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. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Internet Explorer 0 → Internet Explorer versions (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

There was no IE0, not even 0.1 - TheChampionMan1234 23:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep it is part of a series, so can exist as a series entry. It can also be used to refer to prototype pre-release MSIEs prior to the rollout of version 1's -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternately, it could be retargetted to Spyglass Mosaic, as the progenitor of MSIE, but I think the current target works well enough if we keep this -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 67.70.35.44. Many software versions start with 0 or 0.1 so this is a likely search term for people who know that but don't know that IE didn't. The target educates them that the first version was numbered 1, whereas search results (if they are seen, and they are not always) do not and a redlink would invite the creation of an incorrect article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - directs readers to the information they're looking for; no argument has been presented for deletion. WilyD 15:09, 17 October 2014 (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. While I doubt a list of all such authors could be really tenable, this will serve readers who want to know just what this commonly-deployed phrase refers to. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• New York Times Best Selling Author → The New York Times Best Seller list (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete. This redirect is too ambiguous to be helpful. For it to be useful, it would have to target the actual current best-selling author, which would be a difficult task to upkeep. Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This doesn't make sense to me at all. When a page refers to a "New York Times Best Selling author," it's common sense (and in line with WP:LINK) to provide a link to inform the reader what that means. There is no suggestion that the link would lead to a page about that particular author. Certainly that could be done with a piped link, but that's clunky and should be unnecessary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that New York Times Bestseller redirects to The New York Times Best Seller list. My understanding is that by Steel's logic, it should redirect somewhere else. (Maybe The New York Times Fiction Best Sellers of 2014 or The New York Times Non-Fiction Best Sellers of 2014? Not sure.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFleischman: Your second paragraph regarding New York Times Bestseller is not the point of my nomination. I actually agree with that redirect; I don't agree with the one I nominated because it contains the word "author", which the article doesn't specifically mention as a subject, but rather best-selling books. Steel1943 (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand your beef a bit better. I personally don't see any trouble with this as every best-selling author has written a best-selling book, the relationship is clear to the reader. I reader asks the question, "What is a New York Times Best Selling author?" and answer is of course, "A person who wrote a New York Times Best Seller." In any case, how do you propose we handle this? Piped link? That wouldn't appear to solve your problem and it would be clunky to boot. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or create a list. Per Dr. Fleischman this is the best target we currently have for this search. An alternative would be to create one or more lists (fiction, non-fiction, etc) of authors who have had a best-selling book (If we have one I can't find it) and redirect this to there. The introduction to such a list would explain what a New York Times Best Selling Author is and list people who it applies to. Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there's no reason I can see to think the redirect is ambiguous, and directs the reader to what they're looking for. WilyD 15:08, 17 October 2014 (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. --BDD (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Chess is not a specifically Korean game. Note that this redirect is from cheseu, i.e. Western chess, not janggi. Gorobay (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. WP:NOT a translation dictionary, Western chess has little affinity for Korean, there being a native Korean chess, and major East Asian chess versions Shogi and Xiangqi -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:43, 17 October 2014 (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. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ἀναρχίᾱ → Anarchy (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Anarchíā → Anarchy  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete. Anarchy is not a specifically Ancient Greek concept. Gorobay (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. Little affinity for Greek, anarchy existing outside of Greece as well as in Greece, so a general topic. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2014 (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 deletion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Debootstrap → Debian-Installer (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Unneeded redirect. Draft finished. Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 14:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per speedy deletion criterion G7. Since the nominator is the creator of the draft, and since it was all merged to the target article with attribution, deletion should be uncontroversial and speedy. Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2014 (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. --BDD (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Persib Bandung Former Foreign Players → List of Persib Bandung former foreign players (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete, since the target page have a correct use of title spelling, no red-links and uses codes for country codes. MbahGondrong (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a standard ((R from other capitalisation)), so there is no point to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2014 (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 to ScREC. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete "screc" isn't a logical misspelling of "scree". Computergeeksjw (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment how about retargetting to ScREC (supercomputer)? This looks like a plausible miscapitalized redirect--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) retarget to ScREC (supercomputer) (which should be moved to ScREC as there is nothing to disambiguate it from other than this redirect). Thryduulf (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2014 (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 restored, with the addition of a note explaining SkyLined's intent. See the linked RfD from October 12 for more details. --BDD (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• User talk:86.89.144.60 → User talk:SkyLined (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Rollback @SkyLined: deleted the content of this talk page and redirected the talk page to his account. Then recently he requested the deletion of the user page at RFD Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_13#User:86.89.144.60. This should not redirect to his talk page, as this is not related to him, and the old talk should be reinstated, as it should not have been overwritten with a redirect in the first place. 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 12#User:83.84.60.13 -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2014 (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. Bearcat's argument that these are potentially libellous in the absence of referenced mentions of these companies is convincing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• OmniTech Support → Technical support scam (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

• YooCare → Technical support scam (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

• AMMYY → Technical support scam (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

This company apparently often poses as Microsoft tech support to charge outrageous service fees - but, not mentioned in the article, and the connection won't be obvious. A red link is better in case it actually is decided worth an article some day. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep If anyone knows that that company is a scam, and looks that up, they will know more about the scam. Anyway @Oiyarbepsy:, why didn't you nominate a lot of the other redirects I created, they are all in common use on the internet. - TheChampionMan1234 04:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other ones I found made a lot more sense to me and the connection was more clear - for example, Microsoft scam's connection to tech support scam seems a lot more logical to me. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Oiyarbepsy:What about YooCare and AMMYY, I don't mind AT ALL if you go ahead and add any of the others to the nomination. Anyway, thank you for reviewing all those redirects that I've created. - TheChampionMan1234 04:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point - I've added those two. Maybe I should have looked a little more carefully. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Substantive and properly sourced articles about these companies and their purported "scams" might be appropriate — but simply redirecting them to an overview article about technical support scams in general, which contains no sourced content about these companies at all, is not the way to go about this. In fact, in the absence of reliable sourcing to actually support the characterization, it actually qualifies as libel to simply assert it without properly backing that up. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat. I'm inclined to keep if not for Bearcat's correct characterization of this as libel. Ivanvector (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2014 (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. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 朝鮮族/朝鲜族 → Koreans in China (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Unlikely search term, no one would combine both simplified and traditional Chinese, I have created the corresponding separate redirects. - TheChampionMan1234 01:49, 15 October 2014 (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.