The result of the discussion was delete. No prejudice against someone creating a disambiguation page; but it's clear that there is no single target that makes sense for this redirect above all others. ~ mazca ^talk 17:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• North Florida → First Coast

This is an extremely misleading redirect. Allow me to quote at length from the previous prod tag, placed by Nuberger13:

Delete as ridiculous re-direct - North Florida should NOT redirect to "First Coast", which refers to a scant few counties in a tiny region of northeastern Florida. "North Florida" refers to the entire northern part of the state, which is identified by its geography as much as by its relative ruralness and cultural conservative Christian old-fashioned Southerness, as opposed to mid-Florida and South Florida, which are FAR different. The small handful of "First Coast" counties doesn't even comprise 25% of North Florida. This is ridiculous. The article doesn't even use the phrase "North Florida", or deal with any of the characteristics of the region. In short, the "First Coast" article has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH North Florida, except by virtue of its location. So redirecting "North Florida" there is as stupid and incorrect as redirecting it to a specific town or county in North Florida and saying "well, this town/county is LOCATED in North Florida, so that's good enough for now, even though the article makes NO MENTION of the geographical and cultural and political attributes which differentiate North Florida from the rest of the state". This re-direct should be DELETED IMMEDIATELY as being patently ipso facto absurd. And the resulting redlinks will serve their purpose of alerting and inspiring someone with the knowledge and time and will to write an appropriate article about the topic. Thank you.

NE2 21:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is an entirely plausible search term for the First Coast. See the term's use in University of North Florida for example. If Nuberger feels that "North Florida" should more properly discuss a larger part of Florida, then turning it into an article or disambiguation page may be the solution, but not deletion. The PROD was removed, so it should not have been replaced by Nuberger (who furthermore should avoid such confrontational language).--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respond (and, for the record, delete) - you are the article's creator, therefore you have an inherent conflict of interest here. Obviously you felt it should be created, hence you did so. And, by the way, YOU - you, the article's creator; you, the one with the conflict of interest - YOU are the one who removed the propose-deletion tag (which, in my personal opinion, is not squeaky-clean totally-above-board editor's ethics). I would like to point out, again, that the likelihood of someone typing in "North Florida" wanting an article that DOESN'T EVEN MENTION North Florida is pretty darn low. The fact that the tiny handful of "First Coast" counties are located IN North Florida doesn't make an article about them an appropriate redirect for the term "North Florida". If we didn't have an article on the United States, I wouldn't suggest redirecting the term "United States" to the page about Hawaii, despite the fact that Hawaii is located in the United States, like the First Counties are located in North Florida. It wouldn't make sense to do that, because the article you'd be redirecting to is totally not specific to the term in question. "North Florida" is a unique region defined by its geography, climate, culture, population density, demographics, cuisine, language dialect, etc. - all things NOT dealt with in the First Counties article...which, again, makes NO MENTION of North Florida AT ALL. Am I the only one to whom this seems so patently ridiculous that it shouldn't have to be explained to anyone intelligent enough to use a computer? Nuberger13 (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, removing a prod template is "squeaky-clean" no matter who does it. The point of proposed deletion is that nobody opposes it. --NE2 06:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you NE2. Yes, anyone can remove a PROD tag, and no one should replace it after it's been removed. This is also a pretty ridiculous accusation of conflict of interest. It's just a difference of opinion, it's certainly not personal and it certainly doesn't require this level of ire and shrillness. Nuberger13, you need to stop calling on policies and guidelines you don't understand, and give WP:EQ a read.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My father warned me to be wary of people who try the ad hoc distraction route of criticizing the messenger, rather than solely dealing with the merits of the argument. This isn't about you. The fact that you see an attack on one of your creations to be an attack on you personally is basically smoking-gun proof that I was correct in saying you have a conflict of interest here. This would be a lot more productive if you'd just deal solely with the merits/points of the argument(s) being made about the redirect in question. I've still to hear a rebuttal of the points I've made, which - coupled with the fact that you've given up without a fight and turned to criticizing the messenger and the delivery of the message - is essentially proof that my arguments are right. Nuberger13 (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not rising to this. If you want a reasonable discussion, avoid the rudeness and personal statements.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Want a rebuttal? Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Conflicts. --NE2 23:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Florida Panhandle. When I think of North Florida, that's what comes to mind. I don't think First Coast is a bad target, it's just too narrow. Tavix |  Talk  23:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Changing to delete after reading the conversation below. Tavix |  Talk  00:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not suitable, since the University of North Florida is not in the panhandle. And for Cuchullain: the North Florida Community College is in Madison, far from the First Coast. --NE2 23:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then perhaps expansion or turning into a dab is possible, as I suggested. For the time being, I think this is similar to redirecting South Florida to Miami-Dade if there was no South Florida article yet, even though the University of South Florida is nowhere near. At any rate people are obviously using this search term, as demonstrated by the incoming links, and so it needs to be kept in some form.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a perfect reason for a red link... --NE2 20:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly. I don't see why folks have such a hard-on for a redirect. The idea here seems to be that crappy redirects are better than no redirects, which is entirely untrue. That's the whole reason why the Wiki creators included redlinks - so people will see them and realize that an article needs to be written. Nuberger13 (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • See WP:REDDEAL. The incoming links indicate that people are using this search term, and a redirect is a perfectly acceptable way of handling red links. Nothing is stopping any user from expanding or creating a dab page from the redirect (I also respectfully disagree that this is a misleading target).--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm familiar with common practice, and redirecting to a misleading target (which you are honestly rather thick if you feel this is not one) is not a proper way to deal with a redirect. --NE2 23:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • After doing so well above, your descending here to the same level as Nuberger13 is not good. Cuchullain is not "rather thick", and this would not be the first time in the history of the world that people disagreed about where a vaguely and informally defined north-south divide in a territory/country/state actually was, and what parts of the whole were in each.

            (If you want to start talking formal definitions of North Florida, I suggest that you brush up on your archaeology sources for starters. Christianity and "Southernness" have nothing to do with what North Florida is, according to reliable sources that have constructed formal, concrete, definitions of the concept — as opposed to simple gut feelings of People On Wikis and tourist brochures that are more interested in dollars than facts.) Uncle G (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

            • This isn't about where the north-south divide is, unless one wants to argue that the divide is actually itself mostly north-south along the St. Johns River, which Cuchullain is not. He is arguing for the retention of a redirect from a region A to a much smaller place B that lies within A; nobody here disputes that B (First Coast) is actually smaller than A (North Florida). --NE2 05:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, misleading per discussion above. Or make a dab page, but don't use it as a redirect to anything but Florida (now that wouldn't be very useful, but at least not misleading). Kusma (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was delete ~ mazca ^talk 17:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• United 1549 → US Airways Flight 1549

Not a necessary redirect, United Airlines has codeshared with US Airways and they both Star Alliance members. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 21:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The United codeshare number was 1919, so it isn't even a codeshare redirect. The article has 60+ redirects currently, and most of them have to be brought here soon. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 00:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SpacemanSpiff. Tavix |  Talk  00:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. I would note that simply being an incorrect name does not necessarily preclude it being a plausible search term and hence a useful redirect. ~ mazca ^talk 17:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• CCTVB → Television Broadcasts Limited

CCTVB is NOT a correct short form of Television Broadcasts Limited(TVB).Some of the people in Hong Kong call it "CCTVB" because they think that TVB has been controlled by the communist(CCTV).( SeeCCTVB(in Chinese).)--Gordongordon999 (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CCTVB(Redirect page)has been deleted in Chinese Wikipedia.--Gordongordon999 (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The fact that some of the people in Hong Kong call it "CCTVB" shows that it is a plausible search term. If the distinction needs to be made that TVB is not controlled by CCTV, it should be made in the Television Broadcasts Limited article. TJRC (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was no consensus on Fenwick Historic District, but delete all others to make redlinks available to encourage article creation.~ mazca ^talk 17:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a third batch of Connecticut NRHP-related redirects now covering NRHP HDs listed in National Register of Historic Places listings in Middlesex County, Connecticut, per discussion at Talk:List of RHPs in CT, in order to reopen red-links instead. The NRHP HDs are each wikipedia-notable topics, and need not be redirected. The redirect targets are town articles, some of which have no mention whatsoever of the historic district, others of which have brief mention but which does not preclude having a separate article. Separate articles may detail the contributing properties and be quite long and specific. Showing redlinks in the corresponding list-articles of NRHPs in CT is highly preferable, allowing for new editors to create articles at these valid NRHP HD topics. It is intimidating and difficult for editors to override redirects. These and other arguments developed more fully in discussion of the first batch, for 10 redirects for Tolland County, CT, whose discussion was concluded with their deletion. As Aervanath noted in closing the similar Tolland County batch "While certain of the target articles contain information about the history of the town, and some contain a small list of sites of historical interest, none actually discuss the historic district as such. Per WP:Red link, "red links help Wikipedia grow", as they encourage people to build articles to fill the gap, whereas redirects do not." See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 13#various New Haven County, CT, redirects, ongoing. doncram (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Belltown Historic District → East Hampton, Connecticut
• East Haddam Historic District → East Haddam, Connecticut
• Fenwick Historic District → Fenwick, Connecticut

• Keep These are virtually identical. Discuss the HD as part of the borough article.

--Polaron | Talk 12:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Haddam Center Historic District → Haddam, Connecticut
• Hadlyme North Historic District → East Haddam, Connecticut
• North Cove Historic District → Old Saybrook, Connecticut
• Wadsworth Estate Historic District → Wadsworth Falls State Park

I think that's all for this county. doncram (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polaron inserted a "Keep" argument for the Fenwick Historic District one above. I'm sorry, but all the usual reasons for deleting it apply: (1) usually it is best to have a separate article about the NRHP HD than a town/village which contains it or vice versa, (2) the target article does not even mention a Fenwick Historic District, (3) there are NO SOURCES available asserting that the two are "virtually identical" in geographic area, (4) in many cases where disagreements about merging NRHP HDs into CT town/unincorporated village articles have gone on, it has eventually turned out that the geographic areas are different, (5) there are NO SOURCES available asserting the history evoked by the artifacts of buildings etc. in the NRHP HD is the same as the entire history of the town/village, (6) etc., etc. It would be simplest to delete the redirect now, and leave it to editors later who might create the NRHP HD article to do the research to establish that the two are same or different. To me it is obviously the best solution. Polaron, if you would agree to that I would appreciate it. If you wish to discuss the "facts" of geographical and/or historical overlap, then say so and I will withdraw that item from this RFD discussion. (And I would then proceed on that item by starting the NRHP HD article, so that facts can be gathered, and so that you can make a merger proposal sometime later, which I will certainly argue is premature if no one has obtained maps and NRHP application documents and so on). Please do say if you want to agree to deleting the redirect now, or if you want to have the split/merger discussion elsewhere now. doncram (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I strike out the request to delete this one redirect, above. Polaron, if you agree to withdraw your objection before someone else closes this, please feel free to restore that. Otherwise, I want this batch to be clean for any administrator or regular closer here to see that the modified batch is all obviously ready to be closed as delete all. It would be fine by me if this is closed with deleting all but that one (and i will expect to have to do battle about the correct treatment of it, but elsewhere). doncram (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fenwick should not be deleted. We can discuss the details on the article talk page later. I have no objection to deleting the rest of the items above. --Polaron | Talk 02:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ mazca ^talk 17:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Work (Fantasy Ride single) → Fantasy Ride

Nontraditional form of disambiguation, probably an unlikely search term. Article already exists under Work (Ciara song). — Σxplicit 01:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's pretty unlikely for a reader to use this search term. Work (Ciara single) is somewhat more likely, and that one has now been fixed to point to the right article. Jafeluv (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was keep. ~ mazca ^talk 17:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes → Cartman Joins NAMBLA
• North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes → Cartman Joins NAMBLA

Fake organization that was only mentioned twice in an episode of south park. Not a nessasary redirect. KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 23:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. TJRC (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The fact that an article was grown at this title, and then deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes, indicates that this is a necessary redirect, and one that is performing one of the major tasks that redirects perform: preventing bad articles being repeatedly re-grown at poor titles by automatically redirecting readers (and potential article creators) to better articles at more appropriate titles, thereby preventing an otherwise continual cycle of create-AFD-delete. Uncle G (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Uncle G, not only harmless but also useful. Kusma (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.