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 10:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Angela Harris (actor) → List of Coronation Street characters (2002) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

This redirects to a fictional character of the same name rather than an actress. I was wondering if it's needed seeing as the actress either doesn't exist or is unremarkable. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 20:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because the redirect helps to document the series of pagemoves that took place before the content was finally merged and redirected to the current target. No objection to overwriting the redirect with content about a notable real actress (IMDB finds several by that name though none appear especially notable to me) or to retargetting to the Angela Harris disambiguation page. Rossami (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It is a redirect that is misleading. The target page is not a living person, it's a fictional character, If it stays it is going to continue misleading readers into thinking an actress they know has a page. The above person said there are no notable actors with the name, they are right. So it's not going anywhere else is it?RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 22:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to disambiguation - As currently directed, it is inaccurate; it directs to a fictional character not an actor. As for keeping the history, should it ever be needed, looking it up isn't that much harder than piecing it together through all the various histories right now. --Lquilter (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as pointless. None of the Angela Harris Wikipedia topics are actors, so also pointless to redirect there. If one of the actors later is the topic of an article, the title can be recreated. If multiple actors later are the topics of multiple articles, the title can then redirect to the dab page. But future Wikipedia can take care of future Wikipedia issues. If any of the current edit history needs to be merged to a useful article or redirect, that can be done as the redirect is deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:35, 23 March 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. Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Michael Chaput → List of Philadelphia Flyers draft picks (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Redirect doesn't make any sense. nn hockey player (per WP:NHOCKEY) that is no longer within the Flyers system (traded recently to Columbus Blue Jackets) ccwaters (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but I think that it would probably make more sense to change the redirect to 2010–11 Columbus Blue Jackets season#Transactions where the trade information for this player is found. Onthegogo (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Would be better served to be a redlink, as if/when this player actually achieves notability, it may take quite some time for editors to find out that he actually doesn't have an article yet. -Pparazorback (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Better served by a red link. -DJSasso (talk) 23:33, 14 March 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 Kept and reverted to proper target. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you know? - Puerto Rico → Puerto Rico (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Redirect is not needed, not linked to from any other page. -- Cirt (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert to the version of 22 Oct 2010. The redirect was retargetted by a user who has since been indefinitely blocked. As a side note, "not needed" is a value judgment based on how you navigate the wiki. In an ideal world, all redirects would be orphans. That is not a valid reason to delete it. Rossami (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the pre-retarget target is in Portalspace, so a cross namespace redirect. The searchbox is not a question-and-answer response system, we are not running IBM Watson in the background to service requests. 65.93.14.50 (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the Portal namespace is reader-facing and so article to portal CNRs are not normally harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agrre that a redirect is not needed, therefore keep-as-is. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:42, 11 March 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 10:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:FAG → Template:Find a Grave (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete. I can't see how this acrynom would ever be useful for this redirect, certainly doesn't come to mind for myself when I think of "Find a Grave". Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 00:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Shortcuts using acronyms are common practice on Wikipedia. The Find-a-Grave template is in extensive use throughout the project. (I stopped counting after 2000.) And while this might not be what I would intuitively assume the redirect to mean, I can think of no better shortcut for that particular template. Rossami (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:FAG (the redirect) is only used 23 times according to Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:FAG. Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 05:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatlinkshere shows only transclusions and direct links. It will not show any use via substitution nor will it show use by readers who merely want the mnemonic to more quickly navigate to the full template. Regardless, low-link count is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect. In an ideal world, all redirects would be orphans. We keep them anyway unless they are actively harmful or misleading. Rossami (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This shows it is very rarely ever viewed. I found 0 views in February/March, 1 view in January and 4 in December. Clearly it isn't a helpful redirect. CTJF83 12:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep. That doesn't actually prove it's not a helpful redirect just that it isn't widely visited (I have no idea whether substituting a template registers on stats.groke.se or not), more importantly it doesn't show that it is an unhelpful redirect. If it were being confused with or blocking something else, or misrepresenting something then it would be appropriate to consider deleting or changing it. However as it's doing no harm, deletion is pointless as it gains us nothing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • To me, not widely used = unhelpful CTJF83 12:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well that's certainly a minority view of redirects. The general consensus is that if redirects are doing no harm (e.g. not getting in the way of something else, not misleading, have some connection to the target, the target exists, etc) then there is no need to delete them. Obviously each redirect is debated on it's own merits, but that's the general situation. It's also worth noting that the threshold for inclusion of a redirect is much lower than that for an article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: does no harm, is used by a few, and is cheap.AerobicFox (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Is in current use. -- œ^™ 15:16, 15 March 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 Retarget to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Acather96 (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:POV → Wikipedia:Describing points of view (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Change target to WP:NPOV. Redirects in my opinion should link to policy as first priority, and essays only if there is no relevant policy. CTJF83 00:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects also, which are very similar: Wikipedia:PoV, Wikipedia:Point of view, Wikipedia:Points of view, Wikipedia:Pov CTJF83 13:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is very widely in use, but it is mostly being used either as if it pointed to WP:NPOV already, not uncommonly in constructions where it means "This (article/suggestion/user/whatever) does not have a neutral point of view". The reason why this latter is not what we want is explained at WP:NPOV so that seems to be the best location to me, so support. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but with hatnote to former target.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree about the hatnote, I was going to suggest the same thing but reworded my comment so many times I forgot! Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (for now) retargetting Wikipedia:Point of view and Wikipedia:Points of view. I've just spotted that these others were added after my first comment. As these are spelled out and not shortcuts I think it far more less likely that these are used erroneously, however I am not awake enough to check all the incomming uses. I don't know when I'll next get chance to comment, so if this discussion is closed before I do I would suggest perhaps relisting these two. I endorse my previous support for all the shortcut redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've now looked at the incomming links for the two redirects above. Where Wikipedia:Points of view (plural) is used in context it is always intended to go to the present target - i.e. Wikipedia:Describing points of view. Wikipedia:Point of view (singular) is less clear cut, but more refer to the current location than Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; the existing hatnote at the current target will direct those looking for NPOV there. So Strong oppose retargetting of Wikipedia:Points of view and Oppose retargetting of Wikipedia:Point of view. I still support retargetting all the shortcuts. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with hatnote per Lenticel. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support w/ hatnote.AerobicFox (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to WP:NPOV' Spitfire19 ^T/_C 02:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]