Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 18

• 25 kV AC

Delete very implausible alternative title. Currently a double redirect to 25 kV AC railway electrification. TheFeds 21:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sarah Kreager →
  Route 27 (MTA Maryland)

Orphan redirect from deleted article. The AFD decision was delete, not "redirect" or "merge". Calton | Talk 16:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Content from deleted article is found in target of redirect, where it is properly sourced. While subject is not notable for a standalone article per
  WP:ONEEVENT, she was the subject of a notable event relating to redirect target. Sebwite (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep as plausible search term. The redirect target contains information relevant to the topic, thus what reason is there for not having that redirect? As I said previously on a related topic to this, policy and process should not obstruct the goals of the project. --Taelus (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Baltimore bus beating →
  Route 27 (MTA Maryland)

Orphan redirect from deleted article. The AFD decision was explicitly delete, not "redirect" or "merge". Calton | Talk 16:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I had made the AfD proposal on the basis that the content was already covered in target article. A redirect is appropriate in this case. While subject is not notable for a standalone article per
  WP:NOTNEWS, it is an important event pertaining to the target that is properly sourced. Sebwite (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep, it redirects to an article which contains the information that the searcher would be looking for. Even if the page was deleted after the AfD, what reason would there be to forbid its recreation as a redirect? Policy and process should never interfere harmfully with the long-term goals of Wikipedia. --Taelus (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]