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 retarget to Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In (to avoid a double redirect). JohnCD (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Bippy → Pearls Before Swine (comic strip) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete. The word "bippy" does not appear in the PBS article, so while I'm sure it seemed reasonable at the time, I can't figure out the purpose now. I would almost rather retarget it to Laugh-In, but I think just deleting it is the better course of action. Powers ^T 22:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to disambiguation page - in addition to the 'Laugh-in' catch phrase, we have The Maltese Bippy, and a monkey in The Fairly OddParents: Abra-Catastrophe!. It gets some traffic each month so readers are obviously searching for something so we should make it easy for them. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But would anyone be searching for The Maltese Bippy by searching for "Bippy"? And the other one is a minor character from a single episode of a cartoon. Powers ^T 01:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Laugh-In where it was a popular catchword. No need for disambig with The Maltese Bippy, as that film was far less notable than the show (in my estimate) and far less likely (also in my estimate) to be a target for a search on "Bippy". My guess is that most people would be searching for the source of the word. Herostratus (talk) 06:09, 23 July 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Usculture → Template:US culture (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete. unnecessary redir. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete leftover redirect after template name move. No incoming links to worry about. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:55, 21 July 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Bertrolling → Rickrolling (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Not mentioned in target. Not notable enough to be mentioned in target, either. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. bd2412 T 20:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - looking here it appears to have been a hoax. No reasonable retarget exists. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:52, 21 July 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Bertroll → Rickrolling (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Not mentioned in target. Not notable enough to be mentioned in target, either. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. bd2412 T 20:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - looking here it appears to have been a hoax. No reasonable retarget exists. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:06, 22 July 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Catalina la gorda → Rickrolling (links to redirect • history • stats) 

No idea what this even means. Not mentioned in target. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - apparently some sort of 4chan meme? Anyway; no connection with the target and I can't find another reasonable retarget. Confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:38, 21 July 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Constitutional Challenges of David Kernell Case → Sarah Palin email hack (links to redirect • history • stats) 

This was created as a content fork of Sarah Palin email hack (along with DAVID KERNELL LEGAL BATTLES) - they've been properly redirected to the main article, although frankly I don't see much need for these to exist as redirects. There's very little chance that someone would actually type this seeking to find an article about the email incident, and as it stands only serves as a forum for User:Constitutionguard to insert his preferred article versions instead of working in the Sarah Palin email hack article. — e. ripley\^talk 14:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - someone might look for David Kernell, and that link exists, but this longer name seems completely unlikely --Muhandes (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Muhandes and E. Ripley. The name is just too unhandy. De728631 (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Highly unlikely search term. bd2412 T 20:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Move page to a subpage of Talk:Sarah Palin email hack, provide a link there and delete the resulting redirect since the history would need to be preserved for GFDL reasons - WP:COPYWITHIN refers. If we are certain that no content has at any stage (even if reverted) been merged, then delete is fine. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the content that now exists at Constitutional Challenges of David Kernell Case was copied from David Kernell and David kernell which are now redirects and should stay so, so technically this article is the one that's been copied and I suppose as such this article would be the copyvio. But no, to my knowledge none of the information in any of these is housed at the main article, Sarah Palin email hack. For whatever reason, to my knowledge the author has only sought to create forks rather than work within the main article (possibly because it's under editing restrictions). — e. ripley\^talk 12:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete possibly speedy delete G4, otherwise R3, see below re. "DAVID KERNELL LEGAL BATTLES" - seems to be an echo in here.  Chzz  ►  07:12, 23 July 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• DAVID KERNELL LEGAL BATTLES → Sarah Palin email hack (links to redirect • history • stats) 

This was created as a content fork of Sarah Palin email hack (along with Constitutional Challenges of David Kernell Case) - they've been properly redirected to the main article, although frankly I don't see much need for these to exist as redirects. All-caps aside, there's very little chance that someone would actually type this seeking to find an article about the email incident, and as it stands only serves as a forum for User:Constitutionguard to insert his preferred article versions instead of working in the Sarah Palin email hack article. — e. ripley\^talk 14:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - someone might look for David Kernell, and that link exists, but this longer name seems completely unlikely. Also, ALLCAPS FAIL. --Muhandes (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as an all-caps page name, the CSD R3 that I added to this page should have been honored. — Timneu22 · talk 17:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per CSD R3. De728631 (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. All caps, even. bd2412 T 20:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Move page to a subpage of Talk:Sarah Palin email hack, provide a link there and delete the resulting redirect since the history would need to be preserved for GFDL reasons - WP:COPYWITHIN refers. If we are certain that no content has at any stage (even if reverted) been merged, then delete is fine. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the content that now exists at DAVID KERNELL LEGAL BATTLES was copied from David Kernell and David kernell which are now redirects and should stay so, so technically this article is the one that's been copied and I suppose as such this article would be the copyvio. But no, to my knowledge none of the information in any of these is housed at the main article, Sarah Palin email hack. For whatever reason, to my knowledge the author has only sought to create forks rather than work within the main article (possibly because it's under editing restrictions). — e. ripley\^talk 12:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete R3 or G4 I would imagine, given Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Kernell - the user appears to be trying to recreate the material under other names.  Chzz  ►  07:10, 23 July 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 move to subpage of talk. Moved to Talk:List of Swiss people/Swiss inventions. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Swiss inventions → List of Swiss people (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Redirects to a pretty much irrelevant page of little help to readers ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 13:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Move page to a sub-page of Talk:List of Swiss people; place a link there and delete the resulting redirect. A confusing target. However, for GFDL reasons, since there has been a merge we cannot delete the history, which needs to be findable, so this seems the best solution - see WP:COPYWITHIN. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:02, 21 July 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 redirect to dominionism. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Christian nationalism → Christian amendment (links to redirect • history • stats) 

This redirect is similar to the one below, so it makes sense to discuss them at the same time. It has redirected to Dominionism, Christianity in the United States, and Christian amendment. I think Dominionism is probably the best target, but would like to see what others think. Robofish (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not a suitable redirect to any of those pages. Codf1977 (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Dominionism, that deals with the topic. This redirect gets good traffic. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Dominionism per Bridgeplayer. bd2412 T 20:24, 21 July 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 redirect to dominionism and semi-protect. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Christian nation → History of religion in the United States (links to redirect • history • stats) 

This is a disputed redirect. As its history shows, it has at times redirected to Christian nationalism (itself a redirect to Christian amendment), Dominionism and History of religion in the United States. I don't think any of those are quite appropriate; in particular, I don't think the phrase 'Christian nation' necessarily has anything to do with the United States. I think Christendom might be the best target, but have brought it here to see what others think. Robofish (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not a suitable redirect to any of the pages. Codf1977 (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Christendom, the present target for Christian Nations. This redirect gets good traffic. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to dominionism and (semi-)protect, though a protected redirect to Christendom is at least harmless. Just two IPs (maybe representing the same anonymous user) have been redirecting it to "History of religion in the United States", perhaps in an effort to make one believe the US is meant to be a Christian nation. Dominionism is not specific to the US, is probably the source of the term, and seems a logical place to end up, as according to wikipedia a dominionist's goal is "a nation governed by Christians or [...] by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law". Afasmit (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to dominionism and semi-protect. --Loremaster (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Dominionism. It seems intuitive to me that Christian nation and Christian nationalism should point to the same result so long as there is no dead-on correct target. bd2412 T 20:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Retarget to Christendom. In any case, it should not be a US -redirect. It is hihgly parochial in the extreme, showing exceeding US bias, as if the US were the only place with Christianity. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 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 speedy deleted as WP:CSD R3 by NawlinWiki. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• स्फैग्नम → Sphagnum (links to redirect • history • stats) 

This is not a valid redirect title. Nothing links here, and nothing ever will; this is the English Wikipedia. We don't just put random translation redirects for all words:

• voiture -> car
• fourchette -> fork

This redirect falls into the same category. It simply isn't needed. — Timneu22 · talk 10:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - we have many non-English words as redirects; we have recently kept some in Chinese. There is no problem with this since a searcher may not know the English equivalent. The more important question is whether this is the correct target and I have asked at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is English Wikipedia. As for "we have many non-English words as redirects", see WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:Other stuff exists. It is legitimate to have a foreign-language word as a redirect if that word is reasonably likely to be used by someone when using English, but taht is not so in this case. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - please re-read my comment. It provides background and is not citing a keep reason - until we know what the word means it is not possible to take a considered view. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - there's a discussion at WT:CSD about foreign redirects. R3 isn't worded right, and my experience shows only proper titles have foreign redirects. We don't create redirects for every single article/language combination that's possible. — Timneu22 · talk 17:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Looks like a transliteration, rather than a translation. The letters loosely are S Phy G Na M, forming syllables Sphyg and num. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 17:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as CSD A10. No need to keep a foreign language redirect for this. De728631 (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. First of all, this is not a Hindi word -- it's just a Devanagari transliteration of the English word Sphagnum. Secondly, this is English Wikipedia -- interwiki links, not redirects, should be used to connect the same topics in different languages. utcursch | talk 20:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per JamesBWatson and Utcursch. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as confusing; the meaning is unclear and no apparent connection with the target. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:40, 21 July 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Recursion redir → Recursion (links to redirect • history • stats) 
• Recursi0n → Recursion (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Neither of these is a plausible searching or linking term for the target; instead, they originate in the periodic attempts to insert a bluelink to the article Recursion in the article Recursion. The longstanding consensus on that article is that this unencyclopedic joke is not wanted. Since they have no independent use, both should be deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. Wikipedia had different ideas about what was funny back in 2004. I'm half tempted to !vote keep on the first one just because of the age, but in the end both of these are pointless, unused, and implausible; sooner or later it comes time to clean up after people's jokes.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 13:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - they have served their purpose; time to put them quietly to rest. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Very clever! Delete. bd2412 T 20:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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 Speedy deleted WP:CSD#G7 at author's request. JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Infobox Ontario road → Template:Infobox Ontario road (links to redirect • history • stats) 

A redirect from the mainspace to the category namespace Muhandes (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—as I remember, the template's creator made it in his user space, and moved it to mainspace on accident before correcting the move to the template namespace. The redirect is not in use, so erase it. Imzadi 1979 → 06:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as creator and as accidentally created cross name space redirect. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wanted to use WP:CSD but the WP:CSD#R2 says "to any other namespace except Template:" Was I wrong in using WP:RfD? A little new to the processes here. --Muhandes (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, given the wording of R2 you were quite correct to bring it here. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - in view of creator request I have tagged it for deletion as CSD:G7. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:10, 21 July 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 retarget to sweet corn. Jafeluv (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Pure Sweet Corn → Nevermore (disambiguation) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

No apparent connection between the redirect and the target. Delete, unless a better target is found, in which case, retarget. bd2412 T 02:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Retarget to Sweet corn. The notation "Pure Sweet Corn" is commonly used on canned sweet corn to indicate that it is just that, so this is a perfectly plausible redirect. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Sweet corn. Harmless. No benefit from deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Sweet corn is fine with me. I was so busy looking for a connection with "Nevermore" that it didn't even occur to me. bd2412 T 20:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - OK with you to close this? Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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