The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• JoeSixPAC → Sarah Palin (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Deletion. Obvious reasons. The term is spelled incorrectly and written as one word. It also doesn't identify Palin. She didn't invent the phrase, she just used it during a debate. And she did not identify herself with this phrase, but rather someone else, so it's not appropriate to associate the term with her biographical page. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is also apparently poking fun at Palin's associated political action committe, SarahPAC. In other words, it's a double play on words that someone thought was clever and humorous. I probably should have nominated it for speedy deletion instead. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Needless camel-case, misspelled. — The Man in Question (in question) 11:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fina d'Armada → Miracle of the Sun (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Deletion proposal. The entry "Fina d'Armada" has never had any original content aside from a redirect command. d'Armada is a person/writer. The page originally redirected to a page called "The Fatima UFO Hypothesis", which itself now redirects to another page, "Miracle of the Sun". Later on, the redirect was changed to point to the page "Jacques Vallée" where d'Armada isn't mentioned on the page. Most recently, the d'Armada entry was changed again to redirect to "The Miracle of the Sun", a page where d'Armada isn't mentioned, even in the references. As far as I can tell, none of the pages that "Fina d'Armada" has redirected to were ever appropriate. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I recommend that the redirect remain for now. I will put a little information in there when I get the chance. It is my opinion that the article about The Fatima UFO Hypothesis was redirected without following the proper process and that it is based on research into the original historical text unlike the work done by other skeptics. The redirect is a minor thing but it would be better to let it remain than to replace it again at a later date. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You were the creator of this entry. IMO, the entry on this person should not have been created to begin with if there was no original intent to create a biographical stub on this person. Creating an entry on a person only to redirect to an article that happens to reference him as an author usually isn't appropriate. Wikipedia already has a search engine that displays results for mentions of a person's name within a page where no main article is found on a person. If you create an entry on a person only to redirect, you actually prevent persons who input this person's name into the search box from finding other pages on Wikipedia where this person may be mentioned. Moreover, when readers click linked names in articles, they expect the links to take them to a biographical page on that person. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No mention in target article. No mainspace links. Minor traffic flow probably due to the links it does have. If d'Armada is worthy of her own article, such an article can later be created by some industrious editor. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Joaquim Fernandes → Miracle of the Sun (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Deletion proposal. The entry "Joaquim Fernandes" has never had any original content aside from a redirect command. Fernandes is a writer. The page originally redirected to a page called "The Fatima UFO Hypothesis", which itself now redirects to another page, "Miracle of the Sun". Later on, the redirect was changed to point to the page "Jacques Vallée" where Fernandes isn't even mentioned on the page except as an author to a book listed in the reference section. Most recently, the Fernandes entry was changed again to redirect to "The Miracle of the Sun", a page where Fernandes isn't even mentioned at all, even in the references. As far as I can tell, none of the pages that "Joaquim Fernandes" has redirected to were ever appropriate. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I recomeend the redirect be maintaned for now for more see Fina d'Armada proposal just above. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You were the creator of this entry. IMO, the entry on this person should not have been created to begin with if there was no original intent to create a biographical stub on this person. Creating an entry on a person only to redirect to an article that happens to reference him as an author usually isn't appropriate. Wikipedia already has a search engine that displays results for mentions of a person's name within a page where no main article is found on a person. If you create an entry on a person only to redirect, you actually prevent persons who input this person's name into the search box from finding other pages on Wikipedia where this person may be mentioned. Moreover, when readers click linked names in articles, they expect the links to take them to a biographical page on that person. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per rationale given in entry above. The one mainspace link to this redirect refers to a different Joaquim Fernandes, anyway. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• J. Urol. → Elsevier (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete. Entirely unhelpful redirect for the Journal of Urology (not yet created). It makes sense to redirect to publisher when they are small publishers strongly associated with the journal, but Elsevier is a publishing giant with hundreds if not thousands of journals. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't think it's appropriate to create entries for a journal only to redirect to the publisher (where no substantive information is found about the journal on the publisher page), for the same reason that it's not appropriate to create an entry for millions of published books only to redirect to the publisher for the book. All it will do is annoy the reader who may spend a few moments of his time scanning the publisher page, expecting some information on the journal or book that's not even present. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and YouWillBeAssimilated. We should not send our readers on fruitless searches. It is better to be honest about the fact that we do not have an article about this topic rather than to hint at one detail through a redirect. The redirect is made even less useful by the fact that it is not the full title of the journal but merely an abbreviation. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 08:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg → Elsevier (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete. Entirely unhelpful redirect for the Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery (not yet created). It makes sense to redirect to publisher when they are small publishers strongly associated with the journal, but Elsevier is a publishing giant with hundreds if not thousands of journals. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't think it's appropriate to create entries for a journal only to redirect to the publisher (where no substantive information is found about the journal on the publisher page), for the same reason that it's not appropriate to create an entry for millions of published books only to redirect to the publisher for the book. All it will do is annoy the reader who may spend a few moments of his time scanning the publisher page, expecting some information on the journal or book that's not even present. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete under criterion G7: creator requests deletion. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Firecracker incident → Northwest Airlines Flight 253 (links to redirect • history • stats) 

The name of this redirect is overly generic, there have been many "firecracker incidents" over the years, and it isn't even clear yet whether there were firecrackers involved in this suspected bombing. 70.29.211.9 (talk) 08:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree to got rid to this redirect, due to incident was not really a firecrackers. Thanks. --B767-500 (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Information about Agriculture,Farming,lumber and Fishing in Manchukuo and Mengchiang lands → Economy of Manchukuo (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Silly, pointless, implausible, unhelpful, and very likely hindering (the "information about" part) + poorly spaced, capitalized, and worded. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not helpful as a page title. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Facts about Parthenogenesis (reproduction without sex) → Parthenogenesis (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Silly, pointless, implausible, unhelpful, and very likely hindering. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an implausible search term with no significant incoming links or page history. The page history indicates that the contents of the page were merged into Parthenogenesis, but a look through the page history of the target article offers no evidence of such a merge ever taking place. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 20:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Implausible at its finest. Tavix |  Talk  21:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Austrla → Australia (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Nonsensical misspelling. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete could also be a misspelling for Austria. 70.29.211.9 (talk) 07:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I meant to mention that in the nomination…oops. — The Man in Question (in question) 16:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, confusing. —Кузьма^討論 10:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Au country → Australia (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Nonsense. Not to mention it could just as easily pass for a redirect to Austria. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete could also be a redirect for various gold mining regions 70.29.211.9 (talk) 07:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Corée du Sud → South Korea (links to redirect • history • stats) 
• Coree du Sud → South Korea (links to redirect • history • stats) 

The French title for South Korea has no meaning here. Unhelpful. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a redirect - Names of things in foreign languages are inherently acceptable as redirects. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Black Falcon has said "redirects from alternate language translations should be used only when there is a direct connection between a topic and the language in question", as have others. I don't mean to put him/her on the spot—I simply mean that not everyone feels the same as you do. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, is his view consensus? When I go to Wikipedia:Redirect, an editing guideline, it says at Wikipedia:Redirects#Alternative_names_and_languages that one can use a redirect to link a name in a foreign language to the English name of a subject. It does not say that one should not, say, redirect the French name of a Japanese subject to its English name. If there was a consensus to not have these redirects, then the editing guideline page should say so. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  See below for my commentary on his rationale. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete French is not a language of South Korea, nor has South Korea been a French colony, nor is South Korea known by its French name in English. 70.29.211.9 (talk) 07:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't matter if French is not a language of South Korea- A foreign name of a place gets redirected to its English name, no matter what language it is in. There is no prohibition against what I explained in the Wikipedia:Redirects guidelines. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment you seem to be a Wikipedian with several years of usage and many edits. If you feel that way, perhaps you should hang around WP:RFD for a while, since this sort of redirect routinely gets deleted here, for the kind of reasons that I point out. Personally, I think this sort of information should be listed as part of the article, in a section about the topic's impact and influences in non-English languages that are not the native language of the topic. 70.29.211.9 (talk) 08:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I do have several years of experience. I mainly focus on the editing side of things and I generally only get involved in RFD if an article I have worked on is discussed in some manner on RFD. I have observed several RFDs, but I have not encountered any cases where a redirect like this was deleted. In 2004 created a redirect where the German word Australien points to the English Australia - and this has survived for a long time.

  1. I would like to see the RFD cases being referring to. I would like to see how the cases ended up.
  2. If there a consensus to delete these kinds of redirects, this consensus needs to be noted in the guidelines page here: Wikipedia:Redirects#Alternative_names_and_languages - If a certain decision occurs again and again by consensus, it needs to be reflected in Wikipedia's documentation

  WhisperToMe (talk) 08:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Except "Australien" is also a misspelling of "Australian", so is a reasonable redirect for that reason. If it were a solely German word without confusing it with a mispelt English word, I think someone might have nominated it for deletion already. 70.29.208.10 (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my quoted comment, which I view as an extension of the principles expressed in Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The Wikimedia Foundation has a dictionary project, Wiktionary, which does attempt to include multiple translations for each word or phrase, but Wikipedia is a different project. Also, past RfD discussions have almost always resulted in deletion of alternative-language redirects where there is no direct connection between the topic of the target article and the language of the redirect. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 07:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary does not apply to this case. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is meant to dissuade people from creating articles about words that only describe what the word is (i.e. what a dictionary entry would be). Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary makes no comment about redirects of any manner. I do not see anything in Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary that suggests that this principle is supposed to be applied to redirects.
  2. As for your second point about past RfD discussions, do you have any links handy? I would like to see the discussions.
  3. If there is a consensus against doing what I described, then Wikipedia:Redirects#Alternative_names_and_languages needs to be updated to explain this.

  WhisperToMe (talk) 08:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I know that WP:WINAD does not mention redirects, and that is why I consider my position (it's actually not just my position and I wasn't even the first one to suggest it) to be an extension of the principles expressed at WP:WINAD and not a direct application of them. My point was that Wikipedia is not and should not act as a multi-lingual dictionary: allowing generic alternative-language redirects from any language, regardless of the relevance of that language to the topic of the target article, does exactly that.
  2. Sure! In fact, I probably should have linked to some prior discussions in my original comment... In any case, there are numerous examples of redirects being deleted because there is no connection between the topic of the target article and the language of the redirect (see e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4) and of redirects being kept because there is a connection between the topic of the target article and the language of the redirect (see e.g., 1, 2, 3).
  3. Wikipedia:Redirects#Alternative names and languages provides technical information about what templates to use on alternative-language redirects... it neither encourages nor discourages their creation. I certainly wouldn't object to updating Wikipedia:Redirect to reflect what is, in my experience at least, mostly-consistent precedent on this issue, but I do want to note that foreign-language redirects only rarely appear at RfD (which could be the reason the guideline doesn't mention them specifically).

  –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 08:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:Redirects does provide technical info, but it is also labeled as an editing guideline. It generally outlines what people should do when they redirect and when redirects should be created.

  Redirecting foreign words to English words is the process of disambiguation, ensuring that people go to the article they are looking for. The act of redirecting foreign words to English words is not trying to simply make a listing of words in another language (the role of a dictionary) - Its trying to steer non-English users to the right place (disambiguation).

  Going through the discussions, it seems like they all took place in 2009, so this was a pretty recent phenomenon. In one discussion that ended in a delete someone mentioned that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages was proposed, but it never became a guideline - it simply became an essay.

  I think that there needs to be a wider guideline/policy level discussion about this so the community can decide whether there is a consensus about this issue. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The only reason that the linked discussions are all from 2009 is that I only checked the archives for the past few months. I assure you that the phenomenon is neither new nor limited to this year (see e.g., 1, 2).

  The task of "steer[ing] non-English users" to "the article they are looking for" is carried out by interwiki linking. Creating redirects from generic non-English translations partially duplicates that function and partially assumes the role of the Wiktionary projects.

  I have no objection to a wider discussion, but consistent outcomes at RfD to delete or keep alternative-language redirects based on whether there is a connection between the topic of the target article and the language of the redirect is a pretty good indicator of consensus. After all, guidelines should generally reflect established practice and not attempt to dictate new behaviours. (For what it's worth, I would have opposed making Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages into a guideline simply because the issue does not come up that often at RfD--maybe 10–20 times each year. When it does come up, however, the outcome is consistent.) –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 20:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Ah, I see. So there were maybe two in 2008.
  2. While interwiki linking fulfills some of the "steering," EN needs to also have the "steering" work within its own system; i.e. if someone enters a foreign word of an English name on EN, the person should be redirected to the proper place. The person should not be given the opportunity to create a duplicate article or to mistakenly think for some reason that EN doesn't have an article on the subject. This is generally why I create redirects. Also interwikis cannot cover all bases since some terms may not have articles on other language Wikipedias. In addition some terms which are unamiguous on EN may be ambiguous in other languages, and vice versa. And "steering" does not possibly assume any role of the Wiktionary projects. Listing all of the possible foreign names of a subject on its Wikipedia page would be assuming part of Wiktionary's goal; Wiktionary does list all possible foreign names of subjects. Having redirects set up does not assume any of Wiktionary's goals.
  3. I understand that a guideline is not a way to make hard and fast rules so much as to simply reflect established practice. However the guideline ought to clarify which foreign languages are typically used if there is a consensus that only some foreign languages may be redirected.
  4. There is a difference between this discussion and the others. In the previous discussions there wasn't a whole lot of in-depth debate about this particular issue. It seems correct to say that wider debate/discussion/arguments didn't occur because this came up infrequently. Now I am doing the following: advocating for a wider discussion and debate and examination of arguments about this, establishing a binding consensus about the issue, and trying to facilitate examination of one another's arguments and rationales to help establish consensus.

  WhisperToMe (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I started Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#Clarification_of_foreign_language_redirects to get a wider audience. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. No, there were more (e.g., 1, 2)—I believe that there are about 10 to 20 each year—but I gave just two examples because I was only trying to show that the principle is not 'recent'.
  2. Re: Interwiki linking - I suppose that we just disagree on the degree of steering that is necessary and/or appropriate. I will comment at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. Re: Wiktionary - I do not dispute that there is a difference between including translations on a list in a single page and including translations via tens of individual redirects, but that's why I said that this type of steering partially overlaps the role of Wiktionary.
  3. I agree that adding a few sentences in Wikipedia:Redirect to address foreign-language redirects would be useful and am happy to see that you started a discussion on the talk page.
  4. See #3.

  Cheers, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Useful, possible search term. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless. While this kind of redirects shouldn't be mass-created, they don't need to be all deleted. —Кузьма^討論 08:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If we reject deletion of this type of redirect in individual cases, what is to prevent or discourage anyone from mass-creating them? Thanks, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 20:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, French doesn't help the English Wikipedia when the term in question has nothing to do with anything francophone related. Tavix |  Talk  21:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It's not harmless and causes confusion. The question is whether there's proof that the term is in use by English speakers. The answer is no. And it's not harmless, either. The foreign language sections of Wikipedia are nowhere near as popular and established yet as the English Wikipedia. Almost all the people who would input this term would be looking for an article in French, and leading them to an English article is not desirable. If anything, any redirect should go to the French Wikipedia's article on South Korea, if that's even possible. But what's best is that no article come up at all if someone inputs such a term. The practice of translating words and then redirecting them "directly" to the English article for the translation of the word is NOT a practice we should be getting into or adopting. It's okay when noting the origin of a foreign word on a disambiguation page. See for instance the search term "España", which is what Spanish speakers say for Spain. It leads the English speaker to a disambiguation page, not directly to the Spain page. However, if you input this same term, "España, into the Spanish Wikipedia, it takes you directly to the Spanish page on Spain. That's the way it should be, IMO. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: In regards to: "See for instance the search term "España", which is what Spanish speakers say for Spain. It leads the English speaker to a disambiguation page, not directly to the Spain page. However, if you input this same term, "España, into the Spanish Wikipedia, it takes you directly to the Spanish page on Spain. That's the way it should be, IMO." - That already happens here. The outcome of this discussion will not interfere with this process. In this case "Corée du Sud" unambiguously refers to South Korea. This discussion affects cases like "Corée du Sud."

  • "The question is whether there's proof that the term is in use by English speakers." - The intended point of these redirects were to redirect non-English speakers to the right place on EN itself.
  • "The foreign language sections of Wikipedia are nowhere near as popular and established yet as the English Wikipedia." - Which is why, IMO, it helps to redirect non-English speakers to the right place on EN.

  WhisperToMe (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my comments at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages. A redirect from a French name such as Belgique → Belgium is worth having because French is a language associated with the topic (and similarly for the Dutch België and the German Belgien). But there is no clear connection between the French language and the topic South Korea. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy deleted as vandalism/nonsense. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Nathan Zone → North Korea (links to redirect • history • stats) 

A hoax in its purest form. + disparages the subject. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• North Korea/History → North Korea (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Old, but no traffic, no links, and subpages are no longer Wikipedia policy. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP #4 70.29.211.9 (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominator per nomination: useless. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nominator. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Land of angels → England (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Not a term in use. A novel synonym. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it is the land of Angles, not angels 70.29.211.9 (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or possibly retarget. I thought this term referred to Los Angeles? Tavix |  Talk  21:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is a book titled The Land of Angels, but neither the book nor its author have Wikipedia articles, and Los Angeles is the City of Angels (in theory, at least...). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 00:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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