The result of the discussion was delete all. Red links encourage article creation more than redirects do; any of these which are actual documented phobias can be listed as redlinks in -phobia.--Aervanath (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Arsonphobia → -phobia
• Bathmophobia → -phobia
• Epistolophobia → -phobia
• Satanophobia → -phobia
• Phronemophobia → -phobia
• Politicophobia → -phobia
• Chrysophobia → -phobia
• Zelotypophobia → -phobia
• Hamartophobia → -phobia
• Teratrophobia → -phobia
• Rhabdophobia → -phobia
• Symmetrophobia → -phobia
• Anginophobia → -phobia
• Astrophobia → -phobia
• Atelophobia → -phobia
• Atephobia → -phobia
• Aurophobia → -phobia
• Acerophobia → -phobia
• Macroxenoglossophobia → -phobia
• Xenoglossophobe → -phobia
• Uranophobia → -phobia

These are phobias that are not mentioned in the main article and therefore should be deleted as someone searching for the phobia will not find anymore information on the phobia by having it redirect to the main page. They are better as redlinks because someone seeing that a page does not exist (either as a redlink or on the phobia list) they have a better chance of being created. Tavix |  Talk  21:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would they be considered notable enough for their own article though?Calaka (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A series of search engine tests finds all of these phobias mentioned in various medical sites, dictionaries, or phobia lists that require proof of proper usage. Thus these all appear to be legitimate medical phobias as opposed to random made-up-a-phobias. --Allen3 ^talk 10:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The redirects are useful for readers because 1) the target article provides useful information about phobias in general, even if the exact phobia the reader was looking for isn't listed, and 2) when a user is redirected to the list of phobias and sees that the one they were looking for is not on the list, they might be inclined to add their phobia to the list, thus improving the encyclopaedia. Of course, this only applies to existing phobias and not to made up ones, but I'm under the impression that the nominator is not questioning that these phobias exist. Jafeluv (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep these seem like {{R with possibilities}} and should be kept, perhaps one day these will be expanded upon. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete... please! These are not "variations on a theme", some of them are wildly different from each ok, look- as it happens I just got off the phone with a friend, his partner was diagnosed with one of these today, I googled it, and... here I am. I love WP, not a prolific editor but I have a strong (I think) Contribs list... but I am so pissed off right now I may never come back. Why? WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS! I clicked on a the WikiLink of a term about which I needed information and I got... nothing. I expected a definition and discussion of the wikilinked term... and nowhere does the term even appear on the page! It's like domain squatting or something, or are we trying to appear more comprehensive than we are? These used to be red links, and they were great- a little advertisement for a new article & an acknowledgment that the word needs explanation all in one. And as for this: "target article provides useful information about phobias in general, even if the exact phobia the reader was looking for isn't listed"... WHAT? These are not just words- they represent people with mental illnesses... imagine you search "Breast Cancer" and find a Wiki entry, and click on it, and you get a HUGE page that seems to cover every minute detail about cancer- and your search "Breast Cancer" doesn't appear, anywhere, ever. When you want average survival rates for a disease that's affecting you directly, general "possible viral or bacterial origins" of the entire class o9f diseases is so much worse than useless...

look, sorry, I did say I was mad, but... please, delete. Snozzwanger (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, redir to Greek LanguageErudecorp ? * 22:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Snozzwanger, whose experience explains clearly why these are a problem.. Any of them for which there is enough useful information can be made into a stub, the rest should go, absolutely no point redirecting to an article that says nothing about them. JohnCD (talk) 17:05, 1 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. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 16:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Aguero Genn → Sergio Agüero

Delete. A new editor, Genn123456 (talk · contribs) put in an article on 5 June with this title which was (a) a copyvio and (b) clearly about the footballer Sergio Agüero. I redirected it to the existing article, told the author I had done that, and asked him why he had called the footballer "Genn" when his full name is Sergio Leonel Agüero del Castillo and his nickname is El Kun. The author did not reply and has not edited again. Searches for "Aguero Genn" find only this article. I surmise that the author is called Genn and his article was a hoax attempt to identify himself with the footballer. He also put in a link, which I have removed, from the DAB page Genn. JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not a plausible typo or misnomer. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:02, 24 June 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. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please (english word) → wiktionary:please

Delete as an implausible and unlikely soft redirect. I cannot think of any reason why someone would try to find the definition of the word "please" on an encyclopedia and the ridiculousness is compounded with the obscure disambiguation. Even if someone tried to find the definition, they have it at the article Please along with the link to Wikitionary. I would have WP:BOLDly redirected it to please, but I decided not to because of the improbable disambiguation. Tavix |  Talk  18:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as an implausible search term due to the parenthetical disambiguator. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. JohnCD (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• CSD R3. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a recently created redirect from an implausible search term. Jafeluv (talk) 10:42, 24 June 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 speedy delete (criterion G1: patent nonsense). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Crap crap crap!!) → Template:Globis

Silly and pointless redirect. No evidence this has ever been used. *** Crotalus *** 18:28, 23 June 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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Chuck norris mythology → Chuck Norris facts
• Delete. KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 16:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This isn't a vote. It's standard fare to explain your position. Personally, I find the search plausible, though I haven't heard of chuck norris facts referred to as "mythology". --King ♣ Talk 20:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Like Kingoomieiii, I have never heard of the Chuck Norris facts specifically referred to as "mythology", but it's not much of a stretch to think that they are. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace with Chuck Norris mythology (redlink), so that the redirect can at least be useful for in-text linking. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 20:46, 29 June 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 Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Mortal Kombat 8 (Tentative Title) → Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe

Procedural nomination; discussion was opened at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortal Kombat 8 (Tentative Title)) and copied here as courtesy. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe has already been released, so there's no game with 'MK8' as a tentative title. The upcoming, 9th game in the Mortal Kombat franchise is being called Mortal Kombat 9 by its creators. Uker (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as deletion has been requested, the actual title Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe exists (and Mortal Kombat 8 is a rd to it), and this is a very unlikely search term. JJL (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe. Redirects are cheap. --Jimbo^[online] 13:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under WP:CSD G6 & WP:CSD G8, pointless redirect as Mortal Kombat 8 already exsists. --Jimbo^[online] 13:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a useful redirect. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:51, 23 June 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 Deleted. Red link to encourage article creation seems better then re-targeting. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WRNT-LP → Retro Television Network

Seems to have no relation to its current redirect according to this (http://www.stationindex.com/tv/callsign/WRNT-LP). Might have been a mistake or in reference to something else. As it stands, the redirect is incorrect.Calaka (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Calaka[reply]

• Delete per nom. The article Retro Television Network also shows no connection. JohnCD (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The redirect is linked from List of television stations in Connecticut, List of Network One affiliates, and List of Retro Television Network affiliates. I am not opposed to deletion but, if kept, the page should probably redirect to one of those. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 16:00, 1 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 Re-targeted to Quincy Adams (MBTA station). -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Quincy_adams → John Quincy Adams

Re-Target to Quincy Adams (MBTA station): per WP:REDIRECT section 1.2.4. Not known alias for JQA, but QA is a shortcut to the lengthier article title aforementioned. 15:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Raj_Fra

• I'd say just delete the thing. The underscore and the uncapitalization of "adams" makes it unprobable. Tavix |  Talk  17:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd tend to agree, although readers may regret not having the nineteenth century habit of referring to Quincy Adams explained. Deletion will also leave any reader looking for the metro station with Quincy Adams (MBTA station) as one of the search engines' suggestion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I ended up moving the MBTA station to Quincy Adams because of the redlink, and I put a hatnote at the top. That should help a little bit. Tavix |  Talk  19:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-target to Quincy Adams per Carlossuarez46 and tag with {{R from other capitalisation}}. Delete per Tavix as an implausible search term due to the combination of the underscore and the lower-case "adams". –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-target per nom actually the underscore represents a space (%20) and therefore the search terms is less unlikely because some users do tend to type their searches in lowercase, even for proper names (gasp!) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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