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. Redirects created when moving pages unambiguously created in the wrong namespace can be speedy deleted under criterion G6. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Damianos Sotheby's International Realty → Damianos Sotheby's International Realty (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect (article is now at Damianos Sotheby's International Realty). DexDor (talk) 19:31, 11 September 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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Olga Aleksandrovna Sedakova → Olga Sedakova (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

different Olga Sedakova than ru:Седакова, Ольга Александровна gobonobo ^{+ c} 03:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, entirely my fault. Should be deleted until the correct article has been created.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now corrected, can be speedy kept.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is good now. I withdraw this. Thanks Ymblanter. gobonobo ^{+ c} 14:18, 11 September 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 register a doppelganger account and keep to minimise disruption. � (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

• User:CakeProphet → User:The prophet wizard of the crayon cake (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

User:CakeProphet does not exist. KonveyorBelt 02:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Bypass all incoming links and delete since this username is available, so someone taking it will have an inappropriate redirected user and talk pages -- 70.51.201.202 (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep. User:The prophet wizard of the crayon cake linked to their userpage via this redirect in their signature so deletion would break hundreds of links in old discussions. My understanding is that the system will not allow this username to be registered while the redirect to another username exists (I can't test this while it is not a redirect though) so the anon's concerns will not happen. While these links could be retargetted, old discussions should not be edited without a very good reason, and I do not see this as a good reason let alone a very good reason. Thryduulf (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Register and keep Prophet wizard needs to register the username if they use this redirect. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlikely, as they haven't edited for...5 years? Ansh666 18:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why should s/he occupy two accounts? Just delete this, and let people use it. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 22:40, 12 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) 16:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Фонд Викимедиа → Wikimedia Foundation (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Not especially Russian - TheChampionMan1234 01:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No needed in this wiki; delete. --Kaganer (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. ru:Фонд Викимедиа already exists and is Interwiki linked. Perhaps I shouldn't grumble, but the way now Interwiki links are done rather than adding them manually like we used to do in the good old days, tends to multiply useless Interwiki links. Now, doing the IW was a right old pain if one had a few languages one had collated an article from; but it had the advantage that one could pick and choose (and not necessarily direct to the exactly parallel topic but to a near but more informative topic); it was quite frequent to go around the houses, for me, from English to German to Spanish to French to Hungarian or whatever, then back to English, and find myself going from London Transport to LPTB or whatever, in a series of Chinese whispers. I am not sure that was a bad thing, on the whole; as BD pointed out recently elsewhere and which I wholeheartely agree with, we are here to serve readers looking for information, and I am not sure that this automatic IW stuff helps that: it saves editors some effort, but harms readers searching. (End of diatribe.) Si Trew (talk) 14:47, 15 September 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) 16:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not especially Chinese. - TheChampionMan1234 01:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question would the Chinese term be better off retargetted to Xiangqi? --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It means ‘international xiangqi’, i.e. Western chess, so it should not be retargeted. Gorobay (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see, Delete then per 野狼院ひさし.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• If there is a part detailing (speculation follows) how "xiangqi" has been taken to mean Xiangqi and therefore authority has to settle with adding "international" to the Chinese name then it is possibly OK to redirect to that section. Otherwise delete per not translation dictionary. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 03:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Accurate, obviously useful and used according to page stats. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 21:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but is it used by mistake? We don't have stats on how long someone stays on the target page. (We could implement some naughtiness to do a watchdog timer, but that would be against WP philosophy, I think.) My guess is they are better served at zh:國際象棋. Si Trew (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely intentional, as the 'en' article will be more informative. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 21:49, 21 September 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) 16:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Daegu International Film Festival → Daegu (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

There is no such festival, this just reveals pages mirroring Wikipedia such as OneLook dictionary, it isn't the first time I've seen this. - TheChampionMan1234 00:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Weird. —mako๛ 22:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note the creator of this article made a whole bunch of these at about the same time. It might be good to figure out what what was going on? —mako๛ 22:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right. This is a bit odd I looked at Ping'an for example and it is a DAB, almost all of which are redlinks (which obviously a DAB should not have). That might be an exception, because most of the entries at that DAB are to places in China, not North Korea. Busan International School is an R to Busan Foreign School which is in South Korea (so it says). That is just my plucking examples more or less at random; I am sure others would tend to the same conclu. All in mid-2007. Something is a bit fishy here. Si Trew (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Going round the houses, 1999 IIHF Asian Oceanic Junior U18 Championship exists via R to DABs to Rs to DABs etc. The Champ is probably the best to judge this (I don't write Chinese or Hangul, but can parse katakana and hiragana) but I doubt an English speaker would ever think to type that title into a search bar. These were created en masse in summer of 2007, but I would not like to judge by whom. As a native English speaker, they seem very well written in English: and all tied up etc (wish I was that good an editor) but I would guess either China or North Korea. Some are to South Korea but that is perhaps just a bit if diplomacy (there was a superb statement from North Korea yesterday which BBC Monitoring picked up, for example, that a British citizen had been given hard labour for six years for some bit of naughtiness and the British are asking for him back to serve the time in the UK: the question in my head is why would North Korea be so nice rather than just take him out the back and put a bullet through his head, no questions asked? Something fishy with that one too. Ambrose Bierce defines Diplomat in the Devil's Dictionary as "A man sent abroad to lie for his country"). Si Trew (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Second guess. Most of the entries are for schools of some kind (with extreme prejudice, I suggest a Diploma mill). For example Exeter Academy redireects to Phillips Exeter Academy, based in New Hampshire (whereas I would have thought WP:PRIMARY would be to Exeter University in southwest England, now part of the University of the West of England, so my genuine certificate from them is worth bugger all then!) Si Trew (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Your cub reporter is on the case, as you see. Give me the tools I shall do the job. Not found a geographical IP for it yet. Vermi, Verbum: probat. To be clear, I got Exeter Academy after jumping through hoops of the various DABs and Rs that Benjamin pointed to. Deliberately I am doing it here without links so we don't weave the web closer. Si Trew (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Re "without links" - are you aware that if you link to [[:Foo]] the colon means it doesn't show up in Foo's what-links-here list? DexDor (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I was not aware of that. I always sign for myself and suffer the consequences! I only use that form for Interwiki links etc. That spins another yarn, then. That might be quite relevant, DexDor, because tracing the creator of these Rs to articles (that I tink are WP:PROMO) has taken me a lot of time but I got nowhere. Should we take the articles themselves to AfD? Then obviously the Rs follow. It seems like a promo for various language schools. Si Trew (talk) 10:02, 17 September 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.