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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. Any further creations of versions of this name as redirects to the same target may be nominated for speedy deletion directly. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Damián Alejandro Fernández Beanato → Newsweek Argentina (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

A similar article (Damián Fernández Beanato) was already deleted as you can see in this log and the author created it again with a slight name change. It should be deleted because is a nonsense redirect. PeterCantropus (talk) 22:18, 16 May 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The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. Rossami (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Dark Shadows (Return to Collingwood) → Dark Shadows (audio drama) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Misspelling of "Collinwood" and therefore an unlikely redirect. The family name is "Collins" and the house is named "Collinwood" (no "g" in either). Leaving a misspelled redirect to appear as a "drop down" suggestion in the search box only encourages other editors to continue misspelling the name. Crakkerjakk (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and tag with ((R from misspelling)). Misspelling redirects are a Good Thing to have, as they allow users to find the article they are looking for - the search box accounts for only one of many ways people use to navigate Wikipedia, almost all of which do not offer suggestions. In this specific case, it is very likely that people will say (or hear) /ˈkɒl.ɪŋˌwʊd/ rather than /ˈkɒl.ɪnˌwʊd/, as the difference between /ŋ/　<-ng> and /n/ <-n> at the end of unstressed syllables is slight and the former is probably more common. Furthermore tagging a redirect with the misspelling template removes it from the drop-down list, for example 3rd millenium exists as a redirect to the correctly spelt 3rd millennium but does not appear as a suggestion from the search box. Thryduulf (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oh ok. I didn't realize there was a way to tag for a misspelling redirect. As long as there's a way that it can be omitted from the "drop down" suggestions in the search box (and thereby not encouraging the subsequent misspelling of the name), then that sounds like a good idea. Should I just go ahead and tag the page myself? Or am I supposed to wait and let someone else do it? --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You (or any other editor) are free to add tags or otherwise improve pages even during deletion discussions. (Merging content away to other pages is discouraged because it really complicates the GFDL-compliance problem if the final decision is to delete but that's about all that's restricted.) Drop a note here when you're done and we'll procedurally close the debate. Rossami (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok. I've just added the ((R from misspelling)) template to the page. If an experienced editor/admin can just check the page and make sure I've done it correctly, then this discussion can be closed. Thanks. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 18:53, 17 May 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 gone — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Barn.jpg → File:Barn-Bchiu.jpg (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Moved unused file to resolve conflict with file on commons Eeekster (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment can't this be G8 deleted? "File:Barn-Bchiu.jpg" was deleted. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:34, 18 May 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. Non-admin closure. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding the Value of Pharmaceuticals[edit]

• Understanding the Value of Pharmaceuticals → Pharmacology (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 9. In addition to deciding whether this redirect should be deleted, please opine on whether the page history should be preserved, if the redirect is kept. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the same reasons stated in the first RfD. And, yes, I did read the full page history and believed that there was no compelling reason to delete it. The original page seemed to me to be a school paper which the author offered to Wikipedia as the possible start of an article. The title was not in accordance with our manual of style, nor was the writing style, but the content was reasonably well written and included above-average sources. Some of our best articles had much rockier starts than this one.
  The page was eventually turned into a redirect (appropriately in my opinion) but there seemed to be a reasonable chance that some of the content was moved into one or more other articles in Wikipedia. Keeping pagehistory helps to ensure our compliance with the attribution requirements of GFDL and CC-BY-SA. Even if there is only a small probability that content was reused, I saw zero benefit to deleting the underlying content. "Small" is still greater than "zero" so the pagehistory stays. Rossami (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have specific articles in mind, I will investigate and add attribution per WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirect per my reasoning in the previous discussion. Also, keep page history mainly per Rossami, but also even if it hasn't been copied elsewhere it is not doing any harm and remains as a potential source for future copying/reference. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-Put simply, the gain, even if it is minimal, of having the redirect outweighs the zero gain in deleting it. In addition, the history should be retained, simply because there is nothing in that is problematic when it exists only as a prior revision; ie, no libel, copyright violations, or so forth.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:08, 16 May 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 no consensus to delete. Rossami (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 4 Women on the Route → Kan-O-Tex Service Station

This seems to be "self promotion" or "spam" for a group of 4 women. There is no article about these women, nor their group, thus lack notability. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Here we go again... 4 Women on the Route are the folks who were restoring the Kan-O-Tex Service Station in Galena, Kansas, as was explained in the article before this disruptive edit removing valid content and as is explained in these sources: [1], [2], [3]. Not sure what your WP:POINT is here but this is not constructive... and no, I have no self-interest in U.S. Route 66 in Kansas as it's all foreign to me. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was NOT a disruptive edit, because the text layout didn't match the title of the article. I have the right to disagree with this redirect. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I request input from other people! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the service station and its environs have received coverage by NPR and appear notable. The name of the company running the place seems a likely enough search term. Huon (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. That edit was evidently made in good faith and shouldn't be called "disruptive", but the "4 Women" have received considerable mention in independent coverage about this notable project, so the content about them should be restored to the article and the redirect kept. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:17, 17 May 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.