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 Lists of 100 best books. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The 100 Best Books of All Time → Bokklubben World Library (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

The apparently arbitrary phrase "100 Best Books of All Time" does not appear in the target article and there have been various other attempts to make such lists. McGeddon (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:McGeddon Can you propose any other alternative? I don't really agree with the listing though. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I suppose it could point to a disambiguation page listing the various Wikipedia articles of top 100 book lists, if such a page were to be created. --McGeddon (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good thought! Appreciate it. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; good idea. There is no good reason to let the norwegian list maintain ownership to this concept. Bw --Orland (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Lists of 100 best books, that I've just created (as suggested). Existing target is listed there. Si Trew (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I suppose I could have expanded this with sections on lists of 10, 50 and other numbers. That can wait. Best book, Best books, 100 best books, The 100 best books and similar variations seem all to be redlinks, fortunately. Si Trew (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. --McGeddon (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The redirect was left in the wake of a page move on 19 October by User:Orland; misgivings about "100 best" appearing somewhat subjective were discussed at the talk page by Orland and User:McGeddon for a few weeks before that. I've added a courtesy RfDNote to the talk page of the target. Si Trew (talk) 06:27, 31 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) 18:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Random Number God → Random number generation (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

More confusing than useful; this doesn't aid much in searching because it's unlikely to be used without knowing the intended target. It seems to be making more of a statement (i.e. "I consider the Random Number Generator to be some sort of deity that can potentially be appeased", a common attitude in some computer game communities) than serving an encyclopaedic purpose (and is thus somewhat non-NPOV, in a minor way), and the fact that double-redirects don't work removes any humour value it might have. I recommend deletion. --ais523 07:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delete as vague synonym. it's a tongue-in-cheek term on how the RNG usually acts in games especially tabletop ones. You have to "appease" it to give you advantageous rolls or it will punish you with bad ones. Since the target article doesn't explain that aspect of the RNG, I think this is better off left to TVTropes to explain. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak retarget to Hol (role-playing game)#Rewards, which describes the "Grace of God" Game Master fairly well and has the term "random number", but not "random number god" or "random number generat[or/ion]". Random encounter is also an outside bet, but doesn't mention it specifically. Wiktionary has it, and it's used at Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test, but otherwise I drew a blank. Dice is also possible, but obtuse. Si Trew (talk) 09:27, 31 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 Don Kanonji and restore article, respectively (the IP's solution). --BDD (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Don kanonji → List of Bleach characters (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Don Kanonji → List of Bleach characters  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Viewed as a redirect, the redirect is confusing because the character is not mentioned on the target page. Viewed as an article (as the page was created) the character is so obscure that it is not mentioned in a very inclusive list of characters. —teb728 t c 06:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (uninitiated) This wikia article for the character is pretty big (in size), the Plot section showing appearances in 5 named arcs. Add to article and keep, or delete if it is deemed not suitable to have a bio of him at all. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 10:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm inclined to suggest restoring the article and proposing a merge with the explicit statement that if it isn't merged then you'll be nominating it for deletion, however the target article is already marked as too long. Certainly if the character isn't mentioned at the article then it shouldn't be a redirect to it. Note that I've added the differently capitalised Don Kanonji to this nomination. That page also started life as an article but was redirected without obvious discussion (and later edit warred to keep that way). Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• revert Don_Kanonji to being an article (which it was in 2007), repoint don_kanonji to it, and then send it to AfD to determine if it should be merged or deleted. The redirect will follow whatever happens to the article. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:14, 13 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.