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. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Lechería, Anzoátegui → Municipalities of Venezuela (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete because Lechería is not a municipality but the seat of the Diego Bautista Urbaneja Municipality. Note that Lechería doesn't have an entry. 88.65.254.28 (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE point 10 - we need an article on this place and [1] provides some source material. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Relevant to Diego Bautista, but deleting it would help on RFD #10 grounds. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2013 (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. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Woll Smoth → Will Smith (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Non-notable photoshopping meme (see Know Your Meme). No mention on target page, unlikely search term due to lack of reputable coverage of this meme. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unlikely synonym and misspelling.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Only one character away from the correct name, and the two letters are next to each other on a QWERTY keyboard — not harmful, confusing, etc., but an easy typo to make. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Nyttend. I suppose if a reader is going to make the typo once, they might make it twice. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2013 (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. WJBscribe (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Kainaw's criteria → User:Kainaw/Kainaw's criterion (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Cross name-space redirect from mainspace to userspace, already deleted once under R2 as is appropriate and restored because apparently "This is a much used redirect and should not be delted without discussion)" Jac16888 ^Talk 00:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE point 6. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's only been in existence for 9 days, and it's gotten 65 hits in that time, even though it's linked only by a database report, an admin noticeboard subpage, the Reference Desk talk, and RFD: it's clearly getting substantial use. There's no possible alternate meaning, and it's not close enough to something else that you'd reach this page with a typo, so it's not going to confuse people who intentionally go to it. I can't remember if Special:Random can send you to a redirect, but the chances of reaching it that way are either absolutely 0, or they're one in several million. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 65 hits is not remotely substantial, and even if it was it would not be a reason for keeping it. There is absolutely zero reason why this particular subpage of one editors opinions requires a mainspace redirect, something we allow in only the rarest of situations. This redirect is explictly against policy, and you have said nothing to suggest this should be an exception--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If hits continue at this rate, there will be over 200 per month; that's substantial, and it's more than two of my three GAs (1, 2, and 3) got last month. Remember that the primary purpose of redirects is to help people find pages, regardless of their location and the location of the redirect; it's not helpful to delete a page when it's likely to prevent 200+ people per month from reaching the result they're seeking without additional effort. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, hit rates are meaningless, as is a guess that they will continue to increase. People are only using the redirect because it exists, because somebody linked to it then created it rather than directly to the target, there is nothing to indicate people are actually searching for this page. As I have said, there is nothing to make the target remotely deserving of a redirect we do not offer many more important pages--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per precedent at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 10#CSD:G1; the argument for keeping those redirects was stronger, as they were used in the deletion log. Peter James (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The redirect is clearly in use (and this is not meaningless for redirects), and Wikipedia to User redirects are not against any policy or guideline, so given that the redirect is not misleading or in the way of anything else then deletion would be significantly more harmful than keeping. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are mistaken, it is not Wikipedia to User it is Article to User, which is against policy--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed I am, sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per TWW and what I would consider common sense: user pages are not articles, even if they're drafts thereof, and we shouldn't do anything that implies that these pages are articles. This is the essence of WP:FAKEARTICLE. I can't speak strongly against practices that establish userspace pages as a sort of shadow mainspace. Unless and until we have a live mainspace article on the topic, this will have to remain red. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2013 (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.