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 18:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Lequien → Michel Le Quien (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

The redirect should renamed as Lequien (historian). Lequiem could referred to other persons. Another proposal could be to create a disambiguation page. Vagrand (talk) 09:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see any need in disambiguation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Until such time as there is more than one article to which this could point a redirect is the correct solution. Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No objection to overwriting with disambiguation content if/when there is enough to say. That's an ordinary-editor decision, though and does not require deletion of the redirect beforehand. Rossami (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: They are two persons with the same last name in French wikipedia: fr:Justin-Marie Lequien (1796 -1882) French sculptor, fr:Jacques Le Quien de La Neufville (1647-1728) French historian. Le Quien as a last name is different with Lequien, and can be also instructive about the correct form of the most known Michel Le Quien. Vagrand (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And when we have an article on either of those two, any editor can change this to a disambig page. For now, no reason to change. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Users could find the Le Quien redirect also witch is more appropriate. When the need of a such disambig page occurs, we can make it. A bot could also change the Lequien to Le Quien as the correct form of the name Michel Le Quien--Vagrand (talk) 20:07, 28 March 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 18:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:ISTHISASHORTCUT → Yes and no (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Amusing piece of self-referential humor, but it is otherwise pointless and unused. Kilopi (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: useless cross-namespace redirect. To me this is the same category of humor as the road signs vandalism. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless there is a Wikipedia space page that this can reasonably point to. Redirects don't work as humour in most cases doesn't work unless they're explicitly highlighted on the target page, which is inappropriate in article space. Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete From Mary Poppins: "There's nothing like a good joke." "And that was nothing like a good joke." D O N D E groovily Talk to me 18:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as CNR and vague.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:32, 28 March 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 18:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Index of person-related articles → Athina Malagardi (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete - would have been an R3, but no-one noticed it at the time. John of Reading (talk) 06:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the name is irrelevant to the target. Though the target was created under this name, it only spent 15 minutes there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Portal:Contents/People and self which is the closest thing to an index of articles related to people we have. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment what about retargeting to a biography portal? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wondered about suggesting that, but that doesn't cover all "person-related" articles and is in any case prominently linked from my suggested target. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only page using this link is Portal:Contents/Indexes/People and self, which is transcluded into Portal:Contents/Indexes and Portal:Contents/People and self. It might be confusing to have the redirect point to part of the Contents portal. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:11, 24 March 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 18:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The target barely mentions this software and isn't particularly helpful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The redirect has been around since 2009 without causing a problem. Prior to that time, the title accumulated content which the community repeatedly had to evaluate, track and delete multiple times. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foswiki. Since the creation of the redirect, there have been zero problematic re-creations. The redirect would be cheap prevention against re-creation even if the forked version of the software weren't mentioned at all. With the mention that is in the target article, even as thin as it is, this redirect is entirely reasonable. Rossami (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nominated it as it was making problems for me. Namely, it was used in stand-alone lists and comparisons where red links are not allowed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I closed the DRV of the AFD as deletion endorsed but created the redirect as a sensible editorial decision that has, as Rossami comments, removed the disruption that constant attempts to recreate a non-notable page entails. From that point of view the redirect is clearly helpful. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • salting would have the same effect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Salting would also be fairly unfriendly and discouraging for a potential new user. I generally prefer to go with a redirect where that is feasible as it leads the person clicking on the redirect to somewhere where they can add some content or read something relevant. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The redirect gives people searching for information on the subject the article that contains relevant information and a redlink would not serve this purpose. What is beneficial to the reader must always be more important than what is beneficial to editorial convenience. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 23 March 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.