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 Wrong Forum. Rehman 13:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• David Myatt → Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Myatt no longer Muslim (see article) so (?) re-direct from Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt to David Myatt, so that David Myatt is main article. Pointyhat9 (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Close discussion-What you're looking for would be Wikipedia:Requested moves, not RfD.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an 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 Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Proto-Eustace → Courage the Cowardly Dog (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Unlikely search term, can't find any references mentioning Proto-Eustace in the Courage the Cowardly Dog article. JJ98 (Talk) 17:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – It is not an unlikely search term. Proto-Eustace must have been a character or something from the programme. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems to be a minor character in the program -- Lenticel ^(talk) 00:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why it's a redirect and not an article. McLerristarr | Mclay1 02:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the Production section of this wikia would make things clearer. The character belongs to an obscure and unofficial short.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if the character is indeed what the above website mentions. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an 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 Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Proto-Muriel → Courage the Cowardly Dog (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Unlikely search term, can't find any references related to Proto-Muriel in the Courage the Cowardly Dog article. JJ98 (Talk) 17:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – It is not an unlikely search term. Proto-Eustace must have been a character or something from the programme. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems to be an obscure character.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why it's a redirect and not an article. McLerristarr | Mclay1 02:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the Production section of this wikia would make things clearer. The character belongs to an obscure and unofficial short.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if the character is indeed what the above website mentions. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an 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 Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ALVIN TOFFLER → Alvin Toffler (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete – unnecessary redirect caused by the creation of an article in which many things were written in capitals. If this is kept, that provides grounds for every article to have a redirect in all capitals. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh. Not a usual reason to delete a redirect; redirects are cheap after all. See WP:RFD#DELETE, of which this is not a standard reason. There's no real danger of someone running around and creating all-caps redirects for every article merely because this one happens to exist. --Jayron32 06:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an implausible typo, which is a very common reason to delete. Redirects from all capitals have been deleted in the past simply for that reason. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--per nom, that must have been a style thing... the Paperback Toffler wrote was all caps, ?"FUTURE SHOCK" was title cover too, iirc. // FrankB 13:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:CHEAP is not a valid reason to keep. Since this is just a caps change, MediaWiki will automatically redirect the page. This is redundant. Rehman 14:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an 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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cu-sect → Template:Cleanup section (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Housekeeping. Another redirect to a template that was deprectated. Plus this redirect is ambiguous anyway so its unlikely to ever be used. Kumioko (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely not--KEEP -- a) the proper forum for this is TFD, not RFD

b) the only reason the template would be depreciated is because a gaggle of ghouls decided to take control of someone else's tools and disrespect their time (including future time lost when suddenly a tool no longer works! A BIG NUMBER!), whilst confusing that as useful work... hmmmm sounds just like a government work.... err, (s'cuse me, government employee...) Forgot myself. No such critters. Activity doesn't mean progress. IF and ONLY IF the target template is deleted will you NOT adversely impact the time of people used to using that tool. Little people can depreciate tools all day long, but they are wrong from the outset. Convert the things and go on.

If all the depreciated templates call outs are deleted, then speedy-delete all of it, but far much better yet, change the name to do the same job... make it, and any such "OLD FASHIONED" tool a converted tool... a template that converts to that ultimate 'Utopian Tool' target template... providing that "|section" switch internally.

Be advised, since 2004, I've seen some jackass come up about every 18 months with a better 'Utopian Tool'-- which since templates are near as cheap as redirects means loads of conversations wasting time like these as noms aren't smart enough to not break something which don't need fixed. IMHO said jackasses should be working fixing article deficiencies vice playing with code constructs, or preferences in phrasing (Redirects that is). Sigh... Convert it lazybones. Or leave someone else's tools alone. It's a punching matter to touch another's tools in the workers world, and I wish there were a cyber equivilant. // FrankB 13:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a redirect and not the actual template. --Kumioko (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, RFD is the correct forum for the discussion of template redirects. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, bots will convert as and when needed. Rich Farmbrough, 00:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  

The above is preserved as the archive of an 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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Sect-Cleanup → Template:Cleanup section (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Housekeeping. This redirect only links to a template that is deprecated. Kumioko (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • AGAIN, you're trying to think for another... at four am even you might recall an older phrasing... you're trying to get the damn page saved, falling off your chair cause you're so tired and f***@W#Ee!!! Sect-Cleanup is coming back as a redlink because some shithead deleted it... a perfectly good tool with a mnemonic name easy to remember. The fucker ought to be shot... otherwise... same rant
• Absolutely not--KEEP -- a) the proper forum for this is TFD, not RFD

b) the only reason the template would be depreciated is because a gaggle of ghouls decided to take control of someone else's tools and disrespect their time (including future time lost when suddenly a tool no longer works! A BIG NUMBER!), whilst confusing that as useful work... hmmmm sounds just like a government work.... err, (s'cuse me, government employee...) Forgot myself. No such critters. Activity doesn't mean progress. IF and ONLY IF the target template is deleted will you NOT adversely impact the time of people used to using that tool. Little people can depreciate tools all day long, but they are wrong from the outset. Convert the things and go on.

If all the depreciated templates call outs are deleted, then speedy-delete all of it, but far much better yet, change the name to do the same job... make it, and any such "OLD FASHIONED" tool a converted tool... a template that converts to that ultimate 'Utopian Tool' target template... providing that "|section" switch internally.

Be advised, since 2004, I've seen some jackass come up about every 18 months with a better 'Utopian Tool'-- which since templates are near as cheap as redirects means loads of conversations wasting time like these as noms aren't smart enough to not break something which don't need fixed. IMHO said jackasses should be working fixing article deficiencies vice playing with code constructs, or preferences in phrasing (Redirects that is). Sigh... Convert it lazybones. Or leave someone else's tools alone. It's a punching matter to touch another's tools in the workers world, and I wish there were a cyber equivilant. // FrankB 13:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm all I can say is...ok. I think you misunderstand my meaning here. There are zero articles or any other page linking to this except the 1 page it redirecting too. Most of the other redirects I left alone but there where a couple. Including this one, that are so ambiguous that its unlikely that anyone is going to try and link to it (other than maybe once a year or the person who created it). We have literally thousands of meaningless redirects, orphaned documetation and sandboxes to pages that no longer exist, deprecated templates, etc. There is just no reason to keep an ambiguous redirect like this one that doesnt link to any articles IMO. BTW thats the nature of Wikipedia. It continues to evolve and expand. Also what seems like wasted time cleaning out the closets and the couch cushions and tossing out deprecated templates, ambiguous redirects and the like is needed to cut down on the labyrinth of uneeded pages so that the ones that actually get used are clear and accessible. --Kumioko (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, RFD is the correct forum for the discussion of template redirects. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, bots will convert as and when needed. (Although <Sect.. blah> is less used than <Blah-sect>.) Rich Farmbrough, 00:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  

The above is preserved as the archive of an 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 delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sarah Palin presidential campaign, 2012 → Sarah Palin (links to redirect • history • stats) 

This has been subject of a back-and-forth CSD-tagging war, so I'm bringing it here for consideration instead. The basic issue is that Sarah Palin has not announced any 2012 presidential campaign or even the intention to conduct one. As such, it is purely speculative material. A valid objection to deletionis that it redirects to an article section that deals directly with the subject of that very speculation. In my opinion, this objection doesn't overcome the fact that such WP:CRYSTALBALL redirects can misinform readers by their very existence. In the absence of concrete information, deletion is the way to go. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Possible to be linked or sought after, and by directing readers to the appropriate section in the appropriate article, it actually cuts down on recreation and makes clear the truths. That she has not actually, in any way, indicated she intends to run for President is moot. People will search for the idea or term, and the redirect serves an important purpose in directing them to correct information. --Jayron32 05:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt that our casual readers will look for this information by searching on such a formalized title as "Sarah Palin presidential campaign, 2012". Only regular editors of the encyclopedia would ever think in terms of such a title. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with that assessment, adding that Wikipedia is not a search engine. Further more, do search engine crawlers follow redirects? Because if not I can see this becoming an issue : in the eventuality that the Wikipedia page containing the redirect comes on top of the results when searching for those keywords (like most Wikipedia pages), then this would be more than misleading. «CharlieEchoTango» 05:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Purely speculative and definitely misleading. Palin is Palin, and Palin's potential presidential bid is another matter. The redirect or the article can definitely be created when/if it happens. «CharlieEchoTango» 05:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as redirect unless/until she announces she is not running. It's a likely search term until then. Kelly ^hi! 05:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no campaign. There is no crystal ball. To claim that there is a campaign with the existence of this redirect, is a hoax. If this remains as a redirect, it sets a dangerous precedent.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it doesn't exist. Also, it is of no value to the project. Readers are unlikely to search for it so there is no purpose to using it as a placeholder. Not that it makes much difference, because nobody is going to find it. I would change my mind if we had a hit count that suggests anyone (other than us and the edit warring parties) is clicking on the redirect. In that case it's a useful navigational tool even if there is no campaign. If and when she were to have a campaign, even an unofficial but sourced one, we could create an article at that point. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Redirects are cheap, and I suspect people will and have searched for information on a possible 2012 run for Palin. The target deals with the speculation, so I have no objections. AniMate 06:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation is NOT a campaign. For example, Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2008 does not redirect to Newt Gingrich#Declined 2008 presidential run. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sorry, I wasn't trying to cause trouble by creating this. If it's a problem, just get rid of it. Dabnag (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, crystalballery. We don't have an article on Lankiveil presidential campaign, 2012 either, and we're not waiting for me to formally bow out of the race before deleting it ;-). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, not a plausible search term so no point to the redirect. Create the article if such a campaign should occur. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There is no announced campaign so this redirect is purely speculative in nature. Additionally, while redirects may be cheap they are not a valid means of circumventing long-standing Wikipedia policy. --Allen3 ^talk 15:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WMS, 'nuff said. – ukexpat (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While technically it may be a useful search term, the underlying subject simply does not exist right now. Besides, if you go search for "sarah palain 2012" right now, I get Sarah Palin#Possible 2012 presidential campaign as the first suggestion anyways since the link itself does not exist, so that should suffice. Tarc (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful search term. It was created less than 24 hours ago and hasn't been indexed by search yet. When it's indexed, many likely searches will match some of the words and may get this as first search result with the redirect leading right to the relevant section: "Sarah Palin (redirect from Sarah Palin presidential campaign, 2012)". I piped the redirect here to show how it will function for searchers when it's not tagged for deletion. Renaming the redirect to something like "Sarah Palin possible presidential campaign, 2012" would have the same effect and also be OK by me. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mostly harmless in its current form of "possible campaign".
• HOWEVER, if there is no such redirect for other possible candidates, then it looks like a subtle form of electioneering on wikipedia's part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• REDIRECT INSTEAD to Presidential election pages, as suggested below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not American but I get the impression Obama and Palin are discussed far more as possible 2012 candidates than others, and users are more likely to search for them. Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 redirects to United States presidential election, 2012. Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012#Prospective candidates mentions many names but I haven't found other redirects. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Obama redirect is not so great either, two years before any Presidential election could occur, but it's not quite identical in character. It can be presumed that a sitting President will run for reelection; it's big news when they don't do that. The same cannot be said for any other potential candidate. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barring a disaster of some kind, Obama is safe to assume as a potential candidate for 2012. Redirecting all such redirects to the election article instead of the individuals' articles sounds like a good approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to disagree. It might be "safe to say", but it is not a fact until announced, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The Barack Obama potential run redirect has no relevance whatsoever in my opinion. Are we an encyclopedia of facts or an encyclopedia of speculation and suppositions? Cheers - «CharlieEchoTango» 18:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this idea. No such campaign exists. Baseball Bugs' comment: "looks like a subtle form of electioneering on wikipedia's part" is not relieved with a redirect to the election page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia not a crystal ball Anomalocaris (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. and comments by William S. Saturn and Baseball Bugs - sets a dangerous precedent and gives the appearance of electioneering.--JayJasper (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per nom. (existence of section covering this subject). We have articles on Flat Earth - no one argues we are suggesting that the Earth is flat. Rich Farmbrough, 05:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  

I'm not trying to be mean, but that's the most illogical keep argument I've ever heard. Having an article on a (false) belief is not akin to having a redirect about a nonexistent political campaign.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "Keep, per nom"? This is a deletion nomination so the nominator wants the redirect deleted, not kept. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no campaign as of yet, and is pure speculation. --Confession0791 ^talk 05:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep without prejudice against immediate renomination in the event that the material is removed (via consensus, not edit warring) from the main Palin article. As long as that information remains at the article, the redirect should remain. Furthermore, this is not the correct forum to debate that content. This is a discussion about the redirect. WP:CRYSTALBALL deals with articles and is irrelevant. The purpose of a redirect is so the user doesn't end up looking at search results. If there is useful information we can provide, we should do so. --NYKevin @373, i.e. 07:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons to delete this redirect have absolutely nothing to do with the speculation found on the main page. However, to claim that there is a campaign as this redirect assumes, is potentially libelous.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unhelpful redirect based purely on speculation. And, contrary to NYKevin, WP:CRYSTAL doesn't just deal with articles, it deals with Wikipedia in general, though it almost exclusively applies to articles. Swarm ^X 07:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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