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 speedily deleted per criterion G6 "uncontroversial housekeeping". Thryduulf (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Winklevoss twins (disambiguation) → Winklevoss twins (links to redirect • history • stats) 

The page this points to is no longer a dab page Auntof6 (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If the target page is no longer a disambig, the "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect may be deleted as a matter of housekeeping. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • You're right, of course. I was testing Twinkle's "xfd" function, and this is what I got. I've tagged it with db-g6. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:25, 6 June 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 all, consensus has formed here against maintaining this potentially endless series of redirects. --Taelus (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288 → Pi (links to redirect • history • stats) 

This is an implausible redirect. We already have many redirects for shorter versions of pi (e.g. 3.14, 3.141, 3.1416, 3.14159, 3.141592, 3.1415926, 3.1415927, 3.14159265, 3.141592654, etc. We don't need a redirect for every additional decimal. Also nominating:

• 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494
• 3.14159265358979323846264338327
• 3.141592653589793238462633 (this one is simply wrong)
• 3.14159265358979

-- Jayjg ^(talk) 04:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: My !vote would be to delete due to uselessness and silliness. However, these were just kept after a discussion 2-3 months ago, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 8#3.14159265358979323846264338327950288. Definitely delete that one with a 3 in the penultimate digit, though.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the incorrect one, Keep the others per consensus at the previous discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the incorrect one. No opinion on the others. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all who would type that all out? Once you type (least on my skin and version of Wikipedia) "3.14" it goes to it anyway. CTJF83 02:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • People search and browse Wikipedia in many different way, only a minority of which have search suggestions. While few people would type all these digits, they can and do copy and paste strings like this into search boxes/url bars/other search inputs. These reasons are why the redirects were kept last time. Thryduulf (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, do we create redirects for the first 100, 1,000, 10,000 digits of pi? How many is adequate? CTJF83 12:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quoting Rossami from the last discussion, "The consensus has always been that while we wish editors would do something more useful than to create these, once they have been created there is no point to deleting them.". Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Redirects are cheap, but millions of useless redirects is not desirable. We need to draw the line and say thats enough. "It already exists" is not a good reason to not delete. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Per above. These are incredibly useless. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean "useless other than for the people who use them". I've not looked at the stats for the incorrect one, but the others have all been used. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Simply totally useless redirects. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 12:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say the fact that 94 hits were recorded for them in May (total, excluding the incorrect one; 63 for the first nominated) proves that statement incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Useless unless someone can say why these lengths are more meaningful than the lengths which dont have redirects, such as 3.141592653589793238462643383279. Someone who copies and pastes a set of digits is not guaranteed to hit one of these redirects, as they may have one too many or one too few digits. And if they are copying a long number of digits, they will surely know that 3.14 is common shorthand. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:28, 17 June 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 both. Thryduulf (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Michael Braun to be alive → Michael Braun (footballer) (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Michael Braun 'To Be Alive' → Michael Braun (footballer) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete. No mention of "To Be Alive" in the article now, nor at the time of creation. Gsearching doesn't reveal anything Tassedethe (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unhelpful and, as far as I can tell, baseless.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]