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 Keep (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Help:A Day in the Life → Help!: A Day in the Life (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross namespace redirect. Unlikely that someone would accidentally try to access that from the Help: space. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's not unlikely someone who knows the title, but not Wikipedia's namespaces, would enter "help: a day in the life" in the search box, or use the Firefox shortcut "wp help: a day in the life". I realize this is a cross-namespace redirect, and is #5 on the list at WP:RFD#DELETE, but that list is advisory ("You might want to delete a redirect if...")(my emphasis), not mandatory. In this case, where "Help:" is part of the subject of the article, and including it would misdirect the reader but for the redirect, the redirect should be retained. TJRC (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my rationale at the redirect's talk page:

The redirect appears to be used quite a lot. In December 2009, for example, the article received 1,142 page views and the redirect 228 page views. Not only is 228 a relatively high number for a redirect, but the redirect also accounts for a substantial percentage of searches for the target article. I think an exception to the general rule against CNRs is justified in this case.

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This very redirect is used as an example in the guideline Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(technical_restrictions)#Colons as an appropriate use of a cross-namespace redirect to get around naming restrictions. –Grondemar 08:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it is not a harmful CNR as it is inbound to the mainspace, and is seemingly a plausible search term. --Taelus (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted under criterion G7 by Decltype (talk · contribs). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "making excuses" → Rationalization (fallacy) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

This is a simple blunder. I unintentionally set up this redirect page to mistakenly include quotes in its name. I have now set up a correct redirect without quotes so this is an entirely non-controversial delete. I made the same type of blunder a few weeks back - Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_30#.22Attention_seekers.22--Penbat (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- you can have this speedily deleted by adding ((db-author)) at the top of the page. See WP:CSD G7. TJRC (talk) 20:57, 19 February 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 dabified (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 05:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• City of Trees → Adelaide (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete. The term is very generic. The article in question doesn't make reference to the nickname. A brief google search doesn't give a large number of links for any specific city (I don't offer this as a reason justifying any decision, but merely as evidence to be considered). I realize that the page is old, and as such there might be an argument against deletion. Within Wikipedia, no current pages link to the redirect page though. I believe the number of cities that may claim this nickname make it unsuitable for disambiguation. If consensus is keep, I suggest that it be turned into a disambiguation linking to several cities that may claim that they are "The city of trees." --Gnowor^T_C 19:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the top google hit is Sacramento, and Boise Idaho comes up before Adelaide. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've boldly dabified the page - and will close this discussion as it is no longer a redirect. B.Wind (talk) 05:10, 20 February 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. Jafeluv (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Patricia Driscoll (disambiguation) → Patricia Driscoll (Armed Forces Foundation) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete; DAB page that redirects, a result of a page move. No useful history on article or talk page. Ambiguity with a pre-existing page on the actress Patricia Driscoll resolved with a hatnote on the pre-existing page. TJRC (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - WP:G6, uncontroversial maintenance, as the result of a move. The target isn't a disambiguation. If there are only two similarly titled articles, then hatnotes are all that are needed, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 11:05, 27 February 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. Jafeluv (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The Anarchists (song) → Léo Ferré (links to redirect • history • stats) 

This redirect should be deleted because the target article does not even mention this song. Neelix (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the song is notable, perhaps it should be the priority of an editor to provide information on it with proper sources, rather than to suggest deletion of a redirect. Being a song about the Spanish anarchists, performed in memoriam by a famous French folk singer, the music, French, and Spanish WikiProjects, and the Anarchist Task Force, each have an interest in seeing this elaborated upon. --Cast (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator - The 9th reason to delete a redirect is "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject. In these cases, it is better that the target article contain a redlink pointing back to the redirect." Please feel free to expand the redirect into an article about the song if you believe it to be notable. Either way, this should not remain a redirect. Neelix (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. Had the target been more than a linkfarm, this would have been a valid redirect... but there is no discography article for Mr. Ferré, not a discography section in the target. B.Wind (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:RFD#DELETE 9. Hinders article creation, as detailed above, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 11:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G2 by User:Materialscientist. (non admin close). –Grondemar 20:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 백괴사전 → Uncyclopedia (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete. Too old to be speedily deleted in 2009, this has to be one of the least likely search items that we've encountered at AfD. Needless to say, there's no instance of this set of characters in the target article to give it context. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it was very easy to figure this one out: http://uncyclopedia.kr - this is how you spell the Korean Uncyclopedia, ofcourse since "uncyclopedia" isn't actually translated into different language name, but a culturally/linguistically appropriate rhyme is usually used, it would not be likely that someone could just dump it through a translator and figure it out, since it is double-speak and thus untranslatable, so this is a potentially useful redirect. Now whether it should exist or not is a different issue. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-English redirect where there is no connection between the topic of the target article and the language of the redirect. For example, while München is a valid, useful, and necessary redirect to Munich, Hukum pertama termodinamika (Indonesian) is not a needed redirect to First law of thermodynamics. Previous discussions involving alternative-language redirects have almost always been decided on this basis: see e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Black Falcon. TJRC (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Black Falcon. Despite IP's comment, the lack of any mention of the Korean language or its script meant that there was not apparent connection between the redirect and the English language target. To people unfamiliar with the script, this makes as much sense as a doodle. It is far more likely that a person familiar with the Korean title would be searching on Korean Wikipedia instead of here. B.Wind (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I just noticed that the editor who created the redirect, 에멜무지로 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. This redirect is apparently part of it. I think we can WP:SPEEDY this under WP:CSD G7. In the alternative, I call WP:SNOW. TJRC (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the page under discussion was speedily deleted by User:Materialscientist as CSD G2 (test page), closing discussion as moot. –Grondemar 20:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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