The result of the debate was Moot, since theredirect has for now been reverted to an article. If there is wider consensus in future for a redirect or merge, it would still in all likelihood be kept as redirect with rather the target article being updated or expanded.Tikiwont (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the same article, there is a section called the Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition. There is a "for main article, go here" text, which leads to the same article. Its circular. The tag on the article has already been deleted. However, instead of deleting the redirect, an article can be written in its place.NS Zakeruga (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article could simply be created assuming it meets Wikipedia policies. The deletion of the redirect is not necesary to create the article. --76.69.170.225 (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that an article existed at this page -- it was redirected by a user a few days ago with the rationale: "Individual books are not notable". This is the version of the article prior to redirection; if anyone disagrees with the redirection, it can simply be reverted, assuming that the redirection did not come about as a result of a consensus reached in a discussion. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with reverting the redirection and changing it back into an article. --Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I went bold and reverted it, so someone close this. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 16:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. This is not the only use of this phrase in Wikipedia. The Clinton quote about Dole is not a particularly famous quotation to the extent it should have primacy of other uses. This is a case where the search is better than a redirect. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirect title does not identify the target; redirect phrase is not even used in the target article. Editor apparently misunderstands the purpose of redirects, since the fact that a particular quotation can be sourced to the subject of an article does not make that quotation a useful redirect. Russ (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if Bob Dole article can be modified to include this quote; if it can't, then delete. Thank you for the clarification regarding redirect criteria; yes, indeed, it does indeed make sense not to create a redirect if the quotation doesn't appear in the article. I did also get you message about not signing redirects and now I understand why. Thanks! --Inet^pup_:o3 ^{⌈〒⌋▰⌈♎⌋} 19:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well, I updated the article to include the quotation. Let me know if you like it. Thanks! --Inet^pup_:o3 ^{⌈〒⌋▰⌈♎⌋} 06:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While the quotation has been added, this isn't the widely known name for the acceptance speech, but just a fragment and actually from Clinton's response. Unless there is some more evidence that 'Bridge to the past' is associated with Dole that doesn't seem to warrant a redirect.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - not a particularly important redirect, but redirects are cheap. It's (just about) possible that someone could hear this phrase and wonder what it refers to, and now it's mentioned in the article, the redirect has some use. Terraxos (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep, but remove circular link, with no prejudice to later expansion or retargetting.Tikiwont (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that links to this redirect is an archived talk page. Before, it was linked out from List of States of Matter, but it leads right back there, creating a circular link. Quanticle (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The fact that no articles currently link to a redirect doesn't automatically mean we should delete it. In this case, it's a plausible search term which is discussed in the target article, and hence it's a useful redirect. Scog (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 00:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. It's a useful redirect. Midorihana みどりはな 01:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 08:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Michael Tyler is a notable scientist on frogs, reptiles without an article on Wikpedia. However, there is no mention of a Michael Tyler in the target article. Thus, 1) the REDIRECT is misleading; 2) given the nature of the target article, the REDIRECT might be mischievous. Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. At the time the redirect was created, there was a Michael Tyler listed in the target article, and so I think this was originally a good faith redirect. However, I agree with the nom that it's now become misleading, so it should go. Scog (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• See also the REDIRECT's creator's (Loadmaster (talk · contribs)) comments here: Talk:Notable_Usenet_personalities#Michael_Tyler.3F and User_talk:Loadmaster#REDIRECT_page:_Michael_Tyler (summary: delete). Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As noted above, I don't recall why I created the page. Feel free to archive to /dev/null. — Loadmaster (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete and add a redlink via ((catmore)) tag to the category Tikiwont (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a crossnamespace redirect, which takes the reader to a category containing various chess traps instead to the general article explaining the term, as one would expect. It would be good to have an article on the subject, but the existence of the redirect causes that the links are blue and thus it is not apparent that the article has not been written yet. Red links might help find somebody to write it. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC). Delete. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You could go with delete, or you could be bold and write the article yourself. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 16:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no sources for such an article, in fact I got there because I was looking for some information on this subject, which I know quite a little about. I agree that it would be nice if somebody wrote this article, otherwise I suggest deleting the useless redirect. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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