Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 30

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

September 30

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 30, 2014.

Windows 9

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. (
due weight to the coverage of something that never existed. Fleet Command (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and

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. (
    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 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]
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.

Wikipedia:IFYOUTYPEAPHRASEINCAPITALSSOMEONEWILLMAKEAREDIRECTTOANAPPROPRIATEPAGETOPROVIDEANANSWER

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]

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.

Home/

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]

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
/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.

Flip rock

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]

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
]

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.

Create a template

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]

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.

Citebook

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]

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.

Chess Portal

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
]

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace, using capitalisation as if it is a proper noun. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:08, 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.

Talk:CAT:ENFORCEMENT

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Talk:CAT:ENFORCEMENT

Blank and redirect

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
NAC. --NYKevin 23:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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]
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.

Candidates for Speedy Deletion

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]

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace. Not a WP:Shortcut. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:39, 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.

Article moving

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]

Cross namespace redirect from mainspace. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:31, 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.

Article request

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]

Cross namespace redirect from mainspace. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:31, 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.

Asosiy:

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]

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]
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.

Acceptable sources

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]

Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace; it is not a WP:shortcut. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:51, 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.

Banterlion and durdock

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]

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.

Indonesia portal

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]

Uselss cross-namespace redirect -

ChampionMan1234 03:47, 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.

Weissrussland

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]

Not in a language relevant to the target. -

ChampionMan1234 02:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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:
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.

'''Belarus'''

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]

Unlikely search term. -

ChampionMan1234 02:43, 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.

AbdelRahman Eltawil (Abdel Eltawil)

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]

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
    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.

Islamic Research Foundation

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
]

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]
  • 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
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_30&oldid=1138579920"