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. (non-admin closure) Windows 10 is an article that provides explicit information about this term; therefore, it is the primary topic. Please note that per deletion policy, I have ignored a good number of !votes, including those that provided no reason, "it is useful" or "likely to be searched by thousands of people". In addition, I did take into the consideration that rumors are not encyclopedic and are best left well alone. However, by and large, the participants agree that the world in general has disregarded this principle and in doing so, gave due weight to the coverage of something that never existed. Fleet Command (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Windows 9 → Windows 10 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete and salt (it was salted before, but has been unsalted just before the name announcement). It was never called this. � (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created it, because mountains of Windows 9 articles on the internet prior to the official Windows 10 naming. This link might be useful for some short period of time, but otherwise is not important after everyone learns about the new name. Actaully, I don't care if you keep or delete it, and not worth my time to argue either way. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. (edit conflict) We have had six (6) xFDs on "Windows 9" and the result of none of them was keep. There has never been a "Windows 9" and now there is proof that there will never be. The unlikeliness of this name was emphatically discussed on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 11 § Windows 9. The target is unimportant; the target has always have been an excuse for the title. Also, what happened to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY? Why every time someone invents a name must my good colleagues be forced to go through colorful xFDs to delete that lie? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is the reason your "good colleagues" shouldn't create "colorful xFDs" for redirects of likely search terms where a reasonable target exists. Rlendog (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or at least redirect somewhere - why is this so hard? Fine it "doesn't exist", but people are going to be searching for it. The same can be said for thousands of other redirects on Wikipedia, including for example Windows 4, Windows 5, and iPhone 2. WP:COMMONSENSE. FF2010 20:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, let them reach the search page that says "a page with this title doesn't exist". What better message do you need to communicate this? Also, WP:OSE is really the worst discussion here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not about OSE, this is about the article's own merits. Windows 9 is likely to be searched for over the coming year by thousands of people looking for information about the next version of Windows, not knowing that it's called something different. The redirect provides or will provide usefulness to these people. FF2010 20:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (neutral on deletion; oppose salting): As I understand it, we do not delete redirects solely because they represent factual errors, as long as there is some external source of confusion that justifies the redirect's existence and the redirect does not make it unreasonably hard to find the topic's correct name. ((r from incorrect name)) exists; I am open to replacing my previous categorization attempt (((r from former name))) if reasonable. Salting is harmful because it impedes the implementation of future changes to consensus. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a likely search term and the next in a sequence of numbers so why wouldn't people look it up thinking it is the next release? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Knowledgekid87, particularly as the naming issue is explained in the Windows 10 article. The term "Windows 9" as it has been used refers to the OS that Microsoft has titled "Windows 10"; it's as easy as that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace with the contents of Windows 9 (disambiguation) (or redirect to Windows 9 (disambiguation)). Both Windows 9x and Windows 10 are relevant targets for a search on “Windows 9.” (And the conjunction suggest a likely reason why Windows 9 was skipped.) —teb728 t c 21:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per FF2010. In fact, I don't understand why anyone would want to delete this. Perhaps the OP doesn't understand what a redirect is? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am certain people will continue to search for it, so I don't know why we wouldn't keep it. Eventually I expect it will point to a specific part of the Windows 10 page explaining the numbering skipped Windows 9. 22:08, 30 September 2014‎ 38.100.17.149
• Redirect to Windows NT#Releases. It seems to me that there's no perfect way for Wikipedia to resolve such a confusion caused by Microsoft and long-time rumors. But since Windows 5 and Windows 6 both redirect to Windows NT#Releases, I believe this may be a way to redirect a Windows OS that doesn't exist. The benefit is that readers can easily get the information that Windows 9 doesn't exist, and Windows 10 is immediately after Windows 8.1. Chmarkine (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - remains a likely search term, and this is the most helpful target. Robofish (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Windows 9x and add a hatnote there about Windows 10. --NYKevin 23:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, "Windows 9" has been on so many headlines, and I am sure part of the Windows 10 article would cover this, just like iWatch. --Kuailong (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as one of the primary uses of redirects is to provide links from likely search terms to their proper articles. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The last RfD's primary concern was WP:CRYSTAL this has since changed. Reading WP:G4 it states "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". I also invite the OP to read WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and target to section #Name, which has the statement "There is no Windows 9." Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a redirect to Windows 10. Readers looking for the successor to Windows 8 are likely to enter "Windows 9". And taking out ~1700 views on 9/30, it is still viewed over 50 times per day. The redirect will help 50 users per day. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for the myriad reasons stated by the other keep votes above. —Lowellian (reply) 06:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the related AfD for the dab page is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 9 (disambiguation). There are RS for the speculated name Windows 9, so it may be worked into the article (as it is already) and a valid redirect used (a redirects for a project name, spelling error or something else if fine, especially if there's RS - if those RS are just speculation, then they may be worth removing). I suggest deciding on this redirect first, and then the AfD for the dab second as it's somewhat dependent on it (WP:TWODABS). Widefox; talk 09:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Now there is definite information a redirect to an appropriate place is useful to our readers. Previous AFD's or RFDs are irrelevant. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. In addition to all the other keep reasons given, this is also a search term that will be used by those hearing the next version of Windows will be called "Windows 10" and wanting to find out about what happened to Windows 9 that they don't remember hearing about. The target gives the information these people will be looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Many people are going to be searching for this. It should be redirected to Windows 10. --Miller9904 (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It is a likely search term, so there is a benefit to keeping as a redirect, and no valid reason to delete. I would redirect to Windows 10 as the most likely target of users searching for this term, but if another target is more sensible that is fine. Rlendog (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace with Windows 9 (disambiguation). I created the disambiguation page specifically to avoid confusion like this one. srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...} 19:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Keep. Have a hatnote for the Windows 9 redirect with a hatnote to Windows 9x. srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...} 15:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace with dab page, containing what's currently at Windows 9 (disambiguation). The comments above show two possible uses of the term: a wrong name for Windows 10, and a generic name for Windows 9x. Dab page is an ideal solution. PamD 19:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a likely search term, and I think Windows 10 is the most likely page that people searching for this would want. That page also currently mentions the name "Windows 9". A hatnote should be placed on that page, to link people to Windows 9x if that is what they were looking for. I think that is a better solution than using the disambiguation page that Srsrox created, but I think using the disambiguation page would be better than making Windows 9 a redlink. Calathan (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep highly likely "incorrect name" covered by article and sources - we even have ((R from incorrect name)) which I've added for exactly this. Widefox; talk 19:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per everyone else; Windows 9 is currently commonly used to refer to Windows 10 and should lead to there. We can revisit the decision in a couple of months when people forget about whether 9 = 10, but for now, keep. 81.232.114.228 (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, since thousands of people asking "What happened to Windows 9?" seems to be important enough to leave this redirect in place. Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Because "it was never called this" is simply incorrect. The world is larger then Microsoft's legal and marketing departments. (And Oceania has not always been at war with Eastasia.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: it is a relavent search query and as an encyclopedia, wikipedia should take them to the right article for the topic... a hatnote at Windows 10 can clarify any confusions as to the reasons behind redirection. Google results show enough independent articles being published on "why it is called Windows 10 and not 9". --lTopGunl (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a plausible search term.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:59, 4 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 deleted by the author under criterion G7. Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:IFYOUTYPEAPHRASEINCAPITALSSOMEONEWILLMAKEAREDIRECTTOANAPPROPRIATEPAGETOPROVIDEANANSWER → Wikipedia:Shortcut (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

joke redirect John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mildly amusing but pointless. Robofish (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "Mildly amusing but pointless" is about right. I created it as a joke a few years ago and I'd completely forgotten about it (it probably should have been deleted long ago). I've deleted it myself under G7 to save the bother. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:21, 1 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. The voting is close, but I think those arguing to delete have the stronger arguments. Best to have a uniform approach to trailing slashes in our URLs; this one shouldn't stick out one way or another. --BDD (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Home/ → Main Page (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Not needed, as we have the big logo in the top left corner to go to the main page of the wiki. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Anyone typing this in is just as likely to be trying to get to the page home as looking for Wikipedia's homepage. Robofish (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Home so that links of the form http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home/ do the right thing. While we're on the topic, should MediaWiki perform that fixup automatically? --NYKevin 23:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per NYKevin. MediaWiki should not do this automatically as there are topics and redirects that should be at titles ending with a slash - w/ is the first that comes to mind, and there is also just / itself (which can be searched for but not linked). Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

/? Si Trew (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think of the leading colon. Doh! Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per NYKevin and tag as misspelling. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am not convinced by NYKevin's arguments; there is a strong precedent on the Internet to not fix trailing slashes ([1][2][3][4][5]), why should we do it differently? (I can find one exception, but it ignores that component entirely.)
  If we want slashes redirected, we can raise it at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or whereever the MediaWiki devs live, but no matter what that results in, a manual redirect for this specific one will be pointless. Hence, delete.
  --81.232.114.228 (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first three of those have file extensions (so a trailing slash would be silly; you put a trailing slash on a directory, not a file), and the other two are wikis, which obviously tend to be rather pedantic about precise page names. --NYKevin 01:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• We are Wikipedia; wikis being pedantic about file paths is more an argument for removing than keeping. You have a point about file extensions, though, and most routing-enabled stuff I can find does indeed accept (or sometimes mandate) trailing slashes, so I'd say that leaves the precedent argument inconclusive. Therefore, let's do whatever seems the best for ourselves.

I see no advantage in allowing links of a form which nobody (to within experimental error) currently uses. Allowing trailing slashes on a minuscle fraction of our articles will just sow doubt about when they work and make people not use them.

I agree with Thryduulf on not automatically redirecting them. We've got enough restrictions on the titles already, I'd rather not add another. Additionally, even if we ignore trailing slashes, extra slashes in URLs sometimes have fully legitimate reasons to exist; we don't want home and /home to lead to the same place, nor should // (/wiki///) lead to anything except where it currently points. Ignoring extra slashes at some places and caring about them at other does not make any kind of sense to me.

Therefore, I still stand by not redirecting trailing slashes, and removing this one.

--81.232.114.228 (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's no reason that we should "fix" trailing slashes in this one specific case. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:29, 9 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) 20:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Flip rock → Halo (series) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

The redirect is not mentioned at the target page, and the redirect's title seems to ambiguous to be helpful (it's not about how to flip rocks.) Also, the edit history of the redirect contains an article that probably wouldn't survive a WP:AFD nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - not a useful redirect or likely search term. Robofish (talk) 22:54, 30 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) 20:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Create a template → Help:Template (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTHOWTO, further, Wikipedia isn't even the primary type of template. Woodworking templates are very common and much more likely to be requested than editing of Wikipedia. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 21:01, 30 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. Though redirects to citation templates have traditionally been considered benevolent CNRs, I found convincing the argument that this could be an obstacle to readers looking for an actual encyclopedic topic. --BDD (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Citebook → Template:Cite book (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace, which also conflicts with a real world term.[6] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:XNR to a template that is pipework and not a navigation template. Not reader content -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 30#Cite journal (where this redirect was discussed and kept) and the arguments for keeping presented at and linked from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 31#Cite book. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• So, is this a new social networking site? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Social networking would appear to have no relevance to this discussion what so ever. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yet another harmless shortcut that should be kept until and unless someone writes an article on the term as used in the legal vernacular, as cited by the nominator. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. See WP:EGG. Plus, disrupting or not adhering to order and methodology brings about chaos in the long run. If harmlessness was a criteria for keeping templates, there would have been no point in the existence of TfDRfD; no template or redirect, or anything else in Wikipedia can harm anyone. Or perhaps my colleagues here must re-define "harmful" and "harmless"? Fleet Command (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is RfD not TfD. See my comments at #Indonesia portal for a full refutation of this argument. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "TfD" was a typo. R and T are together on the QWERTY keyboard. If you are confused by "...no template in..." that refers to the target, not redirect. Anyway, nothing in Wikipedia can bodily harm anyone, be it template, redirect, etc. But it is good to know that you admin in Wikipedia throw out totally valid discussions by nitpicking them. Fleet Command (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:CNRs from mainspace. In this case, a reader searching for the legal term should find the search page with matching pages, not get dumped behind the curtain. Ivanvector (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, you must mean this search page? In all of en Wikipedia there seems to be only one article that even alludes to the legal term in an in-house book title. Not for anything, but "citebook" doesn't appear to be a widely used legal term, does it. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the point. I can't comment on how prevalent this is as a legal term; nom suggested it and it makes sense to me. If it is a common legal term, then readers will come here looking for it, and they should find that we do not have an article about the topic, rather than finding information about how to format a book citation in Wikipedia's preferred format. Then again this is a fairly mature project - surely if it is a common legal term, there is an appropriate target in mainspace already? I don't know what that is. Ivanvector (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, based on the Google Books search maybe it would be better to retarget this to Citation? Ivanvector (talk) 03:20, 15 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 keep. Portals are aimed at the reader and the consensus in this RFD reflects the broader consensus that pseudo-namespace redirects are acceptable as described in the relevant essay WP:CNS (second paragraph). NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace, using capitalisation as if it is a proper noun. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's not about namespaces, it's about reader-space versus editor-space. Portals are clearly reader-space. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong meh. If someone could find a real thing called "chess portal" (with or without Title Case), I'd be inclined to delete. --NYKevin 23:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Oiyarbepsy. This clearly directs readers to the reader-facing content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Oiyarbepsy. The reader-space/editor-space distinction is useful. Not everyone even sees the raw URL, depending on their browser settings. Si Trew (talk) 06:47, 3 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 speedily deleted by User: HJ Mitchell under G7. NAC. --NYKevin 23:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blank and redirect → Wikipedia:Redirect (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace. Not a WP:Shortcut. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I have this tendency to create shortcuts to policy in the main namespace instead of WP:. I've added a db-G7 tag so that it can be speedied. Diego (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:XNR to pipework nonreader content -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 21:06, 30 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 keep. --BDD (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Candidates for Speedy Deletion → Category:Candidates for speedy deletion (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace. Not a WP:Shortcut. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per User:Thryduulf's analysis, which can be found at the previous discussion on this redirect here, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_5#Candidates for Speedy Deletion. This is a useful redirect and I use it several times a week. Safiel (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. These CSD redirects are only keepable since they are so heavily used by new user. However, the category is useless for a new users, they want the page that describes what speedy deletion is all about. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:Candidates for Speedy Deletion could be used for this purpose, but it isn't, since it points to the CSD criteria page; This is not reader content. WP:CSDCANDIDATES would even be shorter and conform to shortcut. The pseudo namespace indicator is "CAT", and this is missing it CAT:Candidates for Speedy Deletion this is not. This already uses a didfferent targetn from the WPspace redirect, so should be deleted as it conflict snd exists in the wrong namespace without a pseudonamespace indicator. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep per my analysis in the old discussion linked to by Safiel, and their comment that they find this useful. Consensus can change, but it is very unlikely to do so when, as in this case, the facts underlying that consensus have not changed. This is still very widely used, it still doesn't conflict with an article, it still doesn't do any harm, and it still makes speed deletion candidates as easy to find as possible for those people who don't understand namespaces (the IP's arguments miss the point that this is intended for people who have no concept of namespaces, let alone pseudo ones). Deleting redirects like this is directly contrary to the WMF's strategic goals regarding editor retention and reducing barriers to participation. For the same reasons, we should not retarget this because someone searching for or following a link to "candidates for speedy deletion" is looking for a list of pages that have been nominated for speedy deletion, if they were looking for the policy about what can be nominated they would search for "criteria for speedy deletion" or "speedy deletion policy", so while this might not be very confusing for long-term Wikipedians, it would be WP:ASTONISHing for newbies. Thryduulf (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would [[WP:Candidates for Speedy Deletion]] and [[Candidates for Speedy Deletion]] point to different destinations? I'd expect only experienced technical users would ever access the category, therefore it is not useful to the average editor, and never useful to the general readership. It causes confusion, because it doesn't lead to the criteria page, where the WPspace redirect leads to, is missing the pseudonamespace indicator for category pointers (ie. [[CAT:Candidates for Speedy Deletion]]) so it is overall, a bad redirect. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears the WP page was boldly retargetted by user:SimonP. I'd have thought that both should be pointed at the category of candidates for the reasons I present here, but others may have different views. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • New users pretty much never looks at the category. They need the project page to understand why the page they made might be deleted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If people searching for this phrase want to know the policy then they can follow the link from the category description (which should be made more prominent, yes) but all the evidence from people who use this redirect is that it takes them to what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What possibly could this title mean, aside from its current target? It clearly can refer to CAT:CSD, and nobody's going to be confused about that, and I can't imagine anything else (at least anything here at Wikipedia) to which it would refer better. It's not hurting anything, and deletion would be an inconvenience to everyone who uses it. Nyttend (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep while I cordially detest cross-namespace redirection in all its forms, in this case I am persuaded an exception should be made. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC).
  
• Keep per Thryduulf. I'm breaking my "no redirects from mainspace" mantra a lot today! This one is doing no harm - I find it highly unlikely that an average reader is going to come here typing this into a search box when they intend to find an article about something, so there is very little risk of confusion. Ivanvector (talk) 21:42, 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. Just Chilling (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Article moving → Wikipedia:Moving a page (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Cross namespace redirect from mainspace. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete XNR to non-reader content. Not for navigation. Further, can be construed to be a request for the article named "moving", or for moving articles around in page formatting for a newspaper or journal, or moving articles around in laws. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Si Trew (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the IP. I couldn't think of a possible meaning for "article moving" aside from the current target, but moving is indeed a very likely meaning. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 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 delete. Just Chilling (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Article request → Wikipedia:Requested articles (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Cross namespace redirect from mainspace. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this can be interpreted to mean the user wants the article request. Or wanting to find a howto on requesting articles from newspapers, journals, etc. Or how to find a job articling at a law firm. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe my wrong English. (I created this redirect.) The "Request article" seems to be correct. --Love Krittaya (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO, request article should also be deleted (this can be interpreted to mean the user wants the request article) -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Requested articles and Requested article do not exist (nor should they). Si Trew (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comment above about article moving. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 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 per creator's request. [Non-admin closure.] Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Asosiy: → Main Page (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Apparently created due to some interwiki problem, partially described at Talk:Asosiy:. No response from creator at User_talk:Haruo#Asosiy:. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created this redirect for the reason given on the talk page of the redirect. The problem that motivated me does not appear to exist any longer, so I can see no reason to keep the redirect except for sentimental reasons. I would be interested in knowing why the Uzbek Wikipedia had that particular defect back in 2007, but not interested enough to dig into the matter, and glad to see that it's ancient history. --Haruo (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Haruo (talk) 15:50, 30 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) 20:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Acceptable sources → Wikipedia:Verifiability (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace; it is not a WP:shortcut. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is not about the potential encyclopedic subject of acceptable sources in journalism. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:RFD#DELETE #5: "The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange." and WP:RFD#DELETE #6: "It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space". Fleet Command (talk) 05:19, 10 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) 20:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Banterlion and durdock → Dandelion and burdock (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Improbable/joke redirect created by a one-edit user called "Banterlion" in 2007. McGeddon (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Only ghits are WP mirrors. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep neither new nor harmful. Per Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC).
  
• Delete. There must be a speedy deletion criteria for immediate remediation of such abuse of editing privileges. Fleet Command (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not and never will be because it is impossible to judge what is plausible and not in all cases. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean no offense, but I've always felt you have trouble parting with pure junk. I have no doubt that it stems from your willingness to explore all alternatives to deletion but IMHO, it has become unwholesome and improper. Thryduulf, you should really learn and get used to cleaning the junk and keeping the metaphorical house tidy. After all, you are given the mop, right? Fleet Command (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 10 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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Indonesia portal → Portal:Indonesia (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Uselss cross-namespace redirect - TheChampionMan1234 03:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, not about webportals in Indonesia, or other portals that are Indonesian -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as it directs the reader to the reader facing portal about Indonesia. Article space to portal redirects are harmless 99% of the time, and this is not an exception. See also #Chess Portal. Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Potentially useful and with no other likely use for the term 'Indonesia portal' I see no harm in it. Portals are aimed at the reader and pseudo-namespace redirects are acceptable as described in the relevant essay WP:CNS (second paragraph). (Apologies for cribbing another editor's remarks in that earlier close on Chess Portal but they put the situation well!) Just Chilling (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Common format for portal titles and completely harmless. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 04:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. See WP:EGG. There is a proven concept in this world called "order and method". Deviating from it in the long run brings about chaos. In addition, if harmlessness was a criteria for keeping, there would have been no point in the existence of TfDRfD; no templatePortal, redirect, etc. in Wikipedia can harm anyone. Or perhaps my fellow colleagues here must define "harmful" and "harmless" anew? Fleet Command (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is RfD not TfD so different criteria apply, and "harmlessness" is a reason not to delete a redirect. At places like AfD and TfD, it is right that things like naming conventions are established and upheld for the location of content, however at RfD we are concerned with helping people find that content. We cannot expect people to know our naming conventions, and we cause harm to the encyclopaedia if we prevent people finding the content they are looking for. In this case it is a near certainty that someone looking for "Indonesia portal" is looking for a portal about Indonesia, so we should redirect them to our portal about Indonesia. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yo, nitpicker. TfD was typo. (R and T on a QWERTY keyboard are together.) And a copy and paste mishap too. (Well, that's an embarrassing mistake on my part, I confess. But the more embarrassing thing is that you, an admin no less, resort to nitpicking typos to evade a proper discussion.) The fact remains that everything in Wikipedia is harmless. If you wish to help people find stuff, you'd be better off helping them find it in the proper place or at least not blocking their way to the search engine with a redirect. When they search, let the search happen. (And if you want to nitpick and say this argument is not originally mine, yes, I admit it isn't. But so what? It is true.) Fleet Command (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've been around long enough to know that countering an invalid argument is not nitpicking. You seem like a person who refuses to gracefully acknowledge when they're wrong. The correct response would be to alter your !vote and get on with your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf et. al., notwithstanding my usual objection to CNRs from mainspace. This is a good exception. Ivanvector (talk) 21:37, 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 retarget to White Russia#Name. Consensus is that if a foreign language name or term is discussed in an article, that term is at least a plausible search term and so arguments relating to Wikipedia not being a dictionary are no more relevant than they are when the language and topic are strongly associated. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not in a language relevant to the target. - TheChampionMan1234 02:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOT a translation dictionary. Not Lithuanian, Polish, Belarussian, Russian. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or retarget to White Russia (particularly the paras at White Russia#Name), but either way fix the Interwiki links. It's literal German for "White Russia"; it could be spelled Weißrussland also, for those that still use the eszet. But "not particularly German", either. That being said, languages that are relevant to the article are not gicen translations in the lede of the target either.

Now, the Interwiki links from White Russia do not have anything for DE:WP. ButI think the IW has got a bit screwed up. I think the root cause of this is that German WP has no topic for "White Russia". To pick two other Wikis at random (or rather because they are the languages with which I am most familiar) that do:

• hu:A fehérorosz népnév eredete(lt. "Origin of the name of the White Russian people"), not hu:Fehéroroszország (lit. "White Russia"); but the latter (on Hungarian) does link it to (drum roll please) de:Weißrussland, which (boo!) is IW'd with en:Belarus.
• White Russia links to French fr:Russie blanche, which is distinct from fr:Belarus, a redirect to fr:Biélorussie (IW with en:Belarus).

The root problem then seems to be that de:Weißrussland cannot be IW'd in the "new" way both to "Belarus" and "White Russia".

• de:Weissrussland is a redirect to de:Weißrussland, as you would expect.
• de:Belarus is a redirect to de:Weißrussland. It's marked with an "other uses" to a DAB (at de:Belarus (Begriffsklärung)), but none of the three other entries there is for the region of White Russia, as I would expect (like e.g. English, Hungarian and French do). So I wonder if something has gone awry over at the German WP here and the region article has got "lost"? (Or merged, reversed over, or something?) I haven't checked the histories yet.

I did say not long ago that this is a disadvantage of the "new" way of doing the IW linking via Wikidata instead of longhand The limitation is that the linkage graph is a complete graph rather than a directed graph, so if two topics are dealt with in separate articles on one WP they must be done so on all WPs (rather than having one article serving both) for the IW links to work. QED.

Taking all this together, I think we can do it by making the Interwiki metadata for "White Russia" from the German redirect (:de:Weissrussland). With care, we then can keep both "White Russia" and "Belarus" properly interwiki'd, and we may be able to dispense with en:Weissrussland. Finally, I note en:Weißrussland is a redlink. Si Trew (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonTrew: I'm not sure I follow. Suppose in English you have articles A and B, and in Spanish you have article A+B. Wikidata has two entries, one for A and one for B. The A entry links to the English A article and the Spanish A+B article; similarly, the B entry links to B and A+B. Why can't you do something similar here? --NYKevin 01:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NYKevin: ....and which does es:A+B link to, en:A or en:B? The Wikidata doesn't work like that: essentially the Wikipedia pages (and other Wikimedia pages) are just a set held at this record Q465351 at Wikidata ("White Russia"): there's no directionality in there. As a concrete example, I tried to add de:Weißrussland there but I got an error that it's already in use. As far as I know, then, we can't link both en:A and en:B to es:A+B (and de:A+C, etc). However, we can probably achieve it by Interwiki linking to a redirect (in this case, at de:Belarus or less likely at de:Weissrussland) if we get consensus that it's reasonable to do so. Si Trew (talk) 06:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonTrew: I don't understand your point. es:A+B is the A+B article on the Spanish Wikipedia. It does not "link" to anything under the new system. Links are strictly one-way from Wikidata to the other wikis. --NYKevin 22:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix Interwiki links then delete. Perhaps it is better if I make explicit after all that ramble:

1. Retarget the Interwiki data for Belarus to point at de:Belarus (a redirect), not de:Weißrussland.
2. Add Interwiki data from en:White Russia to de:Weißrussland.
3. then Delete this redirect. en:Weissrussland. Si Trew (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Am I missing something? Is there a way explicitly to manage which Wikidata record is used for a Wikipedia page? In any case, perhaps White Russia should not have a DE:WP Interwiki link at all... Si Trew (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and retarget to white Russia#name, where this specific topic is discussed. Names-in-different-languages articles or sections are a justifiable exception to the normal idea that we don't delete foreign-language names for topics unrelated to those languages — when the name itself is the subject, the foreign language term is quite relevant. Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlikely search term. - TheChampionMan1234 02:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete making bolding as part of article titles is a bad idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%27%27%27Belarus%27%27%27 -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and thanks User:TheChampionMan1234 for finding this and other junk redirects in the haystack. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is actually not that unlikely that someone will put wiki-markup inside the link, and doubtless that is how this former article came to exist. But this is neither new nor harmful. Per Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones. it should be kept. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC).
  
• Delete. Housekeeping cleanup. Fleet Command (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Wiki markup makes it an incredibly implausible search term. Also, the Wiki markup breaks certain forms of HTML code, as well as other Wiki markups. In fact, I'm stating to believe that all titles that would translate as Wiki markup should just be added to the title-creation blacklist. Steel1943 (talk) 21:45, 10 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 implausible typo. [Non-admin closure.] Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• AbdelRahman Eltawil (Abdel Eltawil) → Abdel Eltawil (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

NOTE: This sneakily created page is a redirect to a page (Abdel Eltawil) being AFDed, and is almost guaranteed deletion based on all delete votes. Quis separabit? 01:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedied - "implausible typo" redirects can be speedily deleted under R3 if they were created "recently". --McGeddon (talk) 09:35, 30 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 Keep redirect, noting that the AfD result does not decide whether we have a redirect or not. If the intent was to undelete the article, please go to WP:DRV to make that request. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Islamic Research Foundation → Zakir Naik (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

No apparent reason given for speedy deletion. Request to restore article "IRF." Messiaindarain (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Having the redirect makes it less likely that it will be re-created. Also, since the organization is mentioned in the first sentence of the target article, the redirect makes sense. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Fix please - could an editor with better technical know-how than me please fix this nomination? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the content of the article history indicates it's just a redirect, except when you added a broken infobox to it. It also shows that speedy deletion was declined. However, it was deleted at an AfD, so this should not be an article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Research Foundation (2nd nomination) -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 2014 AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Research Foundation (2nd nomination) -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the redirect, which is harmless (and the term is mentioned on the target page). Don't turn it back into an article, which has been repeatedly been deleted. If people keep trying to recreate this article, the redirect should be protected. Robofish (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have repaired the nomination. I am neutral about the redirect because I quite frankly do not understand what is going on here. --NYKevin 00:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Research Foundation was nominated for deletion. The discussion ended in a delete decision. After, that delete decision, someone made this redirect. The nominator argues that since the deletion discussion ended with delete, that there shouldn't be a redirect here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Messiaindarain (talk · contribs) is arguing that the redirect should be replaced by an article, instead of being speedily deleted. However, @Messiaindarain: this requires a WP:DRV or new WP:AFD to overturn the existing decision to delete the article. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:00, 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.