Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	26	26
TfD	0	0	0	5	5
MfD	0	0	2	5	7
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	0	0	0
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

• If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
• If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
• If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss the proper target.
• Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.

Before listing a redirect for discussion

Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:

• Wikipedia:Redirect – what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
• Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion – which pages can be deleted without discussion; in particular the "General" and "Redirects" sections.
• Wikipedia:Deletion policy – how we delete things by consensus.
• Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – guidelines on discussion format and shorthand.

The guiding principles of RfD

• The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
• Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
• If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
• Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
• RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
• Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
• In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When should we delete a redirect?

Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes and Wikipedia:Moving a page § Moving over a redirect

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

• a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
• if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").

Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.

Reasons for deleting

See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § Redirects

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

1. They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in article text because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
4. Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

Closing notes

Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussion

STEP I.	Tag the redirect(s).   Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page. Please do not mark the edit as minor (m). Please include in the edit summary the phrase: Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]. Save the page ("Publish changes"). If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page. If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination. If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated.
STEP II.	List the entry on RfD.  Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries. Enter this text below the date heading: {{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~ For this template: Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=. Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=). Please use an edit summary such as: Nominating [[RedirectName]] (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating). To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects: {{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}} {{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}} {{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~ If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template. If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
STEP III.	Notify users.   It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate. To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template {{subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName}} ~~~~ may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as: Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]] Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.

• Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

Current list

Older unfinished requests are at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Old.

August 6

• Cult homicides → List of groups referred to as cults by some media outlets -- POV - not relevant to article content --ZappaZ File:Yin yang.png 04:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. inherently POV ≈ jossi ≈ 17:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Looking at this, and the similar Cult homicide (which wasn't listed here in this batch, dunno why), they both have extensive histories, and I'm concerned that if they are deleted, they will just be re-created rather quickly. In particular, there are things like the Charlie Manson murders which I think most people would describe as "cult homicides". If people really want these redirects deleted, I will slap a {{deletedarticle}} on them and protect them - or would people rather have them redirect to the NPOV List of groups referred to as cults by some media outlets article - or is there some more suitable target? Noel (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Why isn't there an article on cult homicides? The Manson Family and the Cult of Thuggee come immediately to mind. If there is enough for a separate article, there probably shouldn't be a redirect at all. StuTheSheep 15:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey, go for it. There are lots of revisions in the history which are articles; that's one of the reasons I held off deleting them, so people could get at the histories. Noel (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

September 27

• Antique White → Antique white
• Antique white → White
• Dark peach (color) → Peach (color)
• Seashell (color) → White
• Linen (color) → White
• Papaya whip (color) → Papaya whip
• Light brown → Brown
• Spring Green (color) → Spring green
• Spring green → Green
• Dark slate gray → Grey
• Tangerine (color) → Orange (color)
• Mint Green → Green
• Denim (color) → Crayola
• Antique Brass (color) → Antique brass
• Antique brass → Crayola
• Robin egg blue → Crayola
• Slate gray → Grey
• Steel blue → Blue
• Sandy brown → Brown
• Chocolate (color) → Brown
• Pale red-violet → Red-violet
• Pale mauve → Mauve
• Bright green → Green
• Gray-green → Gray-asparagus
• Dark Scarlet → Scarlet (color)
• Tea Green → Green
• Bright turquoise → Turquoise (color)
• Dark brown → Brown
• Dark cerulean → Cerulean
• Dark chestnut → Chestnut (color)
• Dark green → Green
• Dark Indigo → Indigo
• Dark Olive → Olive (color)
• Dark pastel green → Green
• Dark pink → Pink
• Dark spring green → Green
• Dark tan → Tan
• Dark Tea Green → Green
• Dark turquoise → Turquoise (color)
• Dark violet → Violet (color)
• Pale chestnut → Chestnut (color)
• Pale cornflower blue → Cornflower blue
• Pale Denim → Denim (color)
• Pale fire brick red → Fire brick red
• Pale magenta → Magenta
• Pale pink → Pink
• Pale Sandy Brown → Brown
• Pastel green → Green
• Pastel pink → Pink
• Reasoning: Almost all of these articles redirect to articles that never mention the redirect's title in the slightest bit. The only exceptions to this are colors that link to Crayola. However, the largest reason behind every single one of these nominations is that these articles' only purpose seems to be to fill up the List of colors. -Nameneko 05:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I see no problem with redirecting "Dark foo" or "Pale foo" or "Light foo" or "Pastel foo" to "Foo" - at least someone looking up a shade of a color will get to the article on the color (which, incidentally, ought to say something about different shades). But some of these - Pale sandy brown, Dark tea green, Dark slate grey - must go. No vote on the redirects to Crayola, presuming that they are actual colors of Crayola crayons. -- BDAbramson ^talk 06:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I agree with Abramson's Keeps; the question is whether it is better that Dark Tea Green be a red-link or a link to whatever we have to say about shades of green. I think the redirect is slightly preferable, because without it, it will not be obvious that the place to add something about Dark tea green is Green, as opposed to Shades of green or even green tea. Septentrionalis 15:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I made sure only to list redirects that link to pages that don't mention them. For example, while Pastel green links to Green, it is not mentioned in the article itself. The only reason these redirects seem to exist, as stated earlier, is to fill up the List of colors. There doesn't seem to be any other need. If they are to be listed on the color page, then it would make more sense to link it as [[Foo|Dark/Pale/Light/Pastel Foo]], as the only pages linking to them are the List of colors, this page, and User:Latitude0116, who simply has it to point out that he/she created them. -Nameneko 23:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • All these are unreferenced colours created by User:Latitude0116, a look in the page history will tell. They ought to go; I'm not sure if RfD is the right place for this, if it is Delete the lot. Pilatus 13:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I listed these here bcause they are all redirects. I have a list of color pages that I plan to list on AfD sometime in the near future. -Nameneko 21:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • They are redirects now. Someone redirected all these shades to the main colour in the attempt to infuse the heading with some content. Pale Green, for example, used to have a page, saying it is colour 0x77dd77 (and nothing beyond that). Pilatus 00:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think that this makes their existence any more valid, though. Despite being linked to major colors, they are never mentioned in the articles they redirect to and had no references (per consensus on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles) when they were articles anyways. -Nameneko 07:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the lot Dlyons493 Talk 02:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the dark/light/pale redirects to brown, green and pink; no vote on the rest. -Sean Curtin 00:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP to prevent articles on these being created, and direct people to an appropriate page concerning the shades/tints/tones... of a certain pure color 132.205.45.148 16:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    • My point is that these articles serve no other purpose than to fill the List of colors and are not even mentioned in the articles they redirect to. As there is nothing to expand upon even if they are kept, there seems to be little reason to keep them. -Nameneko 00:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, some of them, people will type in, and some of them, people will click on from the list of colors, or some disambiguation page, so it's good enough to keep them, to prevent these pages from being created to have a boatload of minor almost identical colors having their own articles. 132.205.93.89 22:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
        • The thing is, they're not referenced in the articles they redirect to, as mentioned earlier. Even if they were, they would still need references per consensus on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles anyways, which they don't. Some of these aren't even listed on the list of colors. Would it help if I separated the list into groups? (such as "not in list of colors", "unreferenced", etc.) -Nameneko 21:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

October 1

• Blue Fire → Legend of Zelda series -- Aside from a capitalization issue, I find it hard to believe that the Zelda series is only fictional use of blue fire. And don't some real-world materials burn at high temperatures with a blue flame? If, for some reason, it does remain a redirect, it should point to The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of time, the only game to feature it. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe turn this into a link to a Blue fire dab page? Noel (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

October 2

• ScottMoonen → User:ScottMoonen -- Like the above, there used to be a very old article at this place (which I moved to the appropriate user subpage) and people are claiming it should be kept because of external links. It's a speedy deletion candidate, but what the hell, let's chatter about it. I'd posit that historycruft belongs in the Wikipedia and User namespaces. --fvw* 04:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, let's delete the oldest page on the wiki. Great idea. Keep Pcb21| Pete 14:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete of course. Old or not, user pages do not belong to main namespace. Rest of the world has already had several years to adapt. jni 08:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Jeez... like having one user page in the main namespace is doing harm. Pcb21| Pete 15:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • MOVE to User:ScottMoonen/ScottMoonen_historical 132.205.45.148 17:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, until such time as a famous author/actor/scientist/politician/circus clown/whatever named Scott Moonen arises to catch the public's attention, necessitating drastic action to avoid confusion. Why the sudden rush to delete a few tiny redirects from the earliest days of Wikipedia, which unsuspecting users are extraordinarily unlikely to slam into by accident? --PHenry 23:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedily delete vanity redirect. Susvolans ⇔ 14:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable enough Wikipedia history: see Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles --Henrygb 09:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't belong in the main namespace, and the history has already been moved to userspace. It's currently at User:ScottMoonen/OldUserPage. —Cryptic (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

    It was moved at the same time as this nomination. In my view it should go back. --Henrygb 23:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Non bias → Neutral -- Where does the phrase "Non bias" come from? It makes no sense. — ciphergoth 09:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Foot Model → Elisha Cuthbert - Elisha Cuthbert may have been a footmodel, but why should we link this Foot Model to Cuthbert's article. She's not synonym with footmodelism. -- SoothingR 12:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Probably should write a foot model article, redir this there, and list her there as one. Noel (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - hopefully someday someone will feel inclined to write such an article, but I can't see how keeping this redirect around helps them and until they do it's misleading. — ciphergoth 13:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I will write the stub when deletion time arrives, if nobody else has gotten to it by then. Noel (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Dumb CD → Dead or Alive (band) -- Pretty POV. KingTT 17:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Man Ure → Manchester United F.C. -- Offensive redirect created by an anon who has since gone on to vandalise Chelsea F.C. -- Arwel 19:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete obviously. TBH I doubt consensus support is even needed in an obvious case like this, but... — ciphergoth 22:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, it's apparently got a certain amount of usage. Yahoo shows 'about 23,000 for "Man Ure". So it's not just pure vandalism. No strong opinion either way, just noting some data. Noel (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but if you take a look at those references you'll notice they're not exactly complimentary to their subject! I'd argue that it's plainly POV and should be deleted for that reason. -- Arwel 20:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, if that were the only reason needed, we wouldn't have Dumbya and a host of simliar ones, would we? Noel (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously pejorative. You might want to also put Manure (disambiguation) up for deletion, since it has been created solely for the same purpose. Qwghlm 23:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

October 3

• Stephen W. Taylor → Steven W. Taylor. Procedural nomination to fix below editors failed attempt to delete this via AfD. No vote. jni 08:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This page was created in error and later corrected and all Wiki links to this page have redirected to the correct page which is Steven W. Taylor --TommyBoy 17:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Isn't this a likely typo? Seems harmless to me. Noel (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Authentic Matthew → Gospel of the Hebrews. Absolutely totally POV. Neither religious groups, nor academic ones believe the Gospel of the Hebrews to be the original version of Matthew. Nor does the redirect represent a merge. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 18:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Authentic Matthew and Talk:Authentic Matthew. After the VfD reached no consensus, the article was merged into Gospel of the Hebrews, so we have to keep it somewhere anyway for Wikipedia:Copyright reasons. A web search for '"Authentic Matthew" -Wikipedia' gives 'about 456' hits, so it's clearly not one person's neotermism (to create a neologism of my own :-). I suspect #keep #2 also applies - "make the creation of duplicate article[] less likely". Noel (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; this is not one of the rare cases in which a redirect is PoV; the existence of the theory should be mentioned (in at least half a sentence, either in Gospel of the Hebrews or Gospel of Matthew, and the redirect should point there. Septentrionalis 02:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've removed the RfD template. User:-Ril- was blocked indefinitely pending an ArbCom ruling, and has been unblocked temporarily in order to respond to his RFAr. He shouldn't even be editing articles normally, much less returning to the obession with this article which plays a large part in the RFAr. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Supporting Mel 100%. This compromise took weeks of careful negotiation to work out - and eveyone (minus Ril) seems happy with it. The nomination was plain trolling. --Doc (?) 09:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep As per above. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 20:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • What Mel said. encephalon 15:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Template:ID → Template:Intelligent Design -- Delete because the template has been moved for a reason: its original name caused the template to be mistakenly used in several templates, which tried to refer to an IDentifier. Ec5618 18:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Yugor → Gog -- This redirect has been questioned on Talk:Gog for some time. I have no explanation for it, and I suspect that the redirect is the result of original research. Pages that link to Yugor include Ostiaks and Hephthalite, subjects I know little about. Suspect that someone has a theory that links various central Asian peoples with the murky figure of Biblical Gog; I've had to remove some unfounded speculation in the Gog page to talk as well. History of Yugor indicates that an article of that name was sent to Wiktionary; but I don't see it on Wiktionary anymore. Smerdis of Tlön 20:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Tropical storm (disambiguation) → Tropical cyclone. I find it hard to imagine a more useless redirect — it previously contained a single entry as a dab page. The AfD was rendered redundant by a (slightly problematic) new user redirecting during the AfD. This does not aid any kind of linkage, will never turn up usefully in a search and is just unneeded. Surely. -Splash^talk 22:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • LOL. That's pretty funny. A disambig that redirects. Del encephalon 15:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

October 4

• 'Persis' → Persia -- Unnecessary redirect (currently pointing to a disambiguation page). Also, Persis already exists as a redirect making 'Persis' pointless. G Rutter 13:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Rc patrol → Wikipedia:RC patrol - cross-namespace redirects are bad. Rob Church ^Talk 16:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE LEAVE THERE DONT REMOVE IT

• Roman withdrawl from Britain → Roman withdrawal from Britain -- Misspelled title and double redirect
  • Keep, likely misspelling. ~~ N (t/c) 22:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I was all set to speedy this, but a web search shows (amazingly!) no less than "about 3,070,000 for 'withdrawl'"! Yes, that's 3 million! So I guess it is a likely typo. Noel (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Very clear keep. encephalon 15:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• North Korean institutions → Category:North Korean organizations -- Is it really appropriate to have an article redirect to a category? Bletch 19:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've seen it done before. I agree it's a bit suspicious, but this one seems more-or-less OK. Noel (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The reason that I brought it up was because I was at the categories page [1], and I saw the link to North Korean institutions on that page. Clicking on the link did not take me anywhere, because the link just looped back. --Bletch 12:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not precisely sure, but I do remember reading that redirects are not permissible across spaces (ie. you can't redirect a mainspace to Wikispace, for example). The redirect in this case also seems to me to be quite useless—"North Korean institutions"? Delete encephalon 15:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think the desired outcome must have been {{categoryredirect}}. CfD has recently decided that we are going to call the categories "Fooian organizations" and CfD will therefore delete the "Fooian institutions" categories. I think it makes sense to interpret the 'article' here as wanting to be a category and that category to have been removed by CfD. -Splash^talk 01:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedeia:_Checking_If_an_Article_Needs_to_be_Speedied → Wikipedia:Checking_If_an_Article_Needs_to_be_Speedied. Redirect from article namespace to Wikipedia namespace. Ingoolemo ^talk 04:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

October 5

• After element 120 → unbinilium — This is not a useful redirect, no one would type this in, and everything in the historical versions of the page have no reason to be merged to UBN or UBU, so have no useful content. 132.205.45.148 19:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not useful. I'm not a chemist, but isn't it also inaccurate? That is, if unbinilium is element 120, then wouldn't "after element 120" have to refer to something else? I'd appreciate clarification from a chemist. Chick Bowen 22:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

October 6

• Template:Nobody → Template:Db-bio— A7 speedies can be tagged {{nn-bio}} or {{db|nn notable bio etc}} or {{Db-bio}}. But I'm a little concerned about {{nobody}}. When a new user creates an unsuitable, but good-faith, article about themselves, their favourite teacher, or worse their highly esteemed deceased grandfather, it is bad enough that it will be deleted, but to tag the person as a 'nobody' seems unduly and unnecessarily harsh. This is pointless biting of newbies. --Doc (?) 13:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, awful, unpleasant way to go about things. Should not ever be used. -Splash^talk 13:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this bites. --fvw* 13:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree. This was a poor choice of name created when A7 was new. I think that the creator did not know that another tempalte exisited (that was true of {{vanity}} which stsrted as a sepearate template and now redirects to {{db-bio}}. Thsi is little used and not I think included in the deltion tools listing. No reason to keep it around. DES ^(talk) 14:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. encephalon 15:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per DES. --Blackcap | talk 07:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- SCZenz 07:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

October 7

• Partai Demokrasi Indonesia PerjuanganIndonesian Democratic Party-Struggle → Indonesian Democratic Party-Struggle — this redirect is too long in terms of words, and I suppose one would not want to type both Indonesian and English name altogether. *drew 06:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. In Malay (which is essentially the same language as Indonesian and I'm sure they're the same in this regard), combining Malay and English terms in political names is very common, and Google tells us this is the name of this party. However, there should be a space between Perjuangan and Indonesian. Chick Bowen 22:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Gender equality → Feminism — gender equality isn't just about Feminism! All those fathers rights groups would disagree. I know a bunch of Sydney Evangelicals who would also. In the name of NPOV, I believe that this is a very poor redirect. - Ta bu shi da yu 18:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Gender equality and feminism are not the same thing.--Westminsterboy 22:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• List Of Singapore Television Channels. → List of Singaporean television channels — something left after a series of moving [2] [3] [4]. — Instantnood 23:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

October 8

• School science experiment--indian rope trick (magnestism) → School_science_experiment--Indian_rope_trick_(magnetism) for an article now moved to Wikibooks -- Egil 11:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Making a transformer → How_to_make_a_transformer for an article now moved to Wikibooks -- Egil 11:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• How to choose your pet and take care of it → wikibooks:How to choose your pet and take care of it It is a redirect for an article now in wikibooks, that is not needed. Besides, the redirect does not work as intended. (The redirect leads to a page in Wikipedia space which actually seems to be called wikibooks:How to choose your pet and take care of it, but is actually the article How to choose your pet and take care of it. So it is a bug in the redirect mechanism, but that is another matter) -- Egil 12:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Menwith Hil → Menwith Hill— is this a common enough typo to require a redirect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westminsterboy (talk • contribs) 15:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, a web search shows 'about 135 for "Menwith Hil"', so it does seem to happen to some degree. Noel (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but a lot of those are mirrors from Wikipedia! --Westminsterboy 13:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Wikiland → Wikimedia - not mentioned in target article, doesn't seem especially relevant. —Cryptic (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Carolina Forest → Carolina Forest, South Carolina - The latter is a copyvio, pending deletion. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 19:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Where The Heart Is → Where the Heart Is -- The redirect is not only useless, it is bugged. If you type "where the heart is" in all lowercase in the go box you end up on the article but with the redirect triggered making it look like you wrongly capitalized "the". This is not prof. looking and should be fixed. Qaz ^(talk) 20:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

October 9

• Miltary intelligence → Intelligence -- Typo, and anyway there is a military intelligence article. JidGom 02:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to correct spelling --Henrygb 22:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Miltary advances of Genghis Khan → Military advances of Genghis Khan -- Typo, no point in keeping it search find the right page anyway. JidGom 02:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm. A web search shows 'about 877,000 for Miltary', so this is a very common typo. Noel (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• 0wnz0red → A Place So Foreign and Eight More -- Delete because it's useless vandalism 207.230.1.200 17:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Talk:0wnz0red says this has already been discussed here, and it a real short story. So unless you are saying it was not published as part of A Place So Foreign and Eight More, why are you proposing this? --Henrygb 23:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Footer

NOTE: WE DO NOT DELETE REDIRECTS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY INCOMING LINKS. DO NOT LIST THIS AS A REASON TO DELETE A REDIRECT. We also sometimes delete redirects that do have incoming redirects, so it's not a necessary condition either. See #delete and #keep above for the reasons for deleting or keeping redirects.