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. Ruslik_Zero 17:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sagna, B → Bacary Sagna (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete. No one is going to use punctuation and initials by searching "Sagna, B" (meaning actually typing "s,a,g,n,a, comma, space, b") to find Bacary Sagna, because his name already exists on the Sagna dab page, which is much more intuitive. MSJapan (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2011 (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 delete. Stuff like this should be speedied not RfD'd. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Stolen Moments (album → Stolen Moments (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete As this is an uncommon typo and anyone searching should find and get redirected anyway from Stolen Moments (album), this can be deleted. (I would have done speedy but this seems to have been around awhile.) Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the correct link will come up if searched, so this is unnecessarily confusing. MSJapan (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a typo no more likely than any other. The existence of Stolen Moments (album) will direct anyone searching for this or similar typos to where they want to go. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2011 (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 Timothy (disambiguation) to Timothy. Ruslik_Zero 18:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Timothy → Timothy (disambiguation) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

There's been some edit warring over the proper target for this redirect. I believe it should go to Saint Timothy as the most commonly intended target but other editors say that violates NPOV. JaGa^talk 17:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep redirected to Timothy (disambiguation). Unless it is plainly obvious, it shouldn't go to one single person. It should point to the Disambag. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but move Timothy (disambiguation) to Timothy. Since editors have conflicting views on this, there clearly isn't one WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Mhiji 18:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Editors disagreeing does not prove there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. To be primary, an article must be the most likely target. I don't see anything in the disambig that seems close to as likely; most of the entries are first name partial matches. --JaGa^talk 05:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, but the page stats here show there isn't one which is visited more. And Timothy is a common name, it's not like Britney or Elvis, for which there is definitely a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. By the nature of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, if there isn't a clear topic, then there isn't one. Mhiji 14:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Timothy redirect → Saint Timothy or just move Saint Timothy → Timothy. No person who knew him ever called "saint". Honorificts are to be avoided in article names, and (BTW) are also POV. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 19:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirected to Timothy (disambiguation). Timothy could relate to any one of several people, both historic and recent - including the one referred to as Saint Timothy - as well as places, and religous texts. It seems to me somewhat unreasonable to assume that, in an open, multi-cultural, world-wide, religiously unbiassed, publication such as Wikipedia, that the majority of viewers will be looking for one person of that name. If not "Saint", then it might be preferable to rename that article with some other differentiator; Timothy of Ephesus for example. Lynbarn (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What matters here is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If most people typing "Timothy" into a search box are looking for the figure from the Book of Acts, then that's what they should get. Looking at the disambig I see nothing that really challenges the religious figure for primary status; this is similar to the debates we've had about David and Rachel. I can support changing the title though - move Saint Timothy to Timothy. --JaGa^talk 05:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Make Timothy the dab page, as the viewing figures for October-December last year show that there is no clear primary topic between several of the items on the disambiguation page. I have no opinion about the title of the saint's article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• reverse the redirect move the dab page to primary. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse and make Timothy the dab per above as common sense. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Move the disambiguation page to Timothy. Widely used name, no clear primary topic. oknazevad (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2011 (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 No consensus. Ruslik_Zero 18:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Pokemon/Charizard → Charizard (links to redirect • history • stats) 
• Pokemon/Venusaur → List of Pokémon (1–51) (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Pokemon/Chansey → List of Pokémon (102–151) (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Pokemon/Mew → List of Pokémon (102–151) (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Pokemon/Charmander → List of Pokémon (1–51) (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Pokemon/Satanism parallels → Pokémon (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Pokemon/Metallics → Pokémon Gold and Silver (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Pokemon/Blastoise → List of Pokémon (1–51) (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Pokemon/Mewtwo → Mewtwo (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Pokemon/Charmeleon → List of Pokémon (1–51) (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Pokemon/Raichu → List of Pokémon (1–51) (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Pokemon/Metallics → List of Pokémon (1–51) (links to redirect • history • stats)

The redirect is an old page of what used to be Charizard back in 2002. It doesn't need to be kept because it isn't a good search term, has no history, and links to it have been moved many many years ago. I would also like for every other redirect in Special:PrefixIndex/Pokemon/ to be deleted as well under the same rationale. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No longer needed. (I've added the others to the nom too.) Mhiji 18:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - highly improbable search terms and thus useless, unused redirects. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it's an old link. This documents the movement of pages from back before sub-pages were deprecated. These redirects were also created before the MediaWiki software was changed to automatically record the pagemove in the moved page's history so this may be the only remaining record of the move. Changing a page title is a change to the encyclopedia's content which, under GFDL, means we must maintain the attribution history. More than that, we can not say for sure that these old links are truly orphans. What links here will tell you about internal links but there are no resources that can confirm that external links do not still exist to the old titles. Unless these links are actively harmful or confusing (and I don't see how they are), they should be kept. Rossami (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess I didn't think about it that way. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Valid edits in history of these pages and possibility of external websites linking it. --mav (reviews needed) 01:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Valid edits? The only edits are bots changing where the redirect goes. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, nothing worth keeping, part of an obsolete naming system. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rossami — the older the redirect, the worse of an idea deletion is. Because they've been around for ages, there's a greater possibility that they would be linked. Moreover, redirects are cheap; we're not helping anything by getting rid of them, and deletion will impair usability of old page histories for other articles and may impair people coming from other webpages. Nyttend (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2011 (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 Keep. Ruslik_Zero 18:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Spontaneous match-fixing → Match fixing (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Missleading, there is nothing about spontaneous match-fixing. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: From the links to that redirect I found West Germany v Austria (1982), and that incident is also commented on at Match fixing#Match fixing to a draw or a fixed score. Given that, I think the redirect is fine as it is, but the target article could possibly be expanded with info about how match fixing comes about, including when it does so during a game, which could be considered spontaneous (although it's possible and even likely that the idea to fix the match if that situation arose had previously been discussed). --Mepolypse (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2011 (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 3G. Ruslik_Zero 18:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 3G Mobile Service Provider → Telstra (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete or Retarget. Actually links to Telstra#Telstra Mobile, which section no longer exists. At the time the redirect was created, it linked to that section in this old version of the Telstra article, but there was no direct mention of the redirect name there. Not NPOV to link to an individual service provider IMO. --Mepolypse (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to 3G. This definitely isn't NPOV. Mhiji 18:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As "provider" is in the redirect, there's no way to make this either generic or NPOV (without creating a dab page that would probably violate a few policies), and I really don't know why this is a legit search term; 3G is going to come up first in the search box long before this does. MSJapan (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to 3G. The redirect is getting 30-50 hits a month, so we should continue to have something at this title. In the absence of a List of 3G networks article (or something similar to that) 3G is the best target I can find. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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