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. Just Chilling (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Season 20 → The Simpsons (season 20) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

There are lots of twentieth seasons. What makes The Simpsons so special? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as vague redirect.-Lenticel ^(talk) 05:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete many 20th seasons. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Target article shows no special reason this should go there. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:48, 7 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 delete as requested by creator. [Non-admin closure.] Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Old Family Mobile → Family Mobile (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete. This was created in a failed attempt to move IKEA Family Mobile to Family Mobile (it has since been moved properly). The “old” is not actually part of the company’s name. Gorobay (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This looks like a non-controversial cleanup IMO. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:37, 28 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. This may or may not be worth revisiting if any of those redlinked articles are created or recreated. --BDD (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Lyallpur (disambiguation) → Faisalabad (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Named as a disambiguation page that is actually a redirect to a non dab page. No articles link here so does not appear to serve any purpose. noq (talk) 09:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• comment 1 (factual background) There is a complicated history here:
  • This was created by a bot in 2008 as a WP:INTDABLINK targetted at Lyallpur when that was a disambiguation page linking to Faisalabad (formerly known as "Lyallpur") and Lyallpur Town, a municipal area of Pakistan.
  • In 2010, Lyallpur Town was deleted by user:JzG with the summary "Newbie error,. unsrouced perosnal opinion, newbie has many other such article problems" (which is not a speedy deletion criterion, and I haven't found any related discussion. The article had several authors over 4 years).
  • Lyallpur then became a disambiguation page with only one blue link, and in 2013 user:Wikid77 (correctly) turned it into a redirect to the one blue link.
  • About 30 minutes after Lyallpur became a redirect, user:AvicBot automatically fixed the resulting double redirect at Lyallpur (disambiguation) to point to the present target.
  • The current redirect got 93 hits in August and 132 in July, which is high for any sort of redirect and exceptionally high for an INTDABLINK redirect (the actual disambiguation page at Faisalabad (disambiguation) got only marginally higher for example), strongly suggesting this is linked from somewhere external. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• comment 2 (my opinion). In ordinary circumstances I would simply recommend deletion as an obsolete redirect (noting that the nomination here was the page's first human edit) however the unusual deletion of Lyallpur Town (which wasn't in good shape, but equally wasn't unsolvable in my opinion) and the very high traffic level mean I want to give this one more consideration. I'm going to inform the folks watching Talk:Faislabad and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan about this discussion and seek their opinion on whether Lyallpur Town should have an article, and if so whether Lyallpur should be a disambig or whether it should instead have a hatnote at Faislabad. If a dab page is created then this should be kept, but if one isn't required then it should go. Watch this space though. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unless there is a disambiguation page with additional topics, there is no need for the redirect or the page. If Lyallpur Town is recreated, and is the only other sense, it seems a hatnote from the much more prominent Faislabad will do. bd2412 T 17:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep the pages Lyallpur Town and (probably) Lyallpur Tehsil, should be created, Lyallpur should be a dab page and the redirect should be retargetted there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC).
  
• Delete, unless better examples of when them is used alone to describe a subject in order to validate this redirect bring converted to a disambiguation page; all examples presented thus far are partial title matches. Steel1943 (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. User:Rich Farmbrough and his bots are always wrong, so it must be a delete if he says keep. I read the arguments presented, and was undecided. But if Farmbrough says keep, and Farmbrough and his bots are always wrong, the right answer must be delete. Si Trew (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please can you strike that ad hominem argument and offer your opinion about this redirects based on its merits, not your opinion of somoene who commented on it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I did think about retarget to Lilliput, or even to Elizabeth II, who was called "Lilibet" when she was young and is in the article and reffed (Lilibet R's to Elizabeth (given name), where Her Maj is in the pic on the infobox), but either seems stretching it rather. Si Trew (talk) 13:24, 6 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 procedural close, as the redirect has been converted into an article. --BDD (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Jay Freeman → Cydia (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This has the same rationale as the similar "saurik" redirect I proposed for deletion yesterday; it's the person's real name to go along with that internet handle. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 25#saurik - the main reason is that he is notable and could have an article written about him and his work, and the current target article is only one of his projects and does not discuss him beyond a mention. As disclosed on my user page, I work with him. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close, please. With this and subsequent edits I've translated the article from ES:WP and added the appropriate translation tags etc. to the talk page, IW'd etc. I don't think it's reliably sourced, but Not Our Problem anymore. I'll add a note at the RfD for saurik. Si Trew (talk) 21:05, 2 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.