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. Having been merged through AfD, the history of this page must be retained. No prejudice against a future request for retargeting, but deletion really isn't an option. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Highest-valued currency unit → List of circulating currencies (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Redirect to a page that doesn't even mention it 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.}_{See where I screwed up.} 16:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The part which was specifically suggested to be merged at the AfD was merged [1], 2Awwsome then replaced it by copy-pasting the entire original article, which is 99% WP:original research. That got, understandably, reverted. The closing admin's comments were: "There is unfortunately little doubt that this is not a notable concept (violating various parts of WP:NOT)" and a subsequent clarification: [2]. It's fine as a redirect as is. The stuff about the Kuwaiti dinar may be added into the target article (also see discussion on talk page). Volunteer Marek  18:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - High value currency and Strongest Currency also redirects to the same target. Also see the merge discussion for Least-valued currency unit contributed to by the nominator. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As mentioned above, this page was to be merged into another page as a result of the AfD, but there wasn't consensus on the target page to add much of the AfD'd content. Hence it's functionally a redirect, but its edit history might be useful if an editor is able to gain consensus to merge more of it later. Breadblade (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – 2Awwsome: There was an ongoing discussing on Black Kite's talk page. Why did you go and start a discussion here? This cannot possibly be resolved if the discussion is continually fragmented between different pages. – Zntrip 02:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment' - Without content from the page, the redirect is misleading and not tolerable. Either suitable content be added to target of the redirect or the redirected page is deleted and all links to it removed. Karl (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I found content at www.therichest.com/rich-list/world/most-valuable-currencies/ [[3]] Karl (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry I don't understand your argument. How is the redirect "misleading and not tolerable"? What does that mean? What Wikipedia policy are you referring to?
  • And seriously, one more time this *is not* a reliable source. It's just a Wikipedia mirror/copy of the old version of the deleted article. People. Please. Learn how to tell reliable sources from junk. Volunteer Marek  20:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable or not reliable, it's not a mirror site. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.}_{See where I screwed up.} 19:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a copy of the old version of the Wikipedia article. Stop playing stupid semantic games.  Volunteer Marek  21:36, 3 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 keep - the nomination has been withdrawn with no contrary views. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Onto (mathematics) → Surjective function (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

retracted target has already redirect from onto, only link to it was from bijection, extremely unlikely search term, no significant traffic Paradoctor (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - plausible search term, no argument has been presented for deletion. Oh, and it's more than six years old, so there's obviously a good chance it's externally linked. WilyD 10:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how "onto (mathematics)" is a plausible search term? I also don't understand what you mean by "no argument", I listed four points in support. If you disagree with any of these, please state why. Paradoctor (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's plausible someone would guess the term was there (indeed, it's almost certain that someone has, which was why the redirect was created in the first place). Your "points" don't support deletion, so they're not arguments for deletion, they're merely non sequiturs. WilyD 12:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"don't support deletion" Kindly argue your case, the disagreement is already established, and restating it doesn't help me understand your opposition.

None of the statements in the nomination explain why there would be any benefit to deleting the redirect. Without being able to guess why someone might mistakenly think otherwise, it's difficult to explain why they're wrong to do so. WilyD 14:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it seems I mistakenly assumed that was clear; forest and trees, sorry about that. WP:RFD#DELETE no. 8, "novel" and "obscure" apply both. As long Rick doesn't tell us otherwise, this redirect quacks like an accidental creation that merely escaped notice. (He unlinked the redirect three minutes after its creation.) External links do not exist. To put this in perspective, onto has one link from Wikibooks, and it is 3 years older.

Neither novel or obscure, especially since you yourself endorse the existence of onto. Since it resembles two very common words that often go together (on to), many editors might guess that onto is ambiguous, and knowing how Wiki handles that, adds (mathematics) to the end. So, redirect makes sense, targets the right place, a clear case of keep. Ego White Tray (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - it is a major concept in basic mathematics. The older term, "surjective", is less often used than "onto". Rick Norwood (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there might be a misunderstanding. This is not about "onto", it's about "onto (mathematics)", which AFAIK has never been used outside of Wikipedia. I have no problem with the redirect at onto whatsoever. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Aids in searches — Special:Search/mathematics onto lists Surjective function as the first result thanks to this redirect. Aids in linking — "Onto" itself may be retargeted in the future, but "onto (mathematics)" unambiguously refers to this concept. The redirect is similar in spirit to ((R from alternative disambiguation)) and ((R from unnecessary disambiguation)). Keφr 18:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One learns something new each day here. The arguments for the redirect's utility are rather bizarre, but ((R from unnecessary disambiguation)) tells me it's time to face the fat lady. Paradoctor (talk) 18:39, 28 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 delete per WP:REDLINK. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Military governor → Governor (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

The term "Military governor" is not in the target. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redlink to create article I'd say that military governor should be its own article. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, and ideally add a mention of the term to the target. I'm willing to be swayed, but currently unconvinced that the concept of a military governor is likely to be notable. This is a plausible search term, so deletion is a bad idea, and there are no other obvious targets. Even without mentioning the term in the target the current redirect offers some background on the topic (governor) of which "military governor" is a subtopic. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:REDLINK. I say this precisely because it is a plausible search term. It's one that essentially we're not catering to, but are pretending to do so with this redirect. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 5 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 speedy deleted by Jni. Non-admin closure. Ego White Tray (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wt breakf → Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Breakfast (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Seems like an unlikely search term. buffbills7701 02:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as both cross-namespace and implausible - also, probably G6 and G7, since I suspect that this redirect was a goof. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:14, 28 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.