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 retargetted. RfD is not necessary for cases like this. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Grace Hamilton → The Godfather Part III (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Dab Redirects to the movie because of a character in the movie. However, Grace Towns Hamilton is about a real person in Atlanta, Georgia. I think the real person is more likely to be the object of a Search than a movie character, so Disambiguate. Maile66 (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Be bold and make the change. No need to ask permission here first. Rossami (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maile66 (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. JohnCD (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Interstate 976 → Interstate Highway System (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Interstate 776 → Interstate Highway System (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Non-existant, never proposed highway designation that is an unlikely search candidate. Imzadi 1979 → 11:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Redirect histories and nominations are identical. Merging nominations. Abstain. Rossami (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under implausible redirects. These were created just 3 days ago. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - implausible per above. This is not to mention that the section redirects are typos and don't even redirect to the correct section of the article if these redirects were to be kept. "Pepper" @ 03:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - These designations have never existed, don't currently exist, nor are currently even remotely being considered for future use. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 all. Ruslik_Zero 16:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Verwaltungsverband → Amt (country subdivision) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Verwaltungsgemeinschaft → Amt (country subdivision) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Gemeindeverwaltungsverband → Amt (country subdivision) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Verwaltungsgemeinschaften → Amt (country subdivision) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Delete, according to reasons 5 and 10 of WP:RFD#DELETE. The redirect is misleading as Verwaltungsverband and Amt are similar but different types of country subdivisions in Germany. See de:Verwaltungsverband and de:Amt (Kommunalrecht). There is nothing in the history worth keeping. S.K. (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep until someone overwrites with more detailed content. As the nomination notes, these are closely related topics. Amt is the common structure in Brandenburg , Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Schleswig-Holstein while Verwaltungsverband is found in Saxony. And while the German Wikipedia does go into quite a bit more detail about the technical distinctions between the subdivisions, the current Amt article in the English Wikipedia is more general, covering the broad concept of country subdivisions below the level of Kreis all together. It mentions the regional variations prominently and early in the article. I have no objection to including the greater detail here but until someone does so, the current article appears reasonable to me. Given the technical distinctions and regional specificity, though, I am skeptical that redlinking will be more likely to result in that detail showing up here anytime soon. Rossami (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rossami, thanks for your feedback. I agree that the redirect would be meaningful as a temporary measure iff it would point to an article about a more generic topic like de:Gemeindeverband (Deutschland). But currently I don't see Amt (country subdivision) playing that role. It has the text

    The Amt (plural, Ämter) is unique to the German Bundesländer (federal states) of Schleswig-Holstein, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and Brandenburg. Other German states had this subdivision in the past. Some states have similar administrative units called Samtgemeinde (Lower Saxony), Verbandsgemeinde (Rhineland-Palatinate) or Verwaltungsgemeinschaft (Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Thuringia).

    which has links to the other types of subdivisions but the article fails in my opinion to describe the general concept and therefore is - in my eyes - not a good candidate for being the redirect target. Thanks, --S.K. (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Verwaltungsgemeinschaft nomination merged into this discussion. Same reasoning given by S.K.. Rossami (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and tag as a redirect with possibilities. Possibly retitle Amt to a more general title so that it can cover this. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Adding Gemeindeverwaltungsverband which has the same situation as the other two. --S.K. (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Adding Verwaltungsgemeinschaften which is just the plural form of Verwaltungsgemeinschaft, so should be treated the same. --S.K. (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but Redirect to Amt until the content of these other articles becomes meaningful. I usually am a big fan of keeping the specificity of German words seperate, however, in this case these articles are so sparse that sections in Amt is a good INTERIM solution, even tho I realize Amt is not exact. My reasons are that for the average educated English speaker these tiny distinctions don't mean anything and will be difficult even to search on. In addition, having all these terms in ONE article may actually enlighten people on the differences. Since the only current article of any length is AMT, that's where these should go. However, if someone wants to translate from the individual German articles into these terms, then separate articles are warranted again. That is a long project and may take awhile :)

-- Ultracobalt (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Why don't we change all redirects to Samtgemeinde? It has at least as much content as Amt regarding the German meaning, it also mentions some other types of similar subdivisions. By its name it's also a better representative for the whole group of subdivisions. Obviously the suggestion is not serious, but I hope it highlights the arbitrary nature of the current target Amt. Thanks, --S.K. (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I had conceded the redirect target wasn't ideal. Those complaining about the target can easily solve the problem by getting down to work and writing a new summary article for these to point. In the meantime, I suggested Amt because it seemed easiest for general users. Instead, why don't we delete all redirects? Obviously the suggestion is not serious, but I hope it highlights the arbitrary nature of the current suggestion to delete. Thanks, -- Ultracobalt (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The suggestion to delete is meant serious since this is what the policy suggests as a valid reason in this apple to oranges redirect situation that we're facing here. Everything else leads as pointed out to confusion. Thanks, --S.K. (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 16:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Maliha → Malha (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This redirect has no incoming links, and there is nowhere in the article that refers to this transliteration. As with Abdul Qasim below a delegate to Afghanistan's Constitutional Loya Jirga has this name, and until an article is created about that Afghan I think this should be a redlink. Geo Swan (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the village was known as Al-Maliha before it was part of Israel. Tag as a misspelling, alternate name, and possibilities. If an article is created about Maliha the Afghan, we can change it to a disambiguation page. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. You may create a dab if you want. Ruslik_Zero 16:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Abdul Qasim → Abd al-Karim Qasim (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This redirect was created about 2.5 months ago, and has no incoming links. The target article lists half a dozen alternate transliterations -- but "Abdul Qasim" is not one of them. There is an Afghan politician, who sat on the 2002 Constitutional Loya Jirga. I think this should be a redlink, so individuals working on the Loya Jirga realize there is no article on the constitutional delegate. Geo Swan (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A History of Iraq (i forget the author), names him Abdul Qasim... --TIAYN (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a book offers this as another transliteration. But this wasn't important enough include that transliteration in the article?

If I am not mistaken, keeping this redirect will require the creation of a disambiguation page.

502 individuals were appointed as delegates to Afghanistan's Constitutional Loya Jirga. The Loya Jirga that drafted Afghanistan's new constitution, and laid out the rules and format for its new legislature, sat for almost two years. It is a national level post, and I suggest its delegates were of comparable importance to the representatives elected to the Wolesi Jirga whose rules and structure they drafted.

Due to the sparseness of the namespace for personal names in Afghanistan a significant fraction of the names result in name collisions. When there was a name collision, and there was an existing disambiguation page, I have been adding an entry to that disambiguation page.

When there was a name collision with a redirect to a single existing article, and that redirect has at least one incoming link, I change the redirect to a disambiguation page, and piped all the incoming links in articles that pointed to the former redirect to point directly to the actual article. FWIW this consumed very considerable time, the more links to pipe, the longer it took. While doing so I found several redirects which should have required disambiguation years ago, as some of the incoming links to the redirect had nothing to do with the article they had been redirected to.

However, when there is a name collision with a redirect with no incoming links, I question whether a disambiguation page is appropriate. When the article in question doesn't even mention the spelling as an alternate transliteration, stage name, pen name, nom de guerre, I am pretty sure a disambiguation page is inappropriate. Geo Swan (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Lack of links is not a valid reason to delete a redirect. We don't know how many non-Wikipedia websites link here, and we should strive to keep our links valid. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.