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. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 15:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WA Intersate → Template:WA Interstate (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Improbable misspelling of Interstate. Admrboltz (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as improbable. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 02:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Now why does R3 have to be newly created?[reply]
• R3 is "newly created" because there can be historical links, external links or mirror links to the redirect. Since redirects that do no harm are cheap (actually cheaper in almost all ways to leave than delete, or even discuss) we tend to not delete them unless they are very new. Rich Farmbrough, 13:36, 26th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
  

• Oh okay. Thank you for the explanation. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 23:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, improbable spelling error and we very rarely need to keep misspellings of editorial templates around like we do for articles. Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 26 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. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 15:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Dark Mmatter kirby → List of Kirby characters (links to redirect • history • stats) 

This contains a typo (repeated "M") and the correct redirect is present at Dark Matter (Kirby) Ost (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an improbable typo. I'd have speedied this if it was recent enough. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 26 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 Keep. Ruslik_Zero 19:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Information Operations → Information warfare (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Courtesy listing for Pdfpdf: "This page previously redirected to Information warfare

Information Operations (IO) is a MUCH broader topic than IW, and requires a separate article." Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Content was merged to the IW page back in 2006, so we have to keep the pagehistory in order to comply with our attribution requirements. Regardless, any editor can be bold and either revert to the pre-merge version or overwrite the redirect with stand-alone content. The redirect does not need to be listed here. Rossami (talk) 20:52, 25 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 Keep. Ruslik_Zero 12:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Constructionism and reductionism (wiki) → m:Transwiki:Constructionism and reductionism (wiki) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete. This is a soft redirect from a term that is not a reasonable search term in the mainspace, and that is linked from no other articles. The history of redirect is already deleted anyway, but a new soft redirect was afterwards created (the transwiki was done after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constructionism and reductionism (wiki).) Fram (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (at least for now), I was all set to say delete this, but then I looked at the page stats and this is getting a massive 100-200 hits a month! There is nowhere obvious that these are coming from, so despite the unlikely search term it's getting lots of visits. If this has just been removed from somewhere then wait a couple of months until the effect of this on the traffic (if any) can be assessed. If it hasn't recently been removed from somewhere, then it's getting a lot of external traffic and should be kept for that reason. Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The closure of the AfD as "transwiki" was appropriate. I do not, however, find consensus in that discussion to have deleted the pagehistory following the transwiki. This is where the page existed before the promotion to meta and was part of an intensive debate about the nature of wikis in specific and social media in general. (Remember that it was only about this time that the segregation into meta and into separate namespaces was becoming common.) It is highly likely that there are still external links to this page and the hit-count demonstrates that it's still useful. Between the soft-redirect tag and the "wiki" parenthetical, I see no potential for confusion. It should perhaps be tagged with ((unprintworthy)), though. Rossami (talk) 00:30, 12 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 20:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Black Creek (Tonawanda Creek) → Black Creek (Genesee Valley) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete. This article was originally at Black creek Erie county and was indeed about the Black Creek that is a tributary of the Tonawanda and located in Erie County. User:Juliancolton moved the article to Black Creek (Tonawanda Creek), which is indeed a better name, but then he expanded the article by referring to the wrong creek. In Julian's version, the article stated it was a tributary of Tonawanda Creek that flows into the Genesee! Later edits proceeded to excise the bit about Tonawanda Creek and the article's focus became the creek that is a tributary of the Genesee. As such, I moved it to its current title. It's the more notable creek of the two anyway, so the loss of the Tonawanda tributary article is not a huge deal. At any rate, this redirect ought to be freed up for the future creation of that article. Powers ^T 13:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Then be bold and overwrite the redirect with the content you want. Deletion is both unnecessary and would destroy some of the very pagehistory that documents the changes you described. Rossami (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not found any reliable sources that document the creek in question, nor do I care to take the time to look in more depth. As for page history, if you look there is none, except for the move itself, which will remain documented at the new location. Powers ^T 23:23, 25 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 keep with a recommendation to retarget. Rossami (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wingfic → Slash fiction (links to redirect • history • stats) 

The term "wingfic" refers to a subgenre of fan fiction not exclusively limited to either slash fiction or romance in general. It is a very niche field and no article on Wikipedia contains any information about it. I strongly recommend either changing the redirect to Glossary_of_fan_fiction_terms#Other_subgenres with a short sourced entry if it fits within notability guidelines or deletion if non-notable. Arcadina (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or retarget. There was an article at this title that was subject to a VfD in mid 2005 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wingfic. The outcome of this discussion was to redirect, although opinions were even about whether the target should be Slash fiction or Fan fiction (although one contributor said that they'd merged the content into Fan fiction). The redirect has been consistently getting 10-20 hits a month since July last year (I didn't look any further back). The edit history and traffoc are both reasons why we should have something at this title. If an entry for it is written at Glossary of fan fiction terms#Other subgenres, then that will be a good target, but if there is nothing there then either Fan fiction or Slash fiction would be better - I have no preference between the two. Thryduulf (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a detailed overview of Wingfic at this site. I'm not sure if an obscure wiki is considered a reliable source (another wiki is used as a source on the Glossary of fan fiction terms#Other subgenres), but it does provide enough evidence that it is not exclusive to slashfic. Since both this and other sources list wingfic as a variety of crackfic, it might make more sense to just add a sentence to that rather than giving it its own paragraph. Arcadina (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've got no objection to that. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added the statement at List_of_fan_fiction_terms#Other_subgenres. If there's nothing else to discuss, the redirect can be shifted over. Arcadina (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]