The result of the debate was Delete all.Tikiwont (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the list of the redirects we would like to be deleted.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega & Nintendo
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega & Nintendo/Assessment
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega & Nintendo/Awards
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega & Nintendo/Header
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega & Nintendo/Images
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega & Nintendo/Members
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega & Nintendo/Sega/Awards
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega & Nintendo/Sega/Images
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega & Nintendo/Sega/to do
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega & Nintendo/Sega Assessment
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega & Nintendo/Sega to do
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega & Nintendo/Sonic
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega & Nintendo/Sonic/Characters
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega & Nintendo/leftpanel
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega & Nintendo/rightpanel

These redirect are the result of a project from WP:Sega to WP:Sega & Nintendo. The project was soon after moved back and just recently moved again to a subpage under WP:Video games. The original move to Sega & Nintendo created several redirects which are now double redirects to the current locations. Since they are not likely search terms and can cause confusion as to the scope, I believe they should be deleted. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• Support deletion of all: redirects were created in a temporary move that had no real consensus. They're not really likely search terms, and were never really used. May even cause confusion if they continue to exist. Randomran (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the lot of them. They are unlikely to ever be encountered, and have no substantial edit histories. --Izno (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete all per above. Obviously not valid search terms, non-controversial.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NJGW (talk • contribs) 02:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - if the WikiProject members want them gone, I can't see why not. B.Wind (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Useless redirects. Anomie⚔ 13:18, 13 November 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

Unlikely and whimsical redirect from reversed move. cygnis insignis 17:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless you have evidence that the pagemove was an act of vandalism (which does not appear to be the case from the edit summary made when the page was moved or from your edit summary when you moved it back), keep because the redirect helps to document the pagemove. Title changes are part of the project's history. Keeping these redirects has the advantage of helping new editors find the relevant discussions and avoiding the same mistakes. In this case, it doesn't appear that you've even opened a discussion on the article's Talk page. I'm not an expert on the Manual of Style rules for article titles of royalty but, whichever title is eventually chosen, there's no reason to delete the redirect. Rossami (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as it is likely that a researcher could have his Barons and Lords mixed up. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per Rossami. It is not at all whimsical; [X] [Y], [rank] [Z] is the standard way of naming articles about peers. It is more likely than not that Myners will before long be better known by his peerage, making "Paul Myners, Baron Myners" the correct article title. -Rrius (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One quibble was that this was not that, but [X] [Y], [rank] [Y] (not,Z). cygnis insignis 13:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. The title is Baron Myners, so there's no different and Rrius is correct.--UpDown (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This was the correct way of naming the article in the first place and User:cygnis insignis was clearly gone against MoS Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#British peerage. The page should be moved back immediatley. Before lecturing me about page moves (as s/he did on my talk page) I suggest the user reads the MoS fully.--UpDown (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - cygnis insignis 08:24, 12 November 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) 11:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protomorphous is not English (believe the intended term is protomorphic), and the connection does not make sense. Also, "Protomorphous solar cell" gets zero google hits, so not a likely search term. NJGW (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This redirect reminds me of the tactic of Google bombing.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:18, 10 November 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 retargeted to plastic. (non-admin closure) Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 22:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title is too general for the target (not all transparent plastics are PLA). NJGW (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As above.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If not all transparent plastics are PLA then should this not be a redirect to Plastic and maybe even make an article List of transparent plastics? --Pmedema (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply That would work, but the current redirect is a very poor choice and one which the creator (who makes 10-20 new redirects like this a day) really needs to be aware of. NJGW (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to plastic. Transparent plastic is an entirely valid article topic. Someone should write an article on it one day. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Good idea. I got bold and redirected to Plastic. NJGW (talk) 02:13, 11 November 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 Retarget to Competitiveness. Lenticel ^(talk) 22:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title is too general for the target. NJGW (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As in the two above.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to competitiveness. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Good idea, I got bold and redirected to Competitiveness. NJGW (talk) 02:15, 11 November 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. Wizardman 18:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page should exist, but it probably should not point to Harrowing of Hell. Anastasis literally means Resurrection; it might also refer to part of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre; I don't know what it has to do with the Harrowing of Hell. Hoping someone with more knowledge can fix it better. Quuxplusone (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The AfD discussion in April 2006 considered and rejected the idea of redirecting to 'resurrection'. I see no reason to overturn that decision. The new redirect seems equally unsuitable for the same reasons.
  Note: I could see an argument to soft-redirect the page to wikt:anastasis using ((wi)). If retargetted to Wiktionary, I think the history could be restored without harm. Rossami (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• One of: redirect to Resurrection; soft redirect to wikt:anastasis; disambiguate between Resurrection, Anastasius, Anastasia. No need to delete, and highly doubtful about redirect to dubious article Anastasi, or redirect to Harrowing of Hell --Rumping (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Anastasi (disambiguation), which may soon become Anastasi if that article is deleted as a hoax. --Rumping (talk) 08:55, 11 November 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 Kept. If there is a desire to flip the redirect & target, that should be addressed as WP:RM.-- JLaTondre (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect references a sport I've never heard referred to as "Mudding", as per the discussion page of talk:Mud bogging, it's not correct terminology. It's possible the article about off-roading hasn't been created BECAUSE of this redirect, which is why I believe it should be discussed. Removing this redirect, would allow expansion of the Encyclopaedia with an article about the off-roading sport/game. Neuro√Logic 06:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep definitely heard of it (never heard of "mud bogging" though). If I ever felt like searching, that's the term I would use... or probably muddin'. Might not warrant a mention in the article (don't feel like searching google), but a useful redirect. NJGW (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse redirect as a google search of "mudding" yields 838,000 hits while "Mud bogging" (with quotation marks) yields 85,400. Apparently the terms are synonymous. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 22:13, 11 November 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. Wizardman 18:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled redirect name, not used nor is this history to preserve. MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - highly plausible spelling error. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read WP:Speedy keep for valid reasons to argue for an early close. This is not one. MSGJ 18:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep We can't have redirects for every conceivable typo that could be made by dsyxlecis but in the case of a frequently entered search term an exception might be made.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plausible typo that's been sitting out there since 2004 without causing any harm. Again, not one that we would ever create preemptively but I'm willing to assume good faith on the part of the creator that it was/is helpful to him/her. Redirects are cheap. Rossami (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I actually typed this; that's how I ended up at this discussion! MSGJ 18:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - entirely plausible misspelling or alternative method of contracting the target name. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:21, 11 November 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 except for List of common Indo-European roots. The individual roots do not have actual Wiktionary articles so soft-redirecting them is not appropriate. The List of common Indo-European roots has significant article history and it is possible content has been merged so keep to avoid any GFDL issues as it's causing no harm (also it cannot be deleted without developer assistance since it exceeds the 5000 revision limit). -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list of PIE roots in Proto-Indo-European root does not exist any more, so these redirects make no sense. The list seems to have been moved to Wiktionary. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to proper Wiktionary article. NJGW (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the numbered redirects (type Keu-1) should be deleted. That is as if we had articles like "Root-1", "Root-2" etc. for Root (botany), Root (linguistics), etc. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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