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) 16:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Formula One Podcasts → Formula One  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

There is nothing on the Formula One article about podcasts, and as Wikipedia is not a repository of links anyone searching for individual podcasts about F1 should not be encouraged to find them here. QueenCake (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2015 (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) 16:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sveti Lenart, Železniki → Sveti Lenart, Škofja Loka  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Implausible redirect (the settlement does not belong to the Municipality of Železniki, but the Municipality of Škofja Loka. Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RFD#D2 "The redirect might cause confusion". Sveti Lenart is a DAB page on which this is not present. Si Trew (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2015 (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) 16:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Microsoft Office 2016 → Microsoft Office  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

--Sonic4321 (Talk) 16:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is plenty of news about Microsoft Office 2016. The news is indicating that it will arrive later this year. Some features of MS 2016 has been leaked. Therefore, it is necessary to have a indirect for MS 2016 in this stage. Google Results--Coekon (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. There's no mention of it at the target, but a couple of Google results do seem to be from RS that it will be called Microsoft Office 2016, which is different from similar ones we have had when the name has not been even semi-officially announced. (Of course, MS may change their mind and call it Microsoft Pervical MMXVI for all we know, but right now the RS trade press seem to indicate that's what MS is saying.) Si Trew (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, which forbids actions based on rumors from a couple of Google search results. Speculations are not okay in Wikipedia. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I didn't see the source that explicitly mentioned the name. Still I am torn: I myself would never write an article about a computer program that is not yet accessible in some form to the public. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Office 2016 was officially confirmed by a Microsoft posting, which means that WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. The nominator also did not provide any valid reason for deletion in the first place. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional keep: As far as I can see, version 2016 is currently covered in the Microsoft Office article, with a reference coming from a pretty much trusted source. Thus, we should keep the redirect as long as it's covered in the article, or even better, content of the article should be decided upon first, and then the decision on the redirect should be straightforward. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I literally added that right after my comment here. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Given the coverage in the media, people will be entering this search term, the best thing right now is to send them to Microsoft Office. We need to watch for "creeping crystallism" in the Office article, but that is an issue with that article, not with this redirect. We'll have a full-fledged article at Microsoft Office 2016 soon enough. Jeh (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2015 (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) 16:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• TurboTax database knows your secret → TurboTax#.22TurboTax.27s_database_knows_your_secrets.22  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Clickbate type redirect to an addition to the TurboTax article based on one USAToday article. Mrfrobinson (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think the existence of one newspaper headline is enough to justify a redirect of this nature. I also don't see this a something that the average person would think of typing.--174.93.109.167 (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Steel1943 (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Ivanvector (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per above. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it hasn't gotten any real form of traction to my knowledge. If it blows up into a full-blown scandal, then I'd have no issues with re-creating it, but for right now it has no purpose in this world. ConCompS talk 00:45, 7 February 2015 (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.