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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Party freedom and justice → Party Freedom and Justice (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Implausible name - unlikely to be needed NSH001 (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per #Party Freedom and Justice below. No reason to treat them differently. Thryduulf (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 Kept. This is causing no harm and no compelling reason for deletion given. Past consensus has been to keep terms that are useful in searching even if they aren't proper English. The stats show a regular, if small, stream of use so no reason to disturb those users. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Party Freedom and Justice → Freedom and Justice Party (Bolivia) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Implausible name - unlikely to be needed NSH001 (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is the literal translation of the party's name and thus a plausible search term. It also serves to document the page move and thus maintain the attribution history. The move was only carried out today and so it's way, way too soon for all mirrors, search engines, external links and people's bookmarks to have caught up. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment The attribution history, including the move, is fully available under the new title. The original title was set up by an editor whose mother tongue is neither English nor Spanish, and is nonsensical in English. The Spanish title remains available as a redirect. In any case, this is a small political party that appears to have become defunct in 2003 [1], so is unlikely to have many people looking for it, let alone under a nonsensical name. --NSH001 (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• ... and surely, by the time this RfD closes in 7 days time, any mirrors, etc (few that they may be) will have caught up? --NSH001 (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, 7 days is still not long enough for everyone to have caught up. Around 6 months is the period that I recommend, as by that time we'll normally have around 3-4 months of data after the search engines and active mirrors have caught up. At that point we'll be able to see if the old title is still providing any significant traffic. Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Traffic stats for both these titles added together (the stats server aggregates titles where the only difference is capitalisation) are: May 148, April 124, March 174. I suspect most of these come via internal links from other Wikipedia articles, which now no longer exist. So the actual external traffic, if any, is going to be tiny. No point in waiting around to get rid of these nonsensical titles. --NSH001 (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point is that we can't know whether the traffic is coming from internal or external links. The longer a page has been around, the more likely there are going to be links to it from external sites, and this title was the location of the article from 2005. We should not be in any hurry to break links - see [2]. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think the arguments from the Commons discussion you link to really apply here. That thread is a discussion, in general terms, about images and their redirects on Commons. Now images on Commons are freely-licensed, and this makes them very attractive to other sites; even if they copy (rather than link) the images, they still have, in most cases, to link to Commons to comply with licensing requirements. Therefore on Commons it makes good sense to worry about links from external sites and not breaking them. Here, by contrast, we're talking about a small, defunct, political party, which doesn't even have its own article on es:wp. It isn't even mentioned on es:Partidos políticos de Bolivia. Anyone looking for it externally is likely to Google its Spanish name, and will find it here via the Spanish-language redirect. I don't think we need worry about any links from external sites via a nonsensical English-language name, even if they exist at all. --NSH001 (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • In contrast, I think that maintaining the link from an article title that has existed for 6 years until we can determine whether or not it is used is very important. That es.wp doesn't have an article actually makes it more likely that this will be linked to and thus more important to keep it until we know whether there are external links. Wikipedia articles are just as likely to be linked to as are free images, possibly even more so (if and image is relevant you are more likely to copy it than link to it if you want to display it). The same principal of not artificially hindering our readers for our convenience (not that deleting a redirect that is neither misleading, incorrect nor otherwise harmful significantly benefits us) applies regardless of the target. Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware that Commons images are more likely to be copied rather than linked, but they still have (in theory) to be linked to, in order to satisfy copyright requirements. Hence the importance of not breaking links on Commons.

The main point about this party's not having an article on es:wp (and, moreover, not even mentioned in the es:wp list of political parties in Bolivia) is that it's obscure, so not likely to draw much traffic.

Fortunately, the term "Party Freedom and Justice", being nonsensical English, is so unlikely that we can get useful results from a search. I used the search string (eliminating the many hits on the new Egyptian party): "Party Freedom and Justice" -egypt -muslim -brotherhood -turkey -kurdistan -coptic in google. This produced 26 hits, and I have examined all of them.

Some are links to Wikipedia articles (other than the redirect), so there is no problems with these. Some are mirrors of such articles, likewise no problem. Some produce empty results such as "no reference results". Most of the rest display mirrors of the old article, but do not link either to the article or the redirect, though they do link elsewhere on Wikipedia, so no problem. The only sites which link to the redirect are:

1. http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Party_Freedom_and_Justice and its alias http://www.ask.com/wiki/Party_Freedom_and_Justice
2. http://www.ask.com/wiki/Category:Political_parties_in_Bolivia (this gives an out-of-date mirror of the category listing, showing the incorrect party name, among many others)
3. http://www.pediaview.com/openpedia/Party_Freedom_and_Justice (but link is just non-clickable text of the full url, and it gives a clickable link to the correct article)
4. http://topics.chron.com/topics/Party_Freedom_and_Justice (Houston Chronicle)

Now, I don't know whether these URLs are a permanent part of these sites, or are generated on-the-fly, or whether they're refreshed periodically from a wiki dump. In any case, given how unlikely the term "Party Freedom and Justice" is, hits on them are going to be rare. Remember, this is an obscure party that became defunct in 2003.

Traffic stats on the redirect, after the peak caused by the move and this discussion, are, for the last 5 days: 1, 0, 4, 6, 3. Hardly a flood of traffic, and I suspect most of these are from casual browsers of this discussion.

We should not have names on Wikipedia that are nonsensical English, and now that we know the traffic to this redirect is going to be little or non-existent, it should be deleted, along with its sibling above.

--NSH001 (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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, unopposed, and no pages contain relevant information anywhere for a redirect. --Taelus (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 7chan → Imageboard#7chan (links to redirect • history • stats)

The target section no longer exists, and the target article no longer mentions the subject of the redirect at all. Gurch (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as an article, it was previously deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7chan. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]