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 13:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Pubnub → Counter-Strike (links to redirect • history • stats) 

The target article doesn't contain any mention of the term “pubnub”. Svick (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep to preserve attribution history. Content from this page was merged to a page titled Counter-Strike culture which was itself later merged to the current target. While the original content is not in the current article, it is part of history and might someday be restored. (I would hope not because it didn't look verifiable to me but editorial decisions like that often surprise me. Keeping the redirect does no apparent harm, though, and immunizes the project against future attribution problems.) Rossami (talk) 01:04, 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. The reasons given for keeping do not carry much weight. It is difficult to see why anyone should search for the organisation in the Philippines under the title "Searca Colombia", and there does not seem to be any evidence of actual use of "Searca Colombia" to refer to that organisation (except for Wikipedia and information copied therefrom). All the record of the history merge is included in the history of the target article, and the redirect at the source adds nothing to that record. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Searca Colombia → Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (links to redirect • history • stats) 

The redirect name is supposed to be of a Colombian airline, but instead it goes to something completely unrelated. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The redirect may refer to the airline (and I would have no objection if the redirect were overwritten by notable content on that topic) but it also plausibly refers to the current target. The redirect helps to document the history-merger that was back in 2009. Rossami (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I do not understand how it can "plausibly refer to the current target". SEARCA is an Asian organization, while Searca Colombia is a Columbian airline. The redirect is confusing and harmful and should be deleted. Ruslik_Zero 13:17, 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. While the consensus in the discussion below was thin, I am going to exercise admin discretion on this one. First, I find no confirmable evidence connecting these two topics. There is an article on the Chinese Wikipedia (google-translated here) which discusses a similar device to the one described in the pre-AFD version of the page but it is tagged there as unsourced and suspect. One book is cited but this movie is not. I do not think we can count the zh version of the page as verification of a claim made here, even for a redirect. The AfD discussion does not mention this movie.
I am electing not to redirect to the BDSM prop which Thyrduulf mentions because I am unable to substantiate that it really is the same thing based on either the pre-AfD or the zh versions of the page. That is an ordinary-editor decision, though, not part of the admin closure of the discussion. If sources can be found more reliably connecting the concepts, the redirect could be created and a history-restore might be justified. Rossami (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Chinese wooden donkey → A Chinese Torture Chamber Story (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete. The redirect isn't mentioned in the target, and I can't find any evidence online of any link between the two (if there is one, it certainly hasn't received any attention on any websites). Fram (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per "Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones." Rich Farmbrough, 13:13, 26th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
  
  • So as soon as a redirect survives for, say, a month, it should be kept, because it may be linked from somewhere on the internet or someone may have put alink to it on his desktop, no matter how remote the possibility that anyone but the creator of the redirect would link these two unrelated concepts? You have created the redirect; do you have any actual arguments that would establish a link between the source and the target? Fram (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes that is correct. Rich Farmbrough, 22:41, 26th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
      
• Delete there is no evidence that this is a phrase that's in use anywhere. The only relationship the internet finds between Chinese "wooden donkey" and the target is a single comment in a single discussion thread about a cover for the US video release of the film - and the comment doesn't even relate to the cover under discussion (it apparently relates to a single line in the film, which does not use the phrase "Chinese wooden donkey"). Note that this is not even the title of the redirect as a single complete phrase, and I had to go to page 3 of the google hits to find it (most results are for people discussing or selling models of donkeys constructed of wood and made in China). There is a torture device and similar BDSM prop called the Wooden horse, that is sometimes referred to as a "Spanish donkey", however this is not particularly associated with the Chinese (although they did use it, so did the Mongols, Arabs and western European torturers (including the Spanish), so while I wouldn't object to retargetting there I wouldn't recommend it (note the lack of evidence of this being used as a common phrase). Rich Farmbrough's (the creator's) arguments above do not hold up in the case of redirects that are irrelevant to the the target and for which there is no suitable alternative. Anybody searching for this phrase is most likely going to be looking for the article about the torture device/BDSM prop, which will appear in the top of the search results after this redirect is removed. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The article previously in place said

--Cut here--

--Cut here--

Investigation at the time (reading the original AfD I think) showed the likely source of this unverified information was the film to which I redirected it. [removed copyvio link] - not a copyvio, thank you for your concern - supports this. I believe the original AfD demonstrated that the historicity of the contraption was in doubt, to say the least, therefore the film seems the logical destination. Rich Farmbrough, 22:41, 26th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Could you link to that AfD? Anyway, the article has no info on the term, so the redirect is not helpful at all, and leaves any reader just scratching their head. Confusing redirects (on non notable subjects like this) should be deleted. Fram (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chinese_Wooden_Pony_Torture .. a lot of trouble for a redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 06:41, 28th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

I don't get it. Nearly two months after an AfD where you weren't involved about an article you also weren't involved with closed with an unanimous delete, you create out of the blue a redirect for a different term, redirecting to a movie, even though the term is not discussed in the article and there is no evidence that it would be a popular or even logical search term. This doesn't seem to match anything on Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes of redirects. By the way, why do you claim that the video on Youtube you linked to is not a copyright violation? Fram (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Chinese wooden pony torture" -wikipedia does get Google hits, most are mirrors/copies of the now deleted Wikipedia article, most of the rest are automatically generated from the Wikipedia article title, 1 is a listing of various phrases with the word "pony" in ("Chinese wooden pony torture" is immediately followed by "My Little Pony"!). The one hit (of 17) that is independent and relevant, is referring to the subject of our wooden horse article. This does not give any evidence that the either the term under discussion or the correct term should be a redirect, let alone a redirect to an irrelevant article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 28 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 Withdrawn. While I can't see much use in creating such a redirect, now that we have, I can not really argue with Thryduulf's reasoning. Fram (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC) *4,558,302 → Graphics Interchange Format (links to redirect • history • stats) [reply]

Delete. very improbable search term (a patent number, for an important patent, but still...). Note that a search for 4558302 doesn't even return this redirect[1], making it hardly useful. Fram (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per "Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones." Rich Farmbrough, 13:13, 26th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
  
• Keep as 26 of the first 30 (including all the first 12) google hits for this number are related to the patent (this redirect is the 11th). The other hits are the internal id number of a closeup photo of the numbers 8 and 9 on a "red dial telephone" hosed on Fotolia, and the internal id number of a page giving the bibliographic citation details for a 1966 French language paper on nuclear physics in the Energy Citation Database, a listing of phone numbers in the US, and the item number of a maternity dress on Chinese-language shopping and auction site Taobao, none of these are remotely encyclopaedic topics and so if anyone is searching for this number on Wikipedia they're going to be looking for the patent. It's not a redirect that I would have thought of creating, but the target is an apropriate encyclopaedia article, it's not offensive and it's not conflicting with anything so there is no benefit in deletion. The nominators search wont include this redirect because this redirect contains commas whereas their search does not. Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 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. Redirects are not subject to WP:RS or even WP:NPOV, and are also cheap. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Anybody but Bush, Except for Kerry → United States presidential election, 2004 (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Appears to be a joke redirect; no incoming links, implausible search argument or typo. TJRC (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The relevant pagehistory is actually at Anybody but Bush (which now also redirects to the 2004 election page). It was not a joke and was definitely not a typo. The history shows it as an attempt to stub out two pages about a so-called "informal political movement" based on protest rather than advocacy. Domains for anybodybutbush.com (and variants) were registered as were related domain names attacking Kerry and (to the point of this redirect) attacking both simultaneously. I find nothing in the history that substantiates the phrase as more than a neologism or minor catch phrase, though. The redirects are unlikely to be relevant to current readers but might perhaps be helpful to future editors who are trying to sort through the histories of some very contentious pages. I am undecided on my recommendation for this redirect but do feel that whatever decision is applied to this redirect should be applied equally to Anybody but Bush. Rossami (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per "Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones." Rich Farmbrough, 13:13, 26th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
  
• Delete - "Anybody but Bush" is certainly an appropriate redirect given its widespread usage at the time, e.g. Newsweek along with similar Anyone but Bush phrasings. But I see little out there to suggest that this + the Kerry appellation was notable or used in any way. It appears at some place called wordiq.com, but that appears to fall below WP:RS standards. It just simply isn't a plausible, useful, or likely search term. Tarc (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Workiq is a Wikipedia clone and can't be used as evidence either way. Rossami (talk)
• Comment from nom - What Tarc said. "Anybody but Bush" was a widespread political campaign at the time, and actually has some incoming links showing its context (here and here), because there was once an actual article on the ABB campaign, prior to it being merged: ([2]). "Anybody but Bush, Except for Kerry" seems to just have been a cute response, created as a redirect from the start: [3]. TJRC (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anybody but Bush, Except Kerry" was a response but it was not an on-wiki response. See examples www.cafepress.com/moderndayknight.13164916?zoom=yes#zoom, here, here or here for a few still online. The phrase was most used in the immediate post-election analysis.
    The topic was originally introduced to the encyclopedia in text edits to the Anybody but Bush article in the second edit and stayed in the article right up until that page was redirected to the current target. So the topic predates the creation of the redirect (and a redirect at that time would have been in keeping with our policies). Again, I'm not sure that this was ever more than a minor catchphrase but it is equally notable or non-notable with the Anybody but Bush catchphrase. Rossami (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not even remotely on par with A.B.B., your sources are a bit off the mark of WP:RS. This was a minor and pithy phrase that circulated on some fringe right-wing blogs and such, and nothing more. Tarc (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's my point. And ABB was a minor and pithy catchphrase popular with the fringe left. Regardless, WP:RS is not the appropriate standard for redirects. Redirects are generally kept unless they are actively confusing or harmful to the project. How are either harmful? Rossami (talk) 05:22, 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. The name is too general and vague. Ruslik_Zero 12:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:House → Template:Navbox House (television series) (links to redirect • history • stats)

Too vague a template name to warrant a redirect. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because the pagehistory helps to document a pagemove. If there is a better use for the template, just overwrite it. Or if there are multiple potential templates that could be intended, perhaps then turn it into a template-disambiguation page. Rossami (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pagehistory has already been recorded in the move logs. WP:R#D2 and WP:R#D8 still applies; there are numerous other templates that have "house" in their titles. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree about the application of RFD#D8 and to a lesser degree D2 and counter with K1, 3 and 5. Regardless, your finding of other templates with similar titles makes an excellent argument for overwrite with disambiguation content (and leaving the pagehistory intact). Rossami (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a reasonably valuable piece of namespace. Rich Farmbrough, 13:15, 26th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
  
• Delete not the article at House so should not occupy that position in templatespace. 184.144.161.95 (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]