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 as there is no consensus to delete, retargetting the generic one. Tikiwont (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fliptown → Juneau, Alaska (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Fliptown, Alaska → Juneau, Alaska (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete both - Juneau has had a significant Filipino community since the 1920s. I'm guessing these were inserted as a racial slur, since I'm not aware of any usage of this term, either formally or informally. These redirects are the only mention of "Fliptown" I can find on Wikipedia, as the term isn't found in the target article. I didn't peruse the revision history of that article, but it's probably safe to say that if it was previously found in that article, it was deleted for the same reason I'm giving for deleting the redirects.RadioKAOS (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep Fliptown, Alaska. There are several sources, of varying quality, that say that Juneau was briefly called "Fliptown", e.g. "This settlement has seen a good deal of experience for a young one. It was first known as Pilsbury; then some humorist dubbed it Fliptown. Later it was called Rockwell and Harrisburg; and finally Juneau, the name it still bears with more or less dignity." [1], [2] suggests that this is or was featured at the city museum - as the museum's website is rather thin on content I am unable to say whether this is or is not true (it might require a visit in person, something I can't easily do from the UK!). Google certainly associates "Fliptown, Alaska" with Juneau, but it is possible this is a result of this redirect (afaik not something we can know either way), so there is a connection and it's not harmful (cf WP:RNEUTRAL) so I don't see deletion as needed. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• retarget Fliptown to Little Manila, Google shows this is either a generic term for a Filipino-community area (of a town) or related to Fliptown Records. We don't have an article about the record label (I haven't investigated their notability); so the generic community seems the only viable target. We certainly don't want a duplicate article at this title and salting would be disproportionate given the available evidence so a redirect continuing to quietly discourage article creation seems best. I will notify Talk:Juneau, Alaska and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alaska about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 2 August 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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• GFID → God Forgives, I Don't (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I never heard Rick Ross's album be called GFID. GFID could mean many other things Jawadreventon (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can't find anything else that GFID stands for other than government furnished information deficiency, and I don't see an article to link to for that phrase. So, no reason to change or delete. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep GFID is short for God Forgives, I Don't the title of Ross' album. Most people just refer to it as GFID because its much shorter. I don't see a real reason to delete it.. RickyRozay (talk) 05:42, 3 August 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. Ruslik_Zero 19:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Beandog → Tea Party movement (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

deletion; no connection to target; was created by since-blocked user Sbowers3 (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Indeffed (some would say "banned" per discussions) user created a pretty useless redirect. User had an interesting history including really, really bad edits and problematic behaviour. Collect (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is what beandog is about: http://gawker.com/5659351/twittergate-how-internet-jerks-pranked-the-tea-party - In short, a group of twitter pranksters harassed some tea-partiers and framed a democrat for it, sending the tea-partiers screaming of wacko conspiracy theories. That said, It should redirect to Tea Party. Retarget to Mameshiba (character) might make sense, these characters are beans with dog faces. Ego White Tray (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• deleteDarkstar1st (talk) 11:56, 15 August 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:LAZINESS → User talk:El C (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Wikipedia:LAZINESS and Wikipedia:LAZYNESS both improperly point to user space. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Both: Can't even remember why these exist. Rgoodermote (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. They exist because of the conversation at [3], but that joke is far, far too old now for even the creator to remember it, and El C (the user whose user talk is the target has apparently retired. G7 probably applies.Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 1 August 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 retarget per nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Damon Killian → The Running Man (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Redirect to The Running Man (film), which prominently features the character Damon Killian, whereas The Running Man (the novel) includes the character *Dan* Killian. Damon Killian (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need RFD's permission for this: "If you think a redirect should be targeted at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article." Actually you should probably just go ahead and do it IMO. Siuenti (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's redirects for discussion, not deletion, and since redirect usually have no one watching their talk pages, and no one to notice you posted anything, it makes sense to have the discussion here. Ego White Tray (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid point that this didn't have to be brought here, and it's also a valid point that it wasn't wrong to bring it here. BigNate37_(T) 19:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom's sound reasoning. Here is another matter I think we should consider: Dan Killian is a redlink right now. Should it direct to the novel The Running Man with a hatnote for sports coach Dan A. Killian, or should it redirect to the coach's article with a hatnote pointing to the novel? Note that I've also redirected The Running Man (novel) to The Running Man, which is the novel article, instead of its former target Running Man, which is a disambiguation page. BigNate37_(T) 19:43, 5 August 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.