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 19:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nick Tyler → Driveblind (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Redirect should be deleted. The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. In such a case, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself. Securel (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the pagehistory, he is the lead guitarist for the band but appears otherwise unnotable. Redirects such as this are generally effective at preempting the continued creation of non-notable content. I note, however, that the target page as been proposed for deletion. Defer judgement pending the outcome of the band's site. If it is deleted, the redirect should go as well. If the band's page is kept, then this redirect should also be kept. Rossami (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The PROD deletion has now been declined. Rossami (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 19:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Justin Faulk → List of Carolina Hurricanes draft picks (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Redirect should be deleted. Someone clicking this link would not expect to be taken to the draft page. The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. In such a case, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself. Securel (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 19:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:CAintbtm → Template:Jctbtm (links to redirect • history • stats)

Unneeded redirect to ((jctbtm)). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 19:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WVintbtm → Template:Jctbtm (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Unneeded redirect to ((jctbtm)) - project page's instructions have been changed to just reference ((jctbtm)) directly. Admrboltz (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• See also—Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_24#Template:WVint Airplaneman ✈ 06:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 19:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WVinttop → Template:Jcttop (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Unneeded redirect. All instructions state to use ((Jcttop)) now. Admrboltz (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• See also—Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_24#Template:WVint Airplaneman ✈ 06:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 19:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Naval Historical Monument → National Historic Landmark (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete redirect. A "Naval Historical Monument" is not the same as a "National Historic Landmark", a designation under the scope of the United States National Park Service. The redirect is only linked from two pages, both about the same subject, so I'm guessing the author of these pages either confusedly created the redirect or misread the article's sources. I'm not sure if an actual designation named "Naval Historical Monument" exists, but if it does, this redirect could be developed into an article about the designation. Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This appears to have been a designation that has since been rolled in the the NHL list. Hanger One of Moffett Field, for example, was designated as a Naval Historical Monument in the 1950s but is now on the list of National Historic Landmarks. Rossami (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Hangar One is not on the list of NHLs, neither in that document nor in this article. There is a Hangar No. 1 in the document, but that refers to this Hangar No. 1 in Connecticut. The reason that there is an NPS page on the site is that it is included within the US Naval Air Station Sunnyvale, California, Historic District (AKA Moffet Field). The whole field is listed on the register, but hangar one is not. A quick google search for "Naval Historic Monument" -wikipedia shows that pretty much the only site talked about as a "Naval Historical Monument" is Hangar One. I'm thinking maybe it was a typo?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I searched for "Moffett" which shows up on page 14. It appears that I was confusing the reference to the Hanger with the reference to the Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel. Hanger One is listed in the National Historic Register (a larger list than the Landmark list) so maybe the redirect should be retargetted there. The top non-wiki page describing Hanger One as a "Naval Historical Monument" is maintained by the National Park Service, though. I am unwilling to write off their description as a typo without some other evidence. Rossami (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, you are wrong about Hangar One. The Hangar One at Moffett Field is not on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); this one in Los Angeles is. Hangar One at Moffett Field is simply a contributing property to the Moffett Field district. Being a "Naval Historical Landmark" is not the same as being listed on the NRHP. I'll ask members of WP:NRHP to comment here; maybe they will have more information about what a "Naval Historical Monument" is.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, these two aren't the same at all. The NPS page is enough to prove that it's a separate type of designation — the National Historic Landmarks program was started in 1960, and it's older than the Register. Since the two designations aren't the same, neither should redirect to the other, and as the Hangar 1 page isn't enough to start a separate page, we really don't have any good choice except deletion. FYI, I'm a member of WP:NRHP, but I came across this comment without having seen Dudeman's request. Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to fire off an email to the NPS asking about the nature of Naval Historic Landmarks, since this whole thing makes me rather curious. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]