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The result of the discussion was withdrawn, now a stub so out of scope even if it weren't. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Somali Olympic Committee → Somalia at the Olympics (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

National Olympic Committees should have their own articles, rather than redirect to "X at the Olympics" LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree-there wasn't such an article when I created the redirect. Run with it.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or stubbify Several countries have their NOCs in their Olympics articles, so I see no problem with the redirect. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• WITHDRAWN - I have created a stub. LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:36, 21 January 2013 (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. Ruslik_Zero 19:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Statistics → Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Unused redirect. Nothing links to this page. Illia Connell (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the stats show that this is actually a well used redirect with 23-60 hits each month between June and December last year. Lack of incoming internal links is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect for several reasons, among those relevant to this redirect are the likelihood of people using it via bookmarks and links from external sites, which given that this title has existed since 2004 are highly likely. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Redirect now replaced by links to sources of information most similar to corresponding Maths project page. The page is now used, having replaced coresponding address on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. 81.98.35.149 (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2013 (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 (non-admin closure. I'm not going to redirect because the redirect has been targeted to Template:Film poster rationale for a while so changing it may cause confusion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Poster rationale → Template:Film poster rationale (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Template redirect which is not seemingly used, redundant to target and to ((Non-free use rationale poster)) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per previous RfD. Usage stats indicate that this still gets use so deletion would make it harder for people to correctly license their uploads while giving no benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the redirect is used when someone types ((subst:Poster rationale)) instead of ((subst:Film poster rationale)). Overall, I agree with Thryduulf - this redirect is sometimes useful, so should be kept. PhilKnight (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to ((Non-free use rationale poster)). "poster" does not mean "film" -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Relisting comment: I'd like to see some discussion of 76.65.128.43's suggestion that the redirect be retargeted to ((Non-free use rationale poster)).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Don't delete I don't think that this redirect hurts anyone, and it does help if someone is typing in the name of the redirect. No opinion on whether the target should change or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2013 (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 (non-admin closure). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fort Hood terrorist attack → Fort Hood shooting (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Deleted and recreated repeatedly in violation of a 2009 discussion and subsequent deletion review. I think that this is acceptable per WP:RNEUTRAL, but it ought to be rediscussed here to settle what is today's consensus. NW (Talk) 04:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and apologize for not following the proper steps in recreation.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the discussions referred to are Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 9#Fort Hood terrorist attack and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 20#Fort Hood terrorist attack. I don't have an opinion yet on the current situation. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This simply does not exist as a concept or term or what have you; the hits for "fort hood terrorist attack" in reliable sources are only for stories of the victims demanding it be termed as such, and the government's official denial of the label. There was a clear consensus before to delete this, back when the "terrorism vs. shooting" debate was fresh and raging. Now with several years of perspective under the belt, IMO the case for "terrorism" is even weaker. Tarc (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot claim this is not a concept or a term when it is mentioned in the lead of the article. With the confirmed knowledge of the connections to al-Alwaki, the case for terrorism is stronger now. The supposed "terrorism vs. shooting" debate is irrelevant to this discussion since this is a redirect.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not irrelevant when we're dealing with something that simply does not exist as a mainstream view. The lead cites extreme minority of individuals who want it to be a terrorist attack, that is all. There is a fine line between a useful redirect of an alternate point-of-view and a lunatic fringe of opinion that dissents loudly with the mainstream, and IMO this crosses the line. This all eerily similar to the TOTUS RfD. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The only thing that matters is whether this is a useful search term, and because people use it, it is useful. How the term is used is a matter entirely for the article to deal with. If people describe it as a terrorist attack, then the search term is valid, regardless of whether the people describing it as such are the authorities, the lunatic fringe of the conspiracy theorists or somewhere in between, and they do, then people will use it to find our article. The target will educate people that the mainstream view is that this was not a terrorist attack - a redlink cannot do that. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  If we went by that loose and rather ill-informed criteria, we'd never see a redirect deleted for any reason whatsoever. "Hey, somebody might use it! Well by golly keep it!" Facepalm Again, what this is is two different sides to an old article-naming debate; the side that lost tried to preserve their POV in the form of a redirect without coming back to DRV, then speedily deleted a few days ago, and recreated again. Tarc (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there was that much support for using that as a title, then it's probably a ((R from other name)). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it seems that this description has appeared in reliable sources, and is thus verifiably a plausible search term. Siuenti (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plausible search term - someone searching for Fort Hood terrorist attack should be sent to Fort Hood shooting, rather than just given nothing and no explanation. WilyD 10:39, 22 January 2013 (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.