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 This is just offensive, plain and simple. Wikipedia is not in the bussiness of insulting people. JIMp _talk·cont 01:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wife beating in Islam → Marriage in Islam (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: /delete ] 

I don't really see a need for such a redirect - and I'm sure there are many who would find it offensive (And, as the original pagemover pointed out, not NPOV.) We don't have Wife beating in Christianity or any other religion - in fact, we don't have any other pages/redirects that begin with "Wife beating in". The topic is also not covered in any great detail in the article this redirects to. ^Avic_ennasis @ 15:23, 14 Elul 5771 / 15:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Seriously? Delete it! Definitely not NPOV. --LadyofShalott 17:54, 13 September 2011 (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, on balance. JohnCD (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete → Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: /delete ] 

This article violates cross name space redirects see Speedy deletion's delete log --ChristianandJericho 11:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC) ChristianandJericho 11:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Deletion. Hmm; I really, really, don't like redirects from article space to project space because it can allow inexperienced users to get lost in the pipework. So, what's to be done? We could just delete it but it won't be long before someone comes along and recreates it. The best of some poor options is the retarget; it will inhibit recreation, it might be marginally useful and if someone wants the Wikipedia policy then that can be reached through the hatnote. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Cross-namespace redirects are discouraged by not categorically disallowed. Indeed, there are many many exceptions. These kind of CNRs are generally allowed when the phrase in question is common search term, is unlikely to be confused for an article in the encylopedia, or if the redirect have been around for a long time. The stats shows show consistent daily usage of this redirect. My guess is that almost all of these people searching for "speedy deletion" would be annoyed if they were redirected to the article on Deletion instead of WP:CSD. Let's not let uncritical adherence to a normally very sensible policy of avoiding CNRs lead us to doing things which are bad for the encyclopedia. —mako๛ 04:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I use this regularly when I don't have the direct page in my memory. I tried to use it now - and ended up here. Please restore it!!! 13:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  Delete I could have typed "Wikipedia:Speedy delete" Secondarywaltz (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:IAR if nothing else. How many people type "Speedy Delete" and want the information included on the "Deletion" page? I don't remember seeing this term commonly used outside Wikipedia, so it's reasonable to assume that the majority of those who use this title want information on Wikipedia's speedy deletion process. Nyttend (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there's nothing necessarily wrong with cross-namespace redirects and this one is definitely useful. Hut 8.5 18:25, 17 September 2011 (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) 22:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1-866-SPEAK-UP → SPEAK UP (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: /delete ] 

I do not believe it is a necessary redirect. I would expect people just to search Speak Up if they wanted to read the article on it. Bailo26 11:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was started with the phone number title. I moved it to the organization name. I don't really care if the redirect is kept. LadyofShalott 11:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Hard to tell because it's new and linked if it's really so useless and it seems that people really do refer to the organization based on its phone number which is, after all, very central to its activities and its public presence. The fact it might not be the most common way to search for SPEAK UP doesn't mean we should do delete it. Redirects are WP:CHEAP after all and I really don't see the harm in leaving this one around. —mako๛ 01:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - harmless and potentially useful. Sometimes this initiative is known only by its phone number - for example - so it is a plausible search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - if the article was started with the phone number title, isn't is possible that someone else would search for it by that name? Moswento (talk | contribs) 14:22, 16 September 2011 (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. The redirect was tagged for CSD R3, and though the tag had been removed (without explanation) it was perfectly valid. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it and suggested it here. Wasn't quite sure, so figured extra scrutiny wouldn't hurt. 86.182.20.107 (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Research and innovations in Ayurveda → Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: /delete ] 

Should be deleted: quite simply, the redirect's name is not a good description of the article linked to, at all, due to a major change of focus early in the article's life, followed by a page move. The redirect goes from an extremely general topic name to an extremely specific article on a single organisation, and, as such, doesn't direct the user to useful content. 86.179.217.124 (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2011 (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.