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 to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Donna Hilley → Sony Music Nashville (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. I can't find proof that she ever was mentioned there. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "former Sony/ATV Nashville president and CEO" - seems a plausible search term. GiantSnowman 07:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But it means nothing if she's not mentioned in the target. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Then mention her. GiantSnowman 21:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as she is now mentioned at the target. BigNate37_(T) 08:01, 21 July 2012 (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 History of Gibraltar#Prehistory and ancient history. JohnCD (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Original inhabitants of Gibraltar → Neanderthal (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete; Just can't figure out why this is. TB (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This title has a confusing history. It was moved, then moved again, deleted per this AfD, restored per this DRV, deleted again per AFD 2, restored again at DRV 2 and finally deleted once again after a suspiciously quiet AfD 3. (It has since been userfied to User:Ecemaml/Spanish Gibraltarians.) At no point in this confusing thread were the redirects from the pagemoves ever cleaned up, though the target was updated inexplicably to the current target. Delete, I think. Rossami (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section-retarget per Thryduulf. Good find. Rossami (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• retarget to History of Gibraltar or History of Gibraltar#Prehistory and ancient history. Gibraltar was originally settled by Neanderthals and it was (one of) the last places we know they lived before extinction, the current target is thefore explicable and plausible if not actually very useful. The prehistory section of the history of Gibraltar article notes this with context. The article then goes on to describe the various British and Spanish settlements, claims of sovereignty, etc. It may not be the most likely search term, but given that it exists and particularly as it has had an eventful history I think redirecting it to an existing relevant article is preferable to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Thryduulf. Seems clear-cut to me, given what he has dug up. BigNate37_(T) 08:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• (nominator) - How this came about is now explained adequately cheers. I agree with the proposed re-targeting. It is perhaps worth making explicit that interpreting 'original inhabitants' as covering hominids rather than just humans is not intended to set precedent. - TB (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2012 (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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Pro-abortion violence → Abortion debate (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Nothing on it in the article it redirects to, which is unsurprising since there's no evidence that it exists. Seems like someone thinks the existence of anti-abortion violence isn't fair. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't tell whether any of the information in this former article was merged or not. Retarget to Opposition to legalized abortion#Against pro-life people. TimBentley (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would promote the incorrect idea that the material in that section had a political cause, which is not supported by reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The standard for redirects is not WP:NPOV but WP:RNEUTRAL. Yes, the history shows that this page was started as an article parallelling anti-abortion violence. And yes, the content of the page was systematically edited to remove the non-neutral and non-sourcable content, ultimately leaving, well, not very much. What little was left was merged to better titled and more comprehensive pages about the abortion debate. In the meantime, the Talk page accumulated detail about the sourcing (or lack thereof) and a discussion of the meaning of the phrase "pro-abortion violence" (that is, whether the phrase means violence by supporters of abortion against their adult opponents or whether the phrase is used to mean that an abortion is inherently violent). That debate, both as it played out on Talk and in the edit history, ought not to be lost.
  I have no strong opinion about potential retargeting but TimBentley's proposed section retarget above seems exactly backwards to both the previously-debated meanings. That section discusses violence against pro-abortion advocates, not by them. Rossami (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I suggest that if the rationale is to preserve the discussion and edit history, that we move it into project space for archival purposes and remove the unhelpful redirect from mainspace? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• do not delete. Given the existence of anti-abortion violence it is very likely that people will look for information on violence by the other side of the debate. As there isn't any (encyclopaedically notable and verifiable) evidence that it exists/existed we should take people somewhere that explains this - our goal is to educate people after all. The most logical place where this would be is an article or section that discusses in general violence in the abortion debate or the physical forms that the debate has taken. I haven't found that we have such a page, but the current target is probably the closest even if not ideal. Another alternative would be an article discussing any research into why there is anti- but no pro-abortion violence, but I haven't checked to see if such exists. Whatever, I don't believe that the readers will be well served by a redlink, even if we ignore the attribution requirements Rossami notes (and we really shouldn't) the history suggests that a new article created from a redlink is liable to end up as an unsourced non-neutral mess, which is not something that Wikipedia needs for any subject let alone one that has generated such on-wiki and real world controversy. 82.132.211.247 (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2012 (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 deleted by User:MuZemike under criterion G5. --Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delegation of legislative power → Article One of the United States Constitution (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Delegate legislative power → Article One of the United States Constitution (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Too vague and misleading. Delegation of legislative power happens in many countries and legal systems other than the USA. In fact, this page could just as easily redirect to Nondelegation doctrine or Rulemaking. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 07:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• nominations merged Rossami (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We should not imply that such concepts only exist in the USA. – Wdchk (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2012 (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 and salt, recently created, implausible, and a bad title for new articles. —Kusma (t·c) 19:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Article Wizard → Big Top Ballet (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Result of a page move, original article was about an indie video game series called "Big Top Ballet". There's clearly no connection between the two. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 01:41, 5 July 2012 (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.