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. Ruslik_Zero 18:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:BLP improvereferences → Template:BLP sources (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: /delete ] 

No longer in use or used. Replaced with {{BLP sources}}. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 21:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This hasn't really been replaced by {{BLP sources}} but was created by someone as a template redirect. As such it is one of a number of similar redirects listed at the target's documentation Template:BLP_sources/doc#Redirects and can e.g. be used to look up the template. Since there doesn't seem to be something problematic with this particular one, I'd keep it. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2012 (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. Tikiwont (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Educations that have disestablished in 2008 → Category:Educational institutions disestablished in 2008 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: /delete ] 

It is very unlikely that this redirect is necessary. People would probably not confuse this with "Educational institutions disestablished in 2008". It also has a grammar error in the title and is a mainspace redirect to a non-mainspace page which I am sure is not allowed. Thebirdlover (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, delete. Unlikely grammar error. SpinningSpark 20:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, implausible. Siuenti (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this redirect as implausible. More generally, redirects from the main namespace to other namespaces are perfectly allowable and they're kept if they are useful. In most (but not all) cases there is a better target within the main namespace though. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete slowly, since cross-namespace redirects to categories aren't necessarily a problem. This one is a problem, but only because it's not a likely search target. Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2012 (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 created. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Spaceghostpurrp → SpaceGhostPurrp (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: /delete ] 

Requesting that the former title be unsalted and redirected now that this musician has an article substantiating his notability. Chubbles (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The title is not and never has been salted, so I have gone ahead and created this as a redirect from other capitalisation. For future reference, Wikipedia:Deletion review is the forum that handles pages that have been salted following consensus to do so in an XfD discussion, Wikipedia:Requests for unprotection handles other requests for unprotection. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2012 (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 Retarget to List_of_Dragonlance_characters#Gilon_Majere. Tikiwont (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Gilon Majere → Dragonlance (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: /delete ] 

This redirect should be deleted because no character named "Gilon Majere" is mentioned on Dragonlance or List of Dragonlance characters. Neelix (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Raistlin Majere, Raistlin Majere#Early life or Raistlin Majere#Family tree. Gilon is apparently Raistlin's father and is discussed there. Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have merged the earlier content of the article into the character list. BOZ (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retargeting to List_of_Dragonlance_characters#Gilon_Majere would make most sense, then. Neelix (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2012 (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 wrong forum. Moving discussion to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Amtrak Joe → Joe Biden (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: /delete ] 

Restore redirect. Article was twice deleted by the same admin, claiming it was an attack page. I believe that it isn't. The moniker has been used in numerous articles in a non-negative light. pbp 16:03, 13 October 2012 (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. JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Tanka prose → Tanka in English (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: /delete ] 

Delete - This page was made into a redirect as the result of a previous AfD discussion. The discussion ran way too long, with one editor (the article's creator/sole contributor) arguing in favour of keeping, and two other editors making good faith attempts at compromise but fundamentally ignoring the issue at hand. The consensus was that since the article itself did not merit existence as an independent article it should not be kept outright, but that some of the "content" may be preserved and merged into one or more other articles. However, all of the reliable content is already covered elsewhere. The term does not exist outside of a very small number of self-published sources, and "merging" any of the content would be in conflict with WP:WEIGHT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvenscout742 (talk • contribs)

• Keep. Despite the closers comment, RfD is not the place to rehash an AfD closure you disagree with. The consensus as judged was that there should not be a standalone article but the history should be available for merging when consensus arises on what should be merged and where. A redirect is the best way to acomplish this, and I agree that the present target is the best of those suggested. As you say the AfD went on a long time, and coming straight to RfD before there has even been a chance for discussions to start is not going to help matters. If you have not done so already, I very strongly recommend you notify the other participants in the AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The AfD closer stated that the discussion was not resolved. There were no keep/merge/redirect votes that did not fundamentally disregard the issue at hand -- that nothing in the article merited preserving, because everything was either advertisement/unverifiable/gibberish, or already discussed in more detail elsewhere. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is just hours since the AfD, raised by the same editor as this RfD, was concluded, and there is no evidence that the editor in question has made any attempt to initiate discussion. The closing admin's decision should be respected. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the place to initiate discussion. You did not present any evidence that anything in the article merited keeping, and true consensus was ultimately not reached because you and two other editors essentially ignored the basic reasoning for the AfD. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Forum shopping. SpinningSpark 19:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see the AfD closure summary. This was where I was directed to continue the discussion of whether this redirect merits existing -- no one made a legitimate case elsewhere for keeping the material in the former article, and the arguments presented at the AfD still stand. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. And merge relevant content with Tanka in English, per the AfD closer's recommendation.Tristan noir (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The is no relevant content, and I will be watching the Tanka in English page to make sure no more spam/OR/gibberish is added to that article. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2012 (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. Ruslik_Zero 14:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Medebur language → Schouten languages (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: /delete ]
• Medebur language : articles that link to it depend on having red links where the article does not exist. This is simply a circular link to one of them. — kwami (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - to encourage article creation. WilyD 06:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I was at first concerned that deleting the redirect would obscure what little information we might have presented on the language (that is, its language family) but the what links here feature should suffice. With that in mind, I think we generally shouldn't have a language name redirecting to its language family. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: This was originally nominated on 2 October, but the page was never tagged for deletion and the standard nomination template was not used (now added). There is an extensive history of one user trying to bypass process with this redirect so I feel it is particularly worth making sure we dot the 'i's and cross the 't's correctly. The extensive history also means there is an above-average chance that there are people watching the page.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, redirecting our readers to useful information is more important than maintaining redlinks in the hope that someone will write an article. SpinningSpark 20:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The hope that an article will be created is no reason to delete the current redirect. If you want to create an article, do so. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless we're going to turn all 675 remaining red links into redirects. If anyone puts the name into the search window they'll find the family article anyway. — kwami (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's really not very relevant, there are only two incoming links to the page under discussion, not 675, one of which is the circular link which should be removed if the page is kept. SpinningSpark 18:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a pointless and misleading redirect. It should be deleted. --Taivo (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC) [from talk page][reply]
• Weak delete to encourage creation. Siuenti (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2012 (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 retarget to chain. Disambiguation is provided by a hatnote. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 🔗 → Link (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: /delete ] 

Redirect to an disambiguation page without any clear target. Redirect creates more problems then the red link it solves. The Banner _talk 12:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Retarget to chain. That seems a very clear and logical target for a glyph depicting a chain to me. Optionally we could add a {{redirect|🔗|link (disambiguation){{!}}link}} hatnote to the target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate if it is a chain and is used to symbolize a hypertext link, then we can have a disambiguation page (with a pointer to the Unicode table / wiktionary entry as well) -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This ambiguous symbol can represent a part of a chain or a hyperlink. These are the two main meanings given in Link, so the current target is suitable. Gorobay (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pointless redirect. We are not a unicode symbol dictionary, the symbol has no encyclopedic value, no matter what the redirect target is. What is the chance of people "typing in" the unicode symbol without knowing what it is, and them being happy to end up at "link" or "chain" or wherever you link it? It doesn't "explain" anything about the unicode character. Fram (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • People find Wikipedia in many, many more ways than just by typing in the internal search engine, so the likelihood of typing a character is irrelevant. Indeed, we are not any sort of dictionary, we are an encyclopaedia, so just as we don't provide information on the word "chain" (c.f. wikt:chain) we provide encyclopaedic information about the concept it embodies so we should should provide information about the concept the chain symbol represents. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you really believe that when people are looking for encyclopedic information about "chain" or "link", the concept, they will search it by using the unicode symbol for it? That seems highly unlikely... Fram (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or retarget per Thryduulf. Even if people aren't searching for the encyclopedia article about chains or links, they may benefit from it, especially if they don't know what the symbol is. For example, on my screen it's just a little box. I might see it and wonder what it depicts, and by going to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/🔗 I'll learn that the symbol represents a chain or a link. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2012 (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 Moot. Tikiwont (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Mike Richman → The Ultimate Fighter: Team GSP vs. Team Koscheck (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: /delete ] 

Copying Willdawg111's rationale from October 12 log: It is currently redirected to The Ultimate Fighter show. Mike Richman isn't even in the UFC now, he is a Bellator fighter. This redirect doesn't make any sense to be there. It should be removed, and since there is nothing writen for Mike Richman, it should be delted altogether.--Willdawg111 (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC) No vote. TimBentley (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was deleted as failing to meet notability criteria at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Richman, and the nominator created this redirect. If kept, it should be retargetted to List of current Bellator fighters. TimBentley (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The redirect has been changed into an article; I suspect he now meets notability standards. TimBentley (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2012 (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 speedy delete. Redirects created fixing pages created in or moved to an obviously incorrect namespace can be speedily deleted under crition WP:CSD#G6. Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:AWNIS → Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AWNIS (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: /delete ] 

Delete. Cross-namespace redirect created when an AFC submission was moved accidentally to the wrong location. France3470 (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2012 (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. Tikiwont (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• XXL (2004 film) → XXL (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: /delete ] 

Should be deleted per WP:REDLINK. France3470 (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDLINK. Redirecting this to a dab page doesn't help anyone. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Thryduulf Siuenti (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2012 (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.