause people looking for information about HBS to wrongly assume it is a type of transsexualism. It is better that they not find it on Wikipedia at all.

3. The redirect is offensive. Everyone who has HBS as the ones who created the term intended it to mean consider it to be offensive, if not defamation, to call us transsexuals when we have the intersex condition of HBS.

4. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange. That is rougly the situation here. Calling a HBS victim a TS is like calling an apple an orange. Some would argue that it is Apples and Pears, but a Pear is still not an Apple, despite similar color and texture.

7. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name. If the transgenders and transsexuals editing the article are correct, then it would still not be appropriate, since nobody really actually uses HBS to refer to transsexuals but a obscure and fringe subset of a non-popular minority.

9. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject. The target article contains no references to this condition (and we are glad it does not). There are a lot of things which we can say about HBS and it being a biological intersex condition, which does not apply to transsexualism.

So, we request speedy deletion of the article and the redirect link. --74.124.187.76 (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So the nom wants RfD to try to settle an edit war that should have been settled by the cited AfD four months from now? This smacks of forum shopping, which is discouraged by Wikipedia policy. A quick read of the target article (Transsexualism) reveals the following statement (for repeating here, citations have been removed): Harry Benjamin's Syndrome [11] is the term that some people prefer rather than transsexualism, as it follows the naming conventions of intersex conditions. Because the term is discussed in some detail in the target, and because this nomination has the strong scent of forum shopping, I urge a Speedy Keep. This needs to be settled either on the discussion page of the target article or within the appropriate WikiProject, not here. B.Wind (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no forum shopping, which is merely a dig to discredit me, against the personal attack policy, and that is what happened to us, not the other way around. HBS is NOT another name for transsexualism, so apparently, you read nothing I have said. I represent the HBSIF, and we had NO opportunity to discuss the article 4 months ago. We have been effectively shut out of the discussion. I was sick back then. Everyone who participated was not neutral. They all stood to gain by redirecting and were not neutral. There was a clear conflict of interest. They have blocked our every attempt to edit and have spread nothing but lies about our condition which is NOT TSism. Just because some people misuse the term that way doesn't mean that is the correct definition. The TGs have a conspiracy to harm people with this condition. There was no consensus, just meat-puppeting by biased persons. I was sick, the president of our foundation lives in Spain and doesn't speak the best English. Interestingly, the Spanish article makes it clear that HBS is not TSism and has NO redirect. So why no conflict on the sister Wikipedia site? I am one of the original authors and represent the rest, and we should have the right to have it totally deleted as if it was never written.--74.124.187.76 (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't want to solve any edit war, we only ask for a speedy deletion. That is all. There is nothing personal about it, and I care nothing about the conflict. I just want OUR term that WE invented and which has pending legal protection removed from Wikipedia. That is the easiest way to settle this permanently. Only those with a POV wish to keep the lying redirect that falsely accuses us of TSism. I have never been a part of the TG nor TS community, and no doctor has diagnosed me with either. But I have been diagnosed with HBS and my doctor made it clear I am not a TS. If it wasn't for HIPAA, you could ask her.--74.124.187.76 (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please keep in mind that we must follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Because the redirect was established by community consensus as a result of an Articles for Discussion process, there won't be a speedy deletion; furthermore, it would be inappropriate to overturn that consensus here at WP:RfD. If you can demonstrate that you were the originator of the term and that the term has not gained acceptance anywhere, I'd recommend going through WP:OTRS and see what they can do. This is not the proper forum for your cause. B.Wind (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and close. This term is discussed at the target, apparently properly so. That alone is reason enough to keep it. Moreover, this page is not a process for winning edit wars, so the nomination ought to be dismissed. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot believe what I am reading. Calling our medical condition TSism when it is not is slander. And keeping our term on your site when we don't want it there is trademark abuse. We are being abused by people like you and the anti-HBS bigots. We tried to resolve it there and nobody will listen to us. Keeping this article and redirecting it to a page that we are not in order to harm us is in VIOLATION OF WIKIPEDIA. So you are taking the side of ANTI-HBS BIGOTS against us? What is in it for you? In addition, most of the "editors" of the article appear to be MEAT PUPPETS, and Meat Puppeting is violation of the rules. If you don't completely delete the article, YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF WIKIPEDIA RULES! You are, not us, and not those on the dissenting side, but the bigots who leave it up. Why are you taking a position? Why are you determined to destroy me and my people and falsely accuse us of being transsexuals or other types of homosexuals when we are not?--74.124.187.76 (talk) 05:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why you keep pretending I am here to win an edit war. Reread points 2,3,4,7,9 of the reasons to delete on the RFD page. There was no consensus, just editors with an agenda, and I can prove corruption. I was SICK during the time, and I was one of the writers, so you need to at least undelete the article and give me time to get credible links. My search turns up quite a few. But it has to be without the redirect so I can make it a credible article, which can be done. And you need to teach me how to include footnotes and all.--74.124.187.76 (talk) 05:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and possibly retarget to Transsexualism#Alternative terminology as that is the section where the term is discussed; that section also indicates that there is not full agreement on use of this term, that is, it is not the universal synonym for transsexualism that the article-head level redirect would suggest. -- ToE^T 07:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepI am one of the people who was involved in making the decision to redirect the page. A well known person in the HBS blogosphere Joanne Proctor was involved in the discussion as well. The discussion was open for a good long time. All views were considered and a friendly administrator set the redirect. Everything done was proper. As for all of the other comments about a TG conspiracy... Give me a break. Can someone seriously think that everyone here is in on a conspiracy?--Hfarmer (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. An involved editor has started Harry Benjamin's Syndrome during this discussion. That article has the exact same problems of non-notability and a complete lack of reliable sources that led to the earlier AfD. It is pure original research. This pseudo-medical neologism has not been recognized by established medical personnel in reliable published sources. It is, quite simply, a made-up disease, part of a fringe disease movement. I propose that whatever is determined here be applied to that new article as well. Jokestress (talk) 08:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... which should be to turn that into a redirect with the same target and protect it (as the nominated redirect is, the last time I checked). Agreed as it seems someone with an agenda is trying to perform an end run on consensus. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The only reliable source provided to date [1] uses the term synonymously: "the transsexual disorder known as Harry Benjamin Syndrome." This is an excellent argument for a redirect to Transsexualism. Jokestress (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. Very poor argument. To rely on what a journalist writes about a completely new term is a very poor argument.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.224.215 (talk • contribs)
• Keep. The new article provides more than enough reliable sources for this patient advocacy movement. I am sorry to say but this is not about your personal beliefs, this is about FACTS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.224.215 (talk • contribs)
• Comment. TheSome IP editors commenting and voting here are single-purpose accounts actively involved in promoting this term off-wiki, so there is a WP:COI issue. Jokestress (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not counting this one, who is a regular at WP:AfD who has no such agenda (check my contributions... or my talk page... if you doubt me). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Jokestress, in all due respect, is the one who has the conflict of interest and is the one bringing personal beliefs into this. HBS is NOT a transsexual disorder, and whoever is saying that is guilty of defamation. And I know I am not running a single purpose account as alleged because I've edited other things like things related to electronics, various words I have looked up only to find glaring typos, and the like.--74.124.187.76 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the same meat puppets are here, against Wikipedia rules.--74.124.187.76 (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. More sources showing that the terms are synonymous, supporting a redirect: "Other people with less spectacular transgender conditions such as Harry Benjamin's Syndrome (transsexuality)..." [2] "Transsexualism is sometimes known as Harry Benjamin's syndrome (HBS)." [3] "Harry Benjamin discovered the syndrome we call Transsexualism." [4] The article on Transsexualism already discusses the term, so a redirect should be done per consensus on Harry Benjamin Syndrome. Jokestress (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Close - this discussion has gotten well away from the purview of RfD. At the top of WP:DRV is a statement: Deletion review is not WP:AfD part two. Neither is WP:RfD. This is not the place for you to continue your battles. We're here to determine the fate of a redirect, and aside from two editors and their followers who wish to continue their battle onto another forum, there is community consensus that cannot be overturned. Closing admin, please close this speedily as this is not the place for their squabble. Furthermore, the behavior of the editors who have been trying to do an end run around consensus (including the creation of two new redirects with similar titles, the latter of which has been since commandeered by someone writing a counter-to-consensus article instead of working with the other editors with regards to the target article in the first page) is in need of admin review. There is a fire in here, and it needs to be put out... 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- As others have said, this is way beyond the scope of an AfD. The issues at play here are simple though. The phrase in question is discussed in depth in the target article. It's a reasonably, even likely, search term. It's not perfect or entirely correct but, then again, neither are many other redirects. Mispellings anybody? Let this stand until there's a better place to retarget this redirect to. —mako๛ 16:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the consensus was at the discussion that the term was a synonym or near synonym or possibly an included class. The reason given for deletion here is sufficiently opposed to WP:OR , WP:OWN, and multiple other policies that this request really should have been rejected out of hand--except for the advisability of having a discussion in order to make the matter yet clearer. WP is not for resolving academic disputes. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 26 September 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. Killiondude (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rick faced → Rickrolling (links to redirect) (stats) 

This term has never been used for rickrolling. Turns up nothing on Google but false positives. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not mentioned in the target, I can't find any good source linking the terms and no other reasonable use. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - not sure if it has any relevance (probably not) but in my researches I have found that Rick Face redirects to Billy Ripken (where it is also not mentioned). Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  File:Ripkenffcard.jpg shows the reason why. The bat in the picture says "fuck face" but many people have listed it in catalogs and such as "rick face." I've edited to the article on Billy Ripken to make this clear. This is a separate issue. —mako๛ 04:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per Hammer. This doesn't seem to be used anywhere. —mako๛ 04:46, 20 September 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. Killiondude (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ashley roll → Rickrolling (links to redirect) (stats) 

Not mentioned in target. "Ashley roll" is apparently a mashup of Rickroll and Ashley Tisdale, so non-notable that it shouldn't be anywhere near WP. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not mentioned in the target, I can't find any good source linking the terms and no other reasonable use. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- No incoming links, almost no traffic. Implausible search term and nothing on a quick search except a YouTube video with 6000 views. Unless something changes, this will never be mentioned in the target article. It should go. —mako๛ 04:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedily deleted by User:Athaenara: nominator was originator of the redirect (non-admin close). B.Wind (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Bulgarian military aircraft → List of former Bulgarian military aircraft (links to redirect) (stats) 

Redirect to a list of former Bulgarian military aircraft, not all Bulgarian military aircraft. 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 15:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Delete+Nom redirect to a list of former Bulgarian military aircraft, not all Bulgarian military aircraft. --3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 16:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now as a valid (and likely) search term. The better option would be to create a standalone list article that covers nom's objection (one of a set redirecting to a subset). B.Wind (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to DMB page between List of former Bulgarian military aircraft and List of active Bulgarian military aircraft as more helpful use. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreeing with Bridgeplayer. This will give a disambiguation page with two blue links, which is both sufficient and efficient. B.Wind (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Moot - Speedily deleted because nom and originator of the redirect are one and the same. Closing. B.Wind (talk) 01:21, 20 September 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 Keep. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix it again Tony → Fiat Automobiles (links to redirect) (stats) 

Redirect with no support in the article to which it points. No reliable sources indicate that this is anything beyond a neologism. TNXMan 14:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually that qualifies under G10 on WP:SPEEDY so I nominated Fix it again Tony for speedy deletion. --3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 16:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speedily , this is inproper humor --Typ932 ^T·C 16:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As the term was cited and reported in many reliable sources (one of which, Newsweek, is cited in the recently-removed section that I have just restored in the target article - there are many other sources for it over the past quarter century), I removed the speedy delete tag as it does not qualify for CSD G10. As a redirect, it would be more effective if the target included a little more mention of the car's reliability in the U. S. (and the cause for its withdrawal from the American market). As Fiat's role in the transformation of Chrysler in the past year is highly significant, its previous U.S. venture should get more mention in the article - which means that the nominated redirect should be kept. B.Wind (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Should we add these clown terms to every car article give me o break, this should be DELETED VERY FAST schedule --Typ932 ^T·C 17:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest you'd read the cited Newsweek article before reverting for the third time. If anything, there needs a section about the reliability (and controversy) with its U.S. cars that forced Fiat out of the market in the 1980s (not putting it in while listing all the european awards violates WP:NPOV). B.Wind (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suggest you use the methods told in the delete template and try to think something before adding these jokes, if we allow this then we need add jokes to other manufacturers also, Im sure Ill found sources for them --Typ932 ^T·C 17:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I have noted, Newsweek doesn't print or report jokes. Please read the cited article before you start violating Wikipedia prolicies and guidelines as you have just threatened to do. (Note WP:POINT - but criticisms of automobile manufacturers are permitted if they are presented in a NPOV - objective - way). B.Wind (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have read it before you noticed it, jokes like FIX IT AGAIN are not objective way to criticy and section header like "US slang use of "Fiat" is not very clear, this is not slang book --Typ932 ^T·C 17:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please read WP:NPOV again. Had you followed up by reading the articles mentioning Fiat's reliability problems in the U.S. (many of them online since Fiat's interactions with Chrysler were going on in 2008), you would have enough information to flesh out the section properly and state - with citations - "While Fiat's difficulties with its North American cars were well documented, the consistency and reliability of its products have vastly improved since then." (this would then dovetail into the awards that are plainly displayed without the needed context). Since this is a redirect deletion discussion, I'd urge any continuation of discussing the target article be done on its talk page. B.Wind (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You dont seem to understand that the problem is the joke not the info, read again above text and your talk page, is it really so hard to understand that this is not joke book, this is encyclopedia with sourced facts preferably other than US sources also, not slang or joke book --Typ932 ^T·C 18:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Speedy declined, after reading B. Wind's rationale, I don't see that this is a blatant attack page. Let's discuss it on this RfD and come to a conclusion this way. Killiondude (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is nothing to discuss this is BLATANT JOKE AND ATTACK it must be SPEEDY DELETED, this has nothing to do with the info but the joke must go --Typ932 ^T·C 18:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring. By now all of us have been violating wp:3rr. We all deserve 3 hour blocks by now. So no more reverting. --3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 18:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add redirects like FIX OR REPAIR DAILY,Biggest Metal Waste,Loads Of Trouble Usually Serious,Plenty Of Receipts. Sorry, Can't Have Everything,Some Ass Actually Boughtit! and so on???

--Typ932 ^T·C 18:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what says Killiondude should we start adding these redirects? --Typ932 ^T·C 19:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Mostly as per B.Wind above. This is common phrase in wide usage that gets traffic over time. I'm going to avoid getting into any the edit warring on this subject but I think it makes perfect sense to keep this redirect and, if there are citations to back it up, a mention in the article as well. Of course, the same would go for any similar redirects to and about other car companies as well. —mako๛ 03:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirects are not bound by NPoV. If the other terms are in popular use they could be added. Otherwise adding them will be WP:POINT. Rich Farmbrough, 17:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

There are many which are in popular use, so I think if we allow this we need to add much more these funny redirects...also other than car articles. I have always though this is encyclopedia not a humor site....I think that not so many is finding Fiat article with this search term.... --Typ932 ^T·C 18:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnecessary.--Ridge Runner (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, it's a derogatory backronym, but its use has been covered significantly in reliable sources, and it should be mentioned in the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. I have restored the section in question on the target, with a request that it not be removed until after the close of this discussion. It would look better if the section were expanded to a more general overview of Fiat's experience in the North American market and the reliability problems that caused the withdrawal of Fiat from the U.S. market for two decades. As it stands now, we have two POV sections at odds, and there should be something to bridge them as presenting the awards without context is as much a violation of WP:NPOV as giving the acronym its own section: both are accorded undue weight. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This should be removed ASAP. Its not necessary. Agree with Typ932 reasoning above. (G87) 21:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the purpose of redirects is to enable readers to find information. Since this is a widely used, and easily sourceable, term there is no need to delete it. I have restored the relevant section (but rewritten for clarity); since it is sourced its removal should be the subject of talk page consensus not edit warring. BTW this looks a good Italian source. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; the good Italian source just comments the US articles, its not genuine Italian artcle, did yoy read it? and secondly noone will look Fiat with this term, it big international company and is easily find with its own short name Fiat --Typ932 ^T·C 06:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As user Typ932 notes, should we add such "common" slang terms to other makes e.g. Fix Or Repair Daily? No. It's not relevent and can be seen as an attack on the company. I don't agree with user Bridgeplayer above who seems to think jokes are relevant information. This should be removed without doubt and ASAP source or no source. (G87) 00:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - please take time to read my edit which is now well sourced and balanced. Talk page consensus may get you what you wish; edit warring will not. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your edit and still disagree. Your reference even states it as being a "Joke". And how am I edit warring? (G87) 01:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that your first edits in over a year were reverts as an edit war was going on, one that Bridgeplayer was trying to squelch by actually making a constructive contribution? See WP:Edit war. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you are best to say something with IP count? --Typ932 ^T·C 20:01, 22 September 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. Jafeluv (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Creepy Richard → Aphex Twin (links to redirect) (stats) 

Implausible typo or misnomer. Google search suggests this is not a nickname. Lp1234 (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- As per the nominator. This gets almost no traffic and seems at least as likely to send people to the wrong place as the right place. —mako๛ 02:45, 20 September 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. Killiondude (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Sussman → Gerald Jay Sussman (links to redirect) (stats) 

Implausible typo or misnomer. Why is there a definite article before this surname? Lp1234 (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional. If a single reliable source shows Sussman referring to himself as "The Sussman", insert the cited information into the target article and keep this redirect; if none exists, delete this. Blogs on which he participates cannot count here as many blogs also have impostors.B.Wind (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Changed recommendation - see below. B.Wind (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I know Sussman personally and I've never heard him call himself "The Sussman". In any case, it sounds more like something others (and students in particular) would call him. I'm happy to ask around but my guess is that this isn't widespread. I'd think my weak preference is to retarget to Sussman. —mako๛ 02:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A Google search of "The Sussman" yields many more instances of "the Sussman" than that of the radio personality (more common: "The Sussman Group", "the Sussman family", "The Sussman Company", even the Sussman Anomaly - at least over the first few pages of the search results). The redirect implies that he is often referred as "The Sussman," but I find no confirmation of this. This is better deleted as having a potential for confusion. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too vague. As IP has indicated, there are too many options for targets for the current redirect as Gerald Jay Sussman was not called "The Sussman" in reliable sources, and the phrase "the Sussman" pops up most often in Google searches as part of longer names or phrases, like "the Sussman Group" and "the Sussman Company." B.Wind (talk) 02:16, 27 September 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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Second Studio Album → The Fray (album) (links to redirect) (stats)
• Untitled Third Album → Album (links to redirect) (stats)

A couple more way to generic redirects to be useful. Unlikely search terms, but anyone who was might only get frustrated by where it goes. --Wolfer68 (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Way too general. There's no possible correct target for these until someone releases an album called Second Studio Album. —mako๛ 02:39, 20 September 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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Перла → Gümüş (links to redirect) (stats) 

Delete Перла means pearl in Bulgarian, its Bulgarian language page bg:Перла is a about pearls, the Bulgarian page for the TV series is at bg:Перла (сериал) and this is not English, so unless you are Bulgarian, you won't use this as a search term, and if you are, you should be using it on the Bulgarian Wikipedia, not the English one, even then you're probably looking for pearls, not a TV series. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 07:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The redirect target is a Turkish-language television series. This is the English Wikipedia. I don't believe we need Bulgarian-language redirects for Turkish-language works on the English Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Non-English redirects are appropriate for non-English words, place names, concepts, etc. This is pretty complicated and clearly not that. Also, except for a spike a few days ago, the redirects gets zero traffic. It can safely go. —mako๛ 02:28, 20 September 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. Killiondude (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Forced abortion → Abortion (links to redirect) (stats) 

Delete This would be better as a redlink. I pretty sure the target has no information on forced abortions--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Forced abortions → One-child policy (links to redirect) (stats)

Comment. I have appended Forced abortions to your nomination, as clearly the two should share the same fate. A Wikipedia search on "forced abortion" shows the topic arising in many articles. It there is no article or section dedicated to the subject in general, then redlinks are preferable and they should be deleted. -- ToE^T 04:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to One-child policy#Human rights - in the absence of a stand-alone article, this section of one-child policy seems to go into sufficient detail to merit it as a target. —Zach425 ^talk/contribs 06:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of appropriate target; One-child policy#Human rights is too narrow a target. No one seems to have stubbed out a a section on this topic yet, so a redlink could help. -- ToE^T 22:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I agree that this should have its own article (or a subsection in the abortion article). Unless someone wants to do either of these things now, I tend to agree with the nominator that a red link is best. —mako๛ 02:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with mako above. There's no obvious search target, so ending up on the search page would be the best option right now. Jafeluv (talk) 06:51, 28 September 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. Killiondude (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The AFL Unifrom (was moved to) → AFL Uniform (which both now redirect to) → Australian_rules_football_culture#Clothing (links to redirect)(stats) 

Left over from page move, don't really think it's a likely search term, not with both the "The" and the spelling error. The article itself was not really possible to use, so it is now a redirect to the culture page which already covers the uniform topic in more detail. AFL Uniform should remain, it's a valid search term. The-Pope (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ugh. This is going to be fun as AFL can refer to the Australian Football League, Arena Football League, and any of at least seven American Football Leagues (including the 1960-1969 edition that merged into the National Football League. Well, the first nominee would be an easy one: there is an unneeded article and there are transposed letters - while either would merit keeping, I think the combination pushes it closer to delete territory, albeit weakly. The second is a bit more problematic - should Wikipedia ends up with an article on the history of professional (American) football uniforms, it would be dominated by the NFL and the AFL that merged into it... and a redirect to it would be most definitely needed at that point. If that's the case, a disambiguation page or list article should be created here instead. But for the time being, I don't see the harm in keeping the redirect as long as there is something to indicate that anybody looking for unforms for the other AFLs should see the particular article on that league (with many American football league teams, the articles have infoboxes showing the uniforms used by the team). B.Wind (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • After looking at the target, I've noticed that AFL Uniform is itself a redirect. This chain must be broken - delete all three redirects as the term is too vague and Australian Football League uniform would be a much more worthwhile option. B.Wind (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yikes! There's no traffic at all to the redirect at question so I agree that deleting is probably the best option. —mako๛ 02:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes it's a mess. I came across The AFL Unifrom on a new page list. I moved it to AFL Uniform and then realised that the information was aleady covered better in the culture article, so I redirected both (avoiding a double redirect). Given the ambiguity around the term AFL, delete the lot.The-Pope (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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