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. --BDD (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Windows 2007 → Windows Vista  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Windows 2009 → Windows 7  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Windows 2005 → Windows Vista  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Delete. Novel inventive names. Page view statistics (links above) shows they are not likely search terms as they receive one or two visits each day. (And I think those account for maintenance bots.) Also see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 23 § Windows 92 and friends.
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I added Windows 2005 to the nomination. Same issue as reported by the nominator. Steel1943 (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Microsoft Windows versions. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC).
  

• Erm, we don't have Windows 2005, 2007 or 2009. They are not coming either. And as I said they are practically unused, no matter where you redirect them. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank goodness! But the issue is that someone entering "Windows 2005" can be taken to a useful page where they can see there is no such version, and maybe see the version they meant, maybe for example they typoed Windows 2008. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC).
  

• Delete not one of the versions of Windows known by a year, not 2000, 2003, 2008. Windows is not systematically named with years. Even when year-named versions were common, it wasn't the only namimg method used by Windows. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. WP:MADEUP. — Scott • talk 15:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete them all. Makes no sense, anyway, nobody calls them like that. --Luminant (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2014 (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 no consensus (again). Number 57 14:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Mike Harmon Racing → Mike Harmon (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete Redirect could plausibly be turned into a full article. Per WP policy, if the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself. D-Day (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is the team of an independent owner operator. In other words it's his team. So it shouldn't be created as a separate article and if it were it should be merged to the main subject. This is basically an alternative name for the same subject, one is the name of the racecar driver and the other his team. It's the same thing and one is not independently notable from the other. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an erronious assertion; The team and the driver are two entirely different subjects. The driver is entirely notable regardless of the team, and there is likely enough out there to have the team pass WP:GNG without the driver. In addition, Mike Harmon Racing has had drivers other than Mike Harmon drive its cars, which would make including bits in Harmon's article inappropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 7#Mike Harmon Racing for a recently-closed RfD, and more information about consensus regarding this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It was moved, then, to the shorter title, as I suggested at that RfD. So the R to it can happily stay. WP:REDLINK applies as suggested above, but nobody has actually bothered to create the article in three weeks so stet, let it stand, until someone knowledgeable about motor racing: and I am not part of that crowd: creates the article. Then it will go as procedural close because no longer a redirect but an article, even if it is ((auto-stub)) or ((racing-stub)) or some such. I don't see any of the gainsayers here attempting to make a start on that, even though they probably have the knowledge to do so. I should AGF but when bringing what, ten, motor racing redirects to RfD and doing nothing to improve the articles, I struggle sometimes. I can't make them: I haven't the knowledge. Have you tried? Si Trew (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, again. Not only could this plausibly be expanded to an article, but it's very unlikely that someone searching for Mike Harmon Racing either doesn't know about Mike Harmon or hasn't already searched for him, especially if they're using our search box. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Having a redirect discourages the creation of an article, as "oh, there's already an active link" - and it points to a page that does not discuss the team, and cannot discuss the team (per WP:UNDUE). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Retarget to Mike Harmon#Mike Harmon Racing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC).
  
• Retarget to Mike Harmon#Mike Harmon Racing. Good find; there's not much there right now, but it's better than nothing. Steel1943 (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC) Now invalid. Steel1943 (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The creation of the above subsection was reverted - by me - before I saw this, as unneeded oversectioning of the article; it's also still entirely inappropriate as Harmon is not the only driver to drive for the team. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then there should be a separate section (or of course article) about the team, I would have thought. The idea that we should delete a Redirect with possibilities seems very odd. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC).
      
• Keep - while we do not have an article this is a useful redirect and I am not seeing any policy based reason to delete. It is certainly true that in many instances the presence of a redirect may inhibit the development of an article. That is not the case here. I can't see that an editor who is both interested and knowledgeable enough to write an article on such a specialist subject would consider that a redirect sufficed instead of an article. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2014 (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. The default for redirects is to be kept except where they are harmful or for recently created misnomers (WP:RFD#HARMFUL). In this case there is no suggestion of harm. The deletion argument is that this shortcut is redundant to Template:WPTV. This is not a valid reason for deletion. Consequently the keeping argument that this is both harmless and a valid lower case version of an existing shortcut carries the day. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Wptv → Template:WikiProject Television (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

recently created redirect by Jax 0677 (talk · contribs) which is a SHORTCUT to a wikiproject template that is not allcaps, but for which the ((WPTV)) allcaps version already exists, thus promotion of confusion for the expectation that lowercase forms will exist as shortcuts. 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is an active discussion about this issue at WT:SHC#Template_shortcuts. Barring a change to something more suitable, this redirect does no harm now that it has been created. Though consensus may state otherwise at this time, I feel that in most cases, that we do not want a lower case redirect to point to a different location than its upper case counterpart. Additionally, we have redirects such as ((albums)) and ((songs)). Whoever nominates these should be obligated to correct them manually. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That discussion seems to be going against your opinion as lodged here. As noted, ((WPTV)) already exists. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Scott • talk 21:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is a similar discussion taking place at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 10. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as legitimate lowercase variant of an existing shortcut. I can't imagine what else a user could be seeking if he or she used this. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep per BDD's rationale. Otherwise, I would have said delete. Steel1943 (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: harmless, no viable deletion rationale presented. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Thank you DDC. BTW, in the interest of having better definition for such redirects, I asked for closure of WP:ANRFC#Wikipedia_talk:Shortcut.23Template_shortcuts more than one month ago. Would an uninvolved administrator be willing to disposition the discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2014 (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 no consensus. Though, of course, we do not count !votes, after over 6 weeks of discussion there is an even balance of views. The deletion argument is built on WP:Crystal that states "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." It goes on to say "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." In this instance there is no doubt that there will be a further generation of the iPhone and that it will merit a separate article. Whether the name will be iPhone 6 is, of course, a matter of speculation but this is the working name used in a wide variety of reliable sources both in the general media (eg here, here and here) and the specialist press (eg here and here). Also, redirects are not articles but are purely search aids and do not need to be technically accurate, per WP:RNEUTRAL. In this case since iPhone 6 is widely used in reliable sources as a working name it is a plausible search term. The other deletion argument is that iPhone 6 does not appear in the target. This is a significant argument. The contra-argument put is that someone searching on 'iPhone 6' and reaching the iPhone article will realise that there are currently no models after iPhone 5. My view is that this is a wafer-thin response. On balance, I find the deletion arguments to be somewhat the stronger but not strong enough to produce a deletion consensus. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• IPhone 6 → IPhone (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I nominated this for RFD a while back along with Windows 9, and it was subsequently recreated, it should be deleted and the title be protected if necessary Wikipedia:NOTCRYSTAL. The target is also confusing to readers. Thanks. P.S. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 27 for previous nomination. TheChampionMan1234 08:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Quick test: Does it lead to info on this subject whatsoever? Answer: No. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep since the current iPhone is the 5, it is conceivable that people looking for information on the development of the next version of the iPhone would enter such a term. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 05:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per IP. Also likely typo for iPhone 5 (and 4/3/2/1 if using the keypad). Also people may not know the latest version of iPhone. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC).
  
• Delete per nom and Lisa. Deceptive redirect. — Scott • talk 09:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there has been a flurry of media coverage on the iPhone 6 and people will be looking for reliable info. That is what brought me here. At least put something in the iPhone page. ADNewsom (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom/WP:CRYSTAL. The subject isn't discussed at the target page, so the redirect is deceptive and misleading. If we are to treat it as a typo like Rich suggests, retarget instead to iPhone 5 and tag it as such (I don't think we should actually do that). --BDD (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Could refer to the sixth-generation iPhone, the iPhone 5. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Someone searching for information on IPhone 6 should at least be redirected to an article giving information on the overall series. —Lowellian (reply) 18:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, or until someone is able to put an article at this title with valid references. (And at that point, it's not a redirect anymore, is it?) Steel1943 (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of iOS devices which lists all iPhone models, covers the possibility of a search for generation 6 and makes clear than there is no iPhone 6 yet. If/when Apple makes it, it can be changed to an article. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Crystal only covers actual articles while a redirect is and has always been appropriate, especially when the phrase "iPhone 6" is covered extensively in reference to an iPhone. The redirect is fine.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, probably a new version of iPhone is coming out. For now, I think it's fine to leave it as redirect, and later make an article. --Luminant (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• MUST DELETE. WP:BALL said, Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Even if it's redirected but we can't just get future but not officially announced products' article redirected. Apple Inc. hasn't announced it yet in WWDC or Macworld, and even though it's guaranteed by an Apple Designer that they are designing iPhone 6. And the name will be likely iPhone 6s or 6c. Thank you! CloudComputation, posted at 11:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, Wikipedia is not a collection if rumors. That is why there is no iPhone 6 article. But redirects are and have always been an acceptable alternative to an article. Previous models had been redirected before their product announcements so I'm not sure why all if a sudden this has become such a hot topic. The term, "iPhone 6" is not speculative, even if the device is. The term is used in thousands of articles each time in relation to the "iPhone" in general. Ignoring it will not make it go away. And reliable sources have decided to link the term "iPhone 6" with the iPhone, we didn't make this up. Also I'm sure that the term "iPhone 6" is trademarked by Apple, so that creates yet another reliable link. JOJ ^Hutton 12:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  AN APPLE INC. DESIGNER HASN'T GUARANTEED IT YET! And if iPhone 5's succedors are 5s and 5c, why are Apple merging two into 6? So it's more likely to be 6s or 6c. And, trademarking "6" with iPhone is not guaranteed by an Apple Officer. Again, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A COLLECTION OF RUMORS! Why can Rich Farmbrough, ADNewsom, Mark Schierbecker, Lowellian, Luminant and YOU TOLERATE ARTICLES VIOLATING WP:BALL? WELL, I HAVE ZERO TOLERANCE FOR THAT! Thank you! This is CloudComputation, sent at 06:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I certainly don't tolerate anyone violating my balls. Ego White Tray (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  "Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics". They may be perfectly fine for redirects. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC).
  

  Agree with Farmbrough. This redirect does not violate WP:BALL. Article with iPhone name may violate. --Lumi (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  5 Deletes, 5 Keeps, 1 Weak Keep and 1 Retarget. Why are your standards too low? WP:CRYSTAL doesn't only affect Aricles but also Redirects! IF YOU KEEP THE PAGE it will goes up into an WP:AN Discussion. Thank you! This is CloudComputation 06:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Which will almost immediately shift to your uncivil behavior. Ego White Tray (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Will anyone please listen Wikipedia is not Rumorpedia? It will not immediately but I want an admin to close it like Windows 9 successfully please. P.S. If you think that WP:CRYSTAL doesn't cover redirects go to Wikipedia Talk:What Wikipedia is not its talk page. "Which will almost immediately shift to your behaviour contradictory to Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines." Thank you! This is CloudComputation 22:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Thats why its just a redirect. If a million sources call the next iPhone the iPhone 6, can they be ignored completely by Wikipedia? Of course not. Thats why there is redirect, because the word is out there, but theres not enough information for a stand alone article. Its not us, its the millions of sources that link the term iPhone 6 with the iPhone.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It is verifiable that there is at least one upcoming new iPhone. The media (and almost everyone else) has universally decided to call it the iPhone 6. I don't see a conflict with WP:CRYSTAL to have a redirect from the common name for a known upcoming product to its product line. We aren't citing rumors or speculation. We don't have any refs at all. ADNewsom (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you think this violated WP:COMMONNAME? This isn't going to let me think that WP:COMMONNAME had a conflict with WP:CBALL. In Wikipedia, a policy wins over trillions of rumors. Now there's a new deletion supporter. BDD should close it. Thank you! This is CloudComputation 13:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:BALL means that we can't talk about projected future things that aren't written about in reliable sources. It's not a superinjunction: it doesn't mean that we can't refer to the fact that such things aren't discussed. Let me give you a little background: in real life, I have a flip-phone and know nothing about iPhones. Tomorrow, I may hear about the iPhone 2, and after glancing at its article, I go to the article for the iPhone 3. After reading its article, I decide to read about each future generation in turn, so I go to 4, 5, and 6. If this redirect didn't exist, I'd be left wondering if 5 were the latest, or if they'd released a later version with a different naming scheme. I'm going to go to the iPhone article, where hopefully I'll read that the 5 is the latest and that there's a future generation with no name yet. Since I'm going to go to the iPhone article anyway, why would you want me to go there manually instead of being redirected there? The iPhone article should cover the upcoming model, and saying "Apple hasn't announced that it will be the iPhone 6" is perfectly in line with WP:BALL and other policies. Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if I was taken to iPhone article by this redirect after reading articles about particular models, I would be very irritated, because I obviously don't need summary of material I already have read. I can't imagine why you would "go to the iPhone article anyway". Also note, the iPhone article should not cover upcoming models unless there is verifiable material, which generally happens after a separate article about next iPhone model is already there, either replacing redirect or created on red link. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:46, 20 June 2014 (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. The default for redirects is to keep. This is a long-standing redirect, over 8 years old, and the original title of the article. Such redirects are only deleted if they are in some way harmful. WP:RFD#HARMFUL states "Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.". Conversely, deleting could be harmful due to breaking long-standing external links. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Metadata Registry → Metadata registry (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

No pages link here anymore. There was just one, which i fixed with proper capitalization. There's not much incoming traffic either. i would like to perform cleanup. Compfreak7 (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This redirect is a valid ((R from other capitalization)), and has already been marked as so. Steel1943 (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Redirects are not just for internal links. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC).
  

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. The default for redirects is to keep. These are long-standing redirects, many years old, and were previously articles. Such redirects are only deleted if they are in some way harmful. WP:RFD#HARMFUL states "Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.". Conversely, deleting could be harmful due to breaking long-standing external links. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Pi to 1,000 places → Pi (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Pi to 10,000 places → Pi (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Pi to 100,000 places → Pi (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Pi to 1,000,000 places → Pi (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Pi to the 10,000th place → Pi (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Pi to One Million Digits → Pi (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Not likely to be searched. And Pi doesn't include any digits of pi. GZWDer (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Pi gives the first 50 and references to more accurate versions. It also discusses the history of successive approximation, particularly in Pi#Modern quest for more digits. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC).
  
• 'Comment The first redirect listed is 12 years old and has required precisely zero maintenance in the last 10 years. This is a good example of the myth of the burden of maintenance. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC).
  
• Keep One is five years old, one is nine, and the rest are twelve. None of them are harmful or confusing (see WP:RFD#DELETE), while given their age, WP:RFD#KEEP is relevant: you risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting them. Nyttend (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2014 (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 speedily kept - no rationale given for deletion or anything else, and now fixed to a better target by Steel1943. — Scott • talk 15:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• James (film) → James (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] TheChampionMan1234 11:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Perfectly valid ((R from incomplete disambiguation)): it leads the reader to the disambiguation page; there, the reader can decide which article they are trying to locate. Also, I went ahead and boldly edited the redirect to target to James#Media, given that all of the "James (film)" titles are listed in that section. Steel1943 (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Steel1943. Siuenti (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Steel1943. Also redirect from move should almost always be kept. Another example of an old and harmless redirect - 5 years old. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC).
  
• Keep no rationale given for deletion -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no reason for deletion.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:30, 1 June 2014 (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 James (musician) (where I moved James (Nagar Baul)). --BDD (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Faruk Mahfuz Anam → James (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] TheChampionMan1234 11:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to James (Nagar Baul) per the edit history of Faruk Mahfuz Anam. Note to nominator: it helps to look at the edit history of a redirect prior to nomimating. Steel1943 (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Reretarget to James (Nagar Baul). I don't imagine James is, as a dab page, as useful a target here. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy retarget All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC).
  

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 dabify. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Moonland → Japan (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] TheChampionMan1234 11:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No rationale was provided by nom, but here's my rationale: This is apparently a slang term for Japan, but Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. Steel1943 (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabify per below. Steel1943 (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a redirect, or make a disambiguation page, if we have enough targets yet. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC).
  
• Disambiguate yes, it is slang for Japan that you find on 4chan, and such places, but several fictional and themepark places are also so called -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Also a 1926 film, which I would rather like to see. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC).
  

• Dabify per anon.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:58, 2 June 2014 (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. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 🗾 → Japan (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

No one would EVER type this. TheChampionMan1234 11:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Valid Unicode redirect, and already tagged as such. Steel1943 (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is tricky to type but easy to copy and paste. It fits the pattern of many other redirects from Unicode characters and there is no reason to delete it. Gorobay (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - redirects are not just for typing in the search box. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC).
  
• Keep for all three of the reasons already mentioned. ⇔ ChristTrekker 13:21, 2 June 2014 (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. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Junghwainmingonghwaguk → China (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Appears to be a transliteration of some other Asian language, definetly not Chinese. Also delete Junghwa Inmin Gonghwaguk and Chunghwa Inmin Konghwaguk TheChampionMan1234 11:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm. They are Korean, which is one of the minority languages of China. Siuenti (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Siuenti's comment. Also note this is a 9 year old redirect which has required precisely one edit, when the target was moved, and that was automated. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC).
  
• Keep per Siuenti--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:35, 1 June 2014 (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. This is a redirect that takes the reader to a relevant article. I take the nominator's concern but this can be resolved with a ((distinguish|Italian Socialist Party (2007))) hatnote. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Socialist Party (Italy, 2007-2008) → Socialist Party (De Michelis) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete As a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist Party (Italy, 2007–08) Creating Socialist Party (Italy, 2007–08) was deleted but Socialist Party (Italy, 2007-2008) was not. Can easily be confused with Italian Socialist Party (2007). CorrectKissinTime (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Italian Socialist Party (disambiguation). , which will have to be created first. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC).
  
• Keep I don't see the problem. This describes an Italian party called Socialist Party active between 2007 and 2008, doesn't it? --BDD (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BSD. I believe that ((distinguish|Italian Socialist Party (2007))) would work better then current ((other uses|Italian Socialist Party (disambiguation))) at the target though. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:04, 11 June 2014 (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. As other editors have noted, this redirect is not only proper but practically required. There's even a bot dedicated to making such redirects. --BDD (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is (disambiguation) → Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete There are no links from the WP namespace to the former name of this disambiguation page, and noone would seriously claim that linkrot would be a problem for a former disambiguation page with a (disambiguation) title. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 07:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. This redirect is a perfectly valid ((R to disambiguation page)). In fact, I have went ahead and tagged the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We do this. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC).
  
• Keep WP:INTDABLINK -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Your assumption of bad faith on my part is noted. Please look at WP:RFD#KEEP point 4 — the age of a redirect is most definitely a significant issue. You moved a page and then asked for the original title to be speedy deleted: this is specifically excluded by criterion R3, and criterion G6 shouldn't be used for something that any other criterion specifically excludes. Nyttend (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2014 (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 Pussycat. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Pussycat (comics) → List of Batman television series characters (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

There is currently no character called "Pussycat" on the destination page. However, there was a minor character on the page when the redirect was created. If the character is not notable, maybe the redirect should be deleted? I'm open to other suggestions. Cnilep (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The character is mentioned at Lesley Gore. Retargeting there may be a better option. Cnilep (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better yet, there is a comic book called The Adventures of Pussycat. Cnilep (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably needs to be a disambiguation page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC).
  
• Disambiguate point to pussycat (disambiguation), and add relevant entries -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, User:Rich Farmbrough and 65.94.171.126, are you both suggesting that (1) Pussycat (comics) should be retargeted to Pussycat and (2) Lesley Gore added to that disambiguation page? (The Adventures of Pussycat is already there.) Or do you have something else in mind? It seems to me, by the way, that Gore is much better known as a singer than for her two appearances on Batman, but Pussycat is not mentioned at Batman (TV series). Cnilep (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was suggesting the page become a dab page, as there are almost certainly other comic pussycats (I believe the Pussycat Dolls have been comicified). But 65's solution is fine too. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC).
      
      • The only other page I could find (disregarding puss characters not called "Pussycat", such as Snagglepuss), was Josie and the Pussycats, which is a set index. I've added it and the Lesley Gore character to Pussycat (disambiguation). Cnilep (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2014 (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 withdrawn. Consensus does not seem to exist, and I have no desire to pursue this option anymore. Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Einhorn (disambiguation) → Einhorn  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Eenhoorn (disambiguation) → Eenhoorn  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I recently stumbled across the two targets of these; they were both tagged as disambiguation pages, so this these redirects were created by a bot as uncontroversial edits. However, both of these pages were improperly tagged. Neither of these pages are disambiguation pages, but rather surname list pages. For this reason, the existence of these two redirects does not make sense, and can mislead a reader who is trying to find an actual disambiguation page for articles who are known by these titles; after doing a general search of both titles, all existing articles that appear are biographical articles for people with these terms as a surname. In conclusion, the existence of these redirects would only make sense if there is some guideline that states that "if a there is a list article at the ambiguous title, then it is inherently a disambiguation page"; as far as I know, no such guideline exists. Steel1943 (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Eenhoorn (disambiguation)", as it is now a disambiguation page. You missed the windmill. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you IP. Consider that one withdrawn. Steel1943 (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the distinction between a set-index page and a disambiguation page is so slender as to be ignorable in most cases. Certainly as far as redirects are concerned. This page has been harmless for 53 years so we keep per consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC).
  
• Delete. Einhorn is not a disambiguation page. There isn't even a partial title match on that page that could be construed as needing disambiguation. Having a (disambiguation) redirect just adds to the confusion people have between dabs and set indices. And it has not been "harmless for 5 years". It was created three years ago by a bot when Einhorn mistakenly had a disambiguation tag on it. There is no reason whatsoever to keep these. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  But it has been harmless. So should be kept per Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC).
  

  Here's a list of surname/dab hybrid articles as of 2013. Bot-created (disambiguation) ambiguators pointing to surname list articles exacerbates the problem. It might not be harmful to the average reader but it increases my workload. I have already deleted hundreds if not thousands of similar redirects and I cannot recall anyone querying it. Deletion causes no harm either; if the article ends up turning back into a disambiguation page then a bot comes along in short order and recreates the redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  What workload does it increase? Doing the unneeded deletions?

  And deleting them can be harmful if they are linked to. Moreover bots die. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC).
  

• Keep per Rich Farmbrough. It's still somewhat unclear to me why set indices are even a thing. A reader familiar with the idea of a Wikipedia disambiguation page is likely to look at Einhorn and identify it as such. Does every set index need such a redirect? Probably not. But I don't see a reason to delete those that do exist. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2014 (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.