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 closure) andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) ^Merry_Xmas! 22:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ladies Masters at Moss Creek → Moss Creek Women's Invitational (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Procedural nomination, as WilliamJE (talk · contribs) opened an AfD with the following rationale:

Incorrect name for tournament. There are multiple references to prove this and here are a couple: Sally Little captures first LPGA winnand Ladies' Masters changes name So there is no need for this page or a redirect.- William 20:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Harmless, the prior place of article... Typical use case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Only because the LPGA still uses that name here and here. Tewapack (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 delete as CSD G7. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:List of countries by date of nationhood → List of countries by date of nationhood (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Should be deleted, is a cross-namespace redirect with no incoming links hence no purpose. Does not belong in Wikipedia space. Lmatt (talk) 11:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I expected this to be the result of a page move, but it was actually explicitly created as it is now. No traffic of any note, no incoming links and no useful history. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as pest. Did anyone notify the author? I would like to see an explanation of this redirect's history. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notified. Lmatt (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Not sure why I created this page: there may have been an incoming link originally. Goustien (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. Ruslik_Zero 14:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Cossical characters → Zenzizenzizenzic (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete. Very improbable, recently created redirect. A term used in one, four hundred years old book[1], for which no other sources could be found (online), either in books or scholar, until the creator of the redirect discussed it at the ref desk. Not only is it an unlikely search term, the target is also not helpful at all: it is targeted at the zenzi... article because the redirect creator also added the old book to that page, and "cossical characters" are mentioned at the same page of the book as the target article. Cossical characters are just a specific notation method used by that one author, and are not specific for zenzi... but for all squares, cubes, ... The term is not explained at the target article (and has absolutely no place there either), leaving the highly hypothetical user of this redirect none the wiser. Nothing in Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes of redirects explains why this redirect was ever created. We don't create redirects for all obscure terms used at the same page as something we use a reference for an article... Fram (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as neither misleading nor harmful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it not misleading? The target has nothing to do with the redirect, has no explanation of it and never will (or should). Fram (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be misleading if there was a better place to lead. Right now it leads to the closest article available. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Put yourself in the please of a reader. You search for Cossical characters, and end up at zenzi... Would you feel helped, or mislead? Would you have preferred an indication that we don't have any onformation on this, or getting a page that gave you the idea that we did have some info on these characters, only to find out that we actually don't? I would prefer getting no result at all than a result which doesn't help me at all, since the latter is a waste of time, while the former is a correct indication of what information we have on that topic. Fram (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • When I put myself in the place of a reader, I see that after reading Your short description I found this redirect more helpful then the lack of thereof. BTW, if You are so concert with the lack of mention of "cossical characters" in "zenzizenzizenzic", may be You should add a stubish section there? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I clearly fail to communicate my point to you. No, I will not add such a section, and will oppose anyone doing this, since the "cossical characters" have nothing to do with the topic of zenzizenzizenzic: whether one author a few hundred years ago has used cossical characters to describe all powers, including zenzizenzi (repeat ad inifnitum), is totally and utterly irrelevant to the topic of zenzizenzizenzic. Fram (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Cossical characters is a ((Redirect with possibilities)). Much of the exposition at Zenzizenzizenzic, while appropriate for the encyclopaedia and relevant to the subject would stand better at some other title. Whether this is Cossical characters or elsewhere it is too early to say. Comments at Reference desk already show that this system of characters was in use earlier, and elsewhere, so we have usage from 1525-1701 at a minimum, though the 1525 source "assures us that these symbols were in general use". Rich Farmbrough, 15:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  
  • You created the redirect, so it seems obvious that you consider it to have possibilities. You haven't explained though what the redirect has to do with zenzi..., or how it helps the reader. Nothing of the exposition at zenzi is "relevant to the subject" cossical characters. We don't redirect topics which may be notable to a random, very loosely related article. Fram (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is notable, write a stub. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.