Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 18

August 18
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 18, 2009

300 movies
The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Confusing redirect given the plural. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → 300 (film) (links to redirect)
 * Strong delete confusing redirect. ApprenticeFan talk  contribs 10:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Incredibly and unequivocally confusing. The plural makes it lose all meaning in relation to the target. ~ Amory  (user • talk • contribs) 03:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment For something like this, The page should be moved instead of deleted. Secret Saturdays  (talk to me)
 * Keep as harmless. –xenotalk 20:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as ambiguous and unnecessary, harmlessness notwithstanding. 300 (movie), with the singular parenthetical disambiguator, is a very useful redirect; 300 movies, with no separation between the number and the plural "movies", is confusing. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 22:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:JARLAXLE
The result of the discussion was delete per WP:DENY. Killiondude (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per WP:DENY and per the precedent set in Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 5. Cunard (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis (links to redirect)
 * Delete per nom, WP:DENY is a good reason here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; WP:DENY is just an essay and I do not think it ever had consensus. Redirects to vandal pages are standard operating procedure; there's a shortcut parameter in Infobox Baduser for them. *** Crotalus *** 13:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, harmful per WP:DENY. — Kusma talk 09:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. While WP:DENY is not policy or guideline, it is common sense. Memorializing miscreants is not good policy and can smack of WP:BEANS (another essay, true, but do we want to encourage bad behavior by Wikipedia editors?). B.Wind (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Absolutely delete. There is no reason to edify a long-term vandal by having a WP redirect.  It's bad enough the target has to exist (it's a net positive) but it can serve no good to honor a troll. ~ Amory  (user • talk • contribs) 03:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DENY and Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 5. Jafeluv (talk) 10:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Mozilla/browser
The result of the discussion was keep and leave the target as it is right now. Killiondude (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Seems an unlikely/term for anyone/to type/in. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Mozilla Firefox (links to redirect)
 * Keep - harmless. –xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 22:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Re-target → Mozilla. There are several browsers that have claims to the Mozilla brand.  Instead of just pointing to the most recent incarnation, this redirect should be re-targeted to the article that actually discusses all these browsers, and related software, along with providing historic context. --Allen3 talk 11:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, original name per History_of_Mozilla_Firefox. — Kusma talk 10:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kusma - as the original name, it's a useful/informative redirect. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory <font color="#555555"> (user • talk • contribs) 03:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Taliban Airfield Commander
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the discussion was delete all. Killiondude (talk) 06:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Taliban (links to redirect)


 * → Taliban
 * → Taliban
 * → Taliban
 * → Taliban
 * → Taliban
 * → Taliban
 * → Taliban
 * → Taliban
 * → Taliban
 * → Taliban
 * → Taliban
 * → Taliban
 * → Taliban
 * → Taliban
 * → Taliban Geo Swan (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. When a reader clicks on a bluelink that is a redirect, he should be taken to an article that contains information about the subject. In a case where the phrase "Taliban cell leader" is wikilinked (e.g. ), the best course of action is not to create a redirect for that title, but rather to edit the page to remove or modify the link (e.g.  ). And, for what it's worth, I think that Geo Swan is correct to believe that many readers would indeed be annoyed at being forced to wait for a 80KB page to load only to discover that the page contains no information about their desired topic. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 19:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion about what I think would be required to turn the red-links into useful links, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Terrorism . Please, don't collapse the red-links to simple links to Taliban, or al Qaida.  Thanks!  Geo Swan (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. Pretty useless redirects. Some people have too much time on their hands. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep at least until they have been relinked and show up in blue. All these links originate from allegations in BLP's of relative unknown individuals. The pure inclusion of these allegations is already controversial because they hardly meet our rules for inclusion under WP:NPF. Red-links would unnecessarily further highlight these allegations they are even often used in bold. Here are a few examples how they have and would look like as red links:
 * Of course i do not assume that it was the intention of the creator of these links to highlight them but unfortunately they do. These are allegations and have been shown as untrue in some cases. We have hundreds of BLP's where these mostly copy and paste allegations have been included and extended with red-links. Some of the new redirects are actually not that bad and useful. Keep at least until they have been relinked and do not show up as red links in the allegations. IQinn (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course i do not assume that it was the intention of the creator of these links to highlight them but unfortunately they do. These are allegations and have been shown as untrue in some cases. We have hundreds of BLP's where these mostly copy and paste allegations have been included and extended with red-links. Some of the new redirects are actually not that bad and useful. Keep at least until they have been relinked and do not show up as red links in the allegations. IQinn (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course i do not assume that it was the intention of the creator of these links to highlight them but unfortunately they do. These are allegations and have been shown as untrue in some cases. We have hundreds of BLP's where these mostly copy and paste allegations have been included and extended with red-links. Some of the new redirects are actually not that bad and useful. Keep at least until they have been relinked and do not show up as red links in the allegations. IQinn (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course i do not assume that it was the intention of the creator of these links to highlight them but unfortunately they do. These are allegations and have been shown as untrue in some cases. We have hundreds of BLP's where these mostly copy and paste allegations have been included and extended with red-links. Some of the new redirects are actually not that bad and useful. Keep at least until they have been relinked and do not show up as red links in the allegations. IQinn (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The contributor who made these redirections argues: "These are allegations and have been shown as untrue in some cases.". I am concerned that this comment reflects a misunderstanding of WP:VER. Our coverage is supposed to be guided by what is verifiable from authoritative, verifiable references -- not guided by our personal interpretations of what is or isn't "true".  The contributor who made these redirects further commented that: "Red-links would unnecessarily further highlight these allegations".  There have been several methodical, systematic studies of the wording Guantanamo intelligence analysts used to describe how Guantanamo captives were associated with the Taliban and Al Qaeda, like this one. These terms have been studied, and commented upon, in detail.  This is not the place to discuss how to cover these terms. But I remain sure that these terms should be covered somehow. Anyone who wishes to discuss it is welcome to leave a note on my talk page, or on Wikiproject:Terrorism.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What i said above is very clear! To misinterpret me in this way and to put things out of context is uncivil. So pardon me and let me say it again in my own words and context:
 * Strong keep at least until they have been relinked and show up in blue. All these links originate from allegations in BLP's of relative unknown individuals. The pure inclusion of these allegations is already controversial because they hardly meet our rules for inclusion under WP:NPF. Red-links would unnecessarily further highlight these allegations they are even often used in bold. Here are a few examples how they have and would look like as red links:
 * Of course i do not assume that it was the intention of the creator of these links (Geo Swan) to highlight them but unfortunately they do. These are allegations and do need multiply highly reliable sources under WP:NPF what is often not given or highly controversial. We have hundreds of BLP's where these mostly copy and paste allegations have been included and extended with red-links. Some of the new redirects are actually not that bad and useful. Keep at least until they have been relinked and do not show up as red links in the allegations. IQinn (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course i do not assume that it was the intention of the creator of these links (Geo Swan) to highlight them but unfortunately they do. These are allegations and do need multiply highly reliable sources under WP:NPF what is often not given or highly controversial. We have hundreds of BLP's where these mostly copy and paste allegations have been included and extended with red-links. Some of the new redirects are actually not that bad and useful. Keep at least until they have been relinked and do not show up as red links in the allegations. IQinn (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course i do not assume that it was the intention of the creator of these links (Geo Swan) to highlight them but unfortunately they do. These are allegations and do need multiply highly reliable sources under WP:NPF what is often not given or highly controversial. We have hundreds of BLP's where these mostly copy and paste allegations have been included and extended with red-links. Some of the new redirects are actually not that bad and useful. Keep at least until they have been relinked and do not show up as red links in the allegations. IQinn (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course i do not assume that it was the intention of the creator of these links (Geo Swan) to highlight them but unfortunately they do. These are allegations and do need multiply highly reliable sources under WP:NPF what is often not given or highly controversial. We have hundreds of BLP's where these mostly copy and paste allegations have been included and extended with red-links. Some of the new redirects are actually not that bad and useful. Keep at least until they have been relinked and do not show up as red links in the allegations. IQinn (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all as improbable search items and delink them in the target. Each of these is not only redundant, they are potentially confusing and harmful as they appear to be created only to emphasize rather than to link to a specific article dealing with the Taliban (or, for that matter, a particular section dealing with some part of the Taliban). Some of these entries border on the downright silly: Part of or supported the Taliban? Supported the Taliban? Taliban cook (think about it: are we going to have an article on Taliban cuisine?)?? All of the nominated redirects are redundant to Taliban and should be deleted. B.Wind (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are these three the only redirects you think borders on "silly"? No, I don't think we should have an article on "Taliban cuisine".  First, we have no references that describe taliban cooking.  Second, I doubt Taliban cooking differs from ordinary Pashtun cooking, or Afghan cooking.  But I think there are several strong arguments for keeping Taliban cook a separate redirect, and eventually creating an article specifically about the concept of a "Taliban cook".
 * There are references, like this one, that specifically address the term "Taliban cook". The primary author of that paper challenged whether merely cooking for the Taliban merited being described as one of "the worst of the worst".  He wrote that after reading this memo one of his students asked: "OK. We have the Assistant cook.  Where is Mr. Big?  Where is the cook?"
 * Several of the Guantanamo captives testified that the Taliban had an extensive conscription program. They testified that potential conscripts who refused to serve on the front line as soldiers were made to serve at the front anyhow -- as cooks.  Being a Taliban cook was the Taliban equivalent of the USA "conscientious objector" status.
 * Similarly, there are WP:RS that analyze the way the DoD documents characterized the association with the Taliban. I strongly disagree that there is a policy-based justification for collapsing Supported the Taliban to Taliban, when the DoD's use of this term has been the target of analysis in academic papers.  So please, don't unlink these redlinks, at least not without weighing in at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Terrorism.  Thanks!  Geo Swan (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

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

What is a...
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the discussion was delete all. Killiondude (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia is not Wolfram Alpha or Jeopardy!-pedia (term borrowed from Collect); see recent consensus: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. All of these redirects were created as duplicates to existing articles and redirected (without merging) to the existing articles, usually within hours after being created. They are not likely to be searched, have no history worth preserving and no significant incoming links, and some contain misspellings or non-standard capitalization. In the unlikely event that someone types "What is a [Topic]" in the search box, "[Topic]" will usually be the first suggested result. Delete all. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 17:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Central processing unit (links to redirect)<span id="What is a CPU?">
 * → Option (finance) (links to redirect)
 * → Flag (links to redirect)
 * → Cartel (links to redirect)
 * → Chicano (links to redirect)
 * → Tropical cyclone (links to redirect)
 * → Thiol (links to redirect)<span id="What is a CPU?">
 * → Radio telescope (links to redirect)
 * → Rocket (links to redirect)
 * → Search warrant (links to redirect)<span id="What is a search warrent?">
 * No offense to you, whoever created these redirects, but strong delete. If we took this path, we would have a gargantuan amounts of redirects like "What is milk", "What is a hedge fund", "Who was Urho Kekkonen" and so on, simply because people would actually begin to use them as search terms. Then, we should also have versions with different capitalizations, without the indefinite article, question marker or not - each multiplying the amount of redirects. Also present would be search box trouble when real time searching by simply typing the beginning of the search term would become impossible for these cases. We are very much better off without these redirects in my opinion, although they have most likely been created in good faith. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about "What is 'What is a hedge fund?'?" "'What is a hedge fund?' is an article on Wikipedia explaining what a hedge fund is."  Anyway, consider that a reductio ad absurdum argument to Delete all of 'em. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory <font color="#555555"> (user • talk • contribs) 04:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Strong Delete If we want the search engine to handle this type of query better, then we'll code it into the search engine to strip interrogatives off the front. This isn't the way to do it. Gigs (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per Kotiwalo. This is not the premise of WP, and the links clutter up the namespace without any benefit I can think of. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete it is a matter of questions. <font color="mediumaquamarine">ApprenticeFan <font color="cornflowerblue">talk  contribs 10:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Buckshot06(prof) 05:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Balandi
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the discussion was delete all. Killiondude (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Afghanistan (links to redirect)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Afghanistan
 * → Afghanistan
 * → Afghanistan
 * → Afghanistan
 * → Afghanistan
 * → Afghanistan
 * → Afghanistan
 * → Afghanistan
 * → Afghanistan
 * → Tunisia
 * → Morocco
 * → Saudi Arabia
 * → Saudi Arabia
 * → Saudi Arabia
 * → Yemen
 * → Yemen
 * → Yemen
 * → Yemen
 * → Yemen
 * → Yemen
 * → Yemen
 * → Yemen
 * → Saudi Arabia
 * → Saudi Arabia
 * → Pakistan
 * → Afghanistan
 * → Afghanistan Geo Swan (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RFD: "the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject". (emphasis added) When a reader clicks on a bluelink that is a redirect, he should be taken to an article that contains information about the subject; if that is not the case, it is best to leave a redlink in order to encourage article creation. By the way, r with possibilities was not designed for these types of redirects; the template is for redirects "from a title for a topic more detailed than what is currently provided on the target page, or section of that page". And, for what it's worth, I think that Geo Swan is correct to believe that many readers would indeed be annoyed at being forced to wait for a 100KB page to load when that page contains no information about their desired topic. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 17:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep these redirects are very useful. They should be kept as redirects with possibilities. The R with possibilities tag should be added. It would be useful here. (By the way user Geo Swan created most of these links) They have been red links for some years now. The new redirects are useful navigation tools. Most of them have potential. It is common practice and useful to redirect them in this way. It is exactly as it is described in our policy. Readers are annoyed by red links. The redirection gives them the best information we have at this point of time until more specific articles have been created. IQinn (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The last sentence of your comment is not entirely accurate, since it implies that the target country articles actually contain information about the redirected locations. It seems to me that none of these locations are even mentioned (nor should they be), much less discussed, in any of the country articles. Also, I am not convinced that most readers are annoyed by the occasional redlink, but I think they may be annoyed by being redirected to a 100KB article that has no information at all related to the link that they just clicked. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 19:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Typing a city shouldn't redirect to a country. If a page for that city doesn't exist, it should notify them of that, not redirect to a "random" page which isn't what they're looking for. Jabberwockgee (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all to encourage creation of articles. Good redlinks are better than bad redirects. — Kusma talk 10:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crsytal ball
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Cross namespace redirect, spelled wrong, and unlikely search term (regardless of spelling). ANDROS1337  15:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (links to redirect)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete agree with nom. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete X-namespace, implausible typo. <font color="#CC5500">young <font color="#321414">american  (wtf?) 16:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Only created May 31st, so there are no incoming links indicating its lack of usage. Everyone who knows the target exists uses WP:CRYSTAL anyway, and as a cross-namespace redirect it looses its usefulness, which is only compounded by the fact that it is also a typo.  A good example of a case where  would be useful were it not for the "recent" word. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory <font color="#555555"> (user • talk • contribs) 04:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

<span id="Shaqqara, Saudi Arabia">Shaqqara, Saudi Arabia
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the discussion was delete all. Killiondude (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Saudi Arabia (links to redirect)


 * → Saudi Arabia
 * → Saudi Arabia
 * → Saudi Arabia
 * → Saudi Arabia
 * → Saudi Arabia
 * → Saudi Arabia
 * → Saudi Arabia
 * → Saudi Arabia
 * → Saudi Arabia
 * → Saudi Arabia
 * → Saudi Arabia
 * → Saudi Arabia
 * → Saudi Arabia
 * → Saudi Arabia
 * → Saudi Arabia
 * → Saudi Arabia Geo Swan (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Strong Keep these redirects are very useful. They should be kept as redirects with possibilities. The R with possibilities tag should be added. The links are not useless. (By the way user Geo Swan created most of these links) They are links to Cities or regions of Saudi Arabia. Most of them have potential. It is common practice and useful to redirect them in this way. It is exactly like it is described in our policy. IQinn (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Cities/towns/places are notable. One day, articles about them will exist. In the meantime, they are useful navigation tools. One should be able to link to place names when one needs to, and it should be blue, not red. Having said that, red links incite people to write articles, not blue ones. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RFD: "the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject". (emphasis added) When a reader clicks on a bluelink that is a redirect, he should be taken to an article that contains information about the subject; if that is not the case, it is best to leave a redlink in order to encourage article creation. By the way, r with possibilities was not designed for these types of redirects; the template is for redirects "from a title for a topic more detailed than what is currently provided on the target page, or section of that page". –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 16:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And, for what it's worth, I think that Geo Swan is correct to believe that many readers would indeed be annoyed at being forced to wait for a 70KB page to load when that page contains no information about their desired topic. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 16:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Jabberwockgee (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Black Falcon, i.e. WP:RFD#DELETE number 9. These should be expanded into their own articles, and the Saudi Arabia article has no info on any of the towns. Bsimmons<font color="#990000">666  (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all as any resulting redlinks would be far more constructive than a misleading redirect to an article about the country that doesn't mention them individually. I would strongly advise listing them in WP:Requested articles or WP:WikiProject Saudi Arabia to encourage article development. The redirects would actually discourage it instead. B.Wind (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all, useless for search (it is clear that these places are in Saudi Arabia), harmful as they prevent pretty red links. — Kusma talk 03:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sylvana Foa Bio
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. This is a page I moved to an appropriate location as soon as it's been created, and, since its title sounds like "Biography of such and such," I think it should be deleted. Not sure the target article meets the notability guidelines either.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 13:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Sylvana Foa (links to redirect)
 * Delete, title does not follow convention. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the discussion was Not applicable. Target has been merged into main article and subsequent double redirect fixed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Delete: The current title does not follow convention, and is opposed by Falun Gong sympathisers. The article originally titled Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong, but was moved with discussion involving 3 editors. There are a number of articles about religions which have articles entitled 'Criticism of [religion]', and I believe this convention should be followed here to enable a comprehensive article about the subject. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC) redacted 02:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Academic views on Falun Gong (links to redirect)


 * Delete. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seb az86556 (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. / PerEdman  23:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Colipon+ (Talk) 01:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep &mdash; this seems to be an attempt to short-circuit WP:CONS and WP:RM. <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 13:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This argument seems to attempt to override WP:CONLIMITED, which deals with community consensus. B.Wind (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Falun Gong
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the discussion was Not applicable. This was a move request and should have been listed at WP:RM instead of here. Target has been merged into primary article and the double redirect bypassed so it's now not applicable there either. -- JLaTondre (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Delete: seeking consensus on deletion intended to make way for page move - declined speedy. The current title is unrepresentative of the views which have been published concerning Falun Gong, and limits views of other third parties. The article was originally titled Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong, but was moved with discussion involving 3 editors. There are a number of articles about religions which have articles entitled 'Criticism of [religion]' (namely Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Buddhism, Criticism of atheism, Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of Wikipedia), and I believe this convention should be followed here to enable a comprehensive article about the subject. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Academic views on Falun Gong (links to redirect)


 * Delete. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Colipon+ (Talk) 17:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. 79.255.16.48 (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per above. Seb az86556 (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. / PerEdman  23:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; this seems to be an attempt to short-circuit WP:CONS and WP:RM. <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 13:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep. This should be discussed at WP:RM as I adviced the nominator when I removed his speedy request. Dpmuk (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should suspend this, pending the outcome of this PM request? Ohconfucius (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Update - following consensus to merge the Academic views on Falun Gong article into Falun Gong, the redirects are now pointed to the latter article, rendering the request moot. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong and Buddhism
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Academic views on Falun Gong‎ (links to redirect)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Academic views on Falun Gong‎
 * → Academic views on Falun Gong‎
 * → Academic views on Falun Gong Ohconfucius (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete.--Edward130603 (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Seb az86556 (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. / PerEdman  23:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; this seems to be an attempt to short-circuit WP:CONS and WP:RM. <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 13:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, RfD was a consensus-driven process. I don't see what Requested moves has to do with the existance or non-existance of redirects, however. Jafeluv (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unlikely search terms. By the way, the target has been merged into Falun Gong. Jafeluv (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Diir
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the discussion was delete all. Killiondude (talk) 07:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Pakistan (links to redirect)
 * → Pakistan
 * → Pakistan
 * → Pakistan
 * → Pakistan
 * → Pakistan
 * → Pakistan Geo Swan (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all except "Khohestan". See reasoning from Yemen redirects below. Khohestan should be kept, as if i wanted to look it up, i would at least find out it is in Pakistan (which is inherent in the other redirects.)<font color="#0000CD">Yob <font color="CC3399 ">Mod  12:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note, here is the sentence in the article that had the red-link to "Khohestan" that the single contributor changed to a redirect to Pakistan: " Joint Task Force Guantanamo counter-terrorism analysts estimate he was born in 1952, in Khohestan, Pakistan." Pakistan is the very next word in the sentence, and Pakistan was wikilinked in the first sentence of the paragraph.  Geo Swan (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Strong Keep these redirects are very useful and created according to WP:Linking. They should be keep as redirects with possibilities. Editors now can determent (What links here) when a significant number of links to these topics from various pages exist. I think they are very helpful. IQinn (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First, if you thought it was a redirect with possibilities why didn't you mark the redirects with the R with possibilities tag?  No offense, but your second point, about the "what links here" button shows a misunderstanding of how "what links here" works.  You do not need to create a redirect to use the "what links here" button.  You can use the "what links here" button on red-links.  I do it all the time.  This is one of the reasons why I found your redirections troubling.  It increaed the number of clicks one needs to make to get at the "what links here" result.  Geo Swan (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure the R with possibilities tag should be added. Would be the next thing to do on my list. Coming to your next point. There is no misunderstanding about "what links here". That might be your personal way. But i followed exactly WP:Linking. It is an established method and i think it would be helpful if we would follow the method described in our policies. Then it would be easier for all in our community to find redirects with potential. IQinn (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RFD: "the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject". (emphasis added) When a reader clicks on a bluelink that is a redirect, he should be taken to an article that contains information about the subject; if that is not the case, it is best to leave a redlink in order to encourage article creation. By the way, r with possibilities was not designed for these types of redirects; the template is for redirects "from a title for a topic more detailed than what is currently provided on the target page, or section of that page". –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 16:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all redirects as Black Falcon said it best: redlinks encourage article development while these redirects actually discourage it. Standalone articles are needed here, not redirects.B.Wind (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

<span id="Ktaph, Yemen">Ktaph, Yemen
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the discussion was delete all. It's not particularly useful to redirect to the country's article that doesn't talk about the individual areas. Killiondude (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Yemen (links to redirect)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Yemen
 * → Yemen
 * → Yemen
 * → Yemen
 * → Yemen
 * → Yemen
 * → Yemen
 * → Yemen Geo Swan (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with delete. Any mention of the region out of context should have the country name specified and linked anyway, so these are redundant and confusing. No one is going to search "regionname, yemen" and be glad to learn the region is in yemen - any searcher already knows this.<font color="#0000CD">Yob <font color="CC3399 ">Mod  12:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep these redirects are very useful and created according to WP:Linking. They should be keep as redirects with possibilities. Editors now can determent (What links here) when a significant number of links to these topics from various pages exist. I think they are very helpful. IQinn (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RFD: "the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject". (emphasis added) When a reader clicks on a bluelink that is a redirect, he should be taken to an article that contains information about the subject; if that is not the case, it is best to leave a redlink in order to encourage article creation. By the way, r with possibilities was not designed for these types of redirects; the template is for redirects "from a title for a topic more detailed than what is currently provided on the target page, or section of that page". –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 16:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all redirects as Black Falcon said it best: redlinks encourage article development while these redirects actually discourage it. Standalone articles are needed here, not redirects. B.Wind (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete not in line with Redirects with Possibilities. Buckshot06(prof) 05:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

<span id="What are Movie Spoofs?">What are Movie Spoofs?
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia is not Wolfram Alpha (see recent consensus: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). This page was originally created as a list of pardody films; it was moved to List of parody films in 2005, which in 2007 was merged into List of comedy films. The redirect is not a plausible search term and has no significant incoming links, and the pagemove history is documented (see diff) in the page history of List of parody films. Delete. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 06:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → List of comedy films (links to redirect)
 * Delete inappropriate title - WP is not AskJeeves. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ohconfucius, though redirect questions can't target to the article. <font color="mediumaquamarine">ApprenticeFan <font color="cornflowerblue">talk  contribs 10:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above and my comments on the broader section also above. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory <font color="#555555"> (user • talk • contribs) 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

<span id="What are gypsies?"><span id="What is a gypsy?">What are gypsies?
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the discussion was delete both. Killiondude (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia is not Wolfram Alpha (see recent consensus: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). The redirects are not likely to be searched and have no history worth preserving (they were created as duplicate articles, but no merge took place), no significant incoming links, and no traffic (the 2 pageviews in July were by me). Delete. (Redirect creator not notified because: hasn't edited since 2007.) –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 06:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Gypsy (links to redirect)
 * → Gypsy (links to redirect)
 * Delete unlikely search terms; inappropriate title - WP is not AskJeeves. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, with pretty much the same explanation as with other "What is..." redirects. We would need gargantuan amounts of "What is" redirects, different capitalizations, plurals, indefinite articles and not, and providing them would not help anyone. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Though the redirect question can't target to the article. <font color="mediumaquamarine">ApprenticeFan <font color="cornflowerblue">talk  contribs 10:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above and my comments on the broader section also above. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory <font color="#555555"> (user • talk • contribs) 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

More evil than satan himself
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the discussion was keep. Killiondude (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC) The target has one sentence on "more evil than Satan himself", and I'm not sure most people using that search term would be looking for Google bomb. Shubinator (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Secret Saturdays (talk to me)
 * → Google bomb (links to redirect)
 * Weak Keep - While the target only has the one sentence, given that it was the first Google bomb, it might not be an unreasonable search term. --RobinHood70 (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I've noticed that many people have typed in the sentence and wasn't redirected to Google Bomb so this wasn't an isolated case. Also, "Miserable failure" is redirected to an artcle related to goole bombing so if you delete "More evil than Satan himself", why not delete "Miserable Failure" too, huh?
 * Miserable failure redirects to Political Google bombs in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, where the phrase "miserable failure" shows up 14 times (not including the references), and more than half the article is dedicated to it. Contrast with More evil than satan himself, which shows up once (and with different capitalization) in Google bomb. Shubinator (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nominator Little Professor (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - not only is it mentioned in the target article, it is prominently mentioned there with the significance of the expression as an early Google bomb (1999). B.Wind (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hemispherx
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">


 * 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 by nom as the latter is now a stub article and the former now is a redirect to the latter nominee (non-admin close). B.Wind (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Ampligen (links to redirect)
 * → Ampligen RobinHood70 (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Close as moot I have created an article in place of the redirect. Cunard (talk) 06:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator An article has been created, so there's no longer a point in deleting these. RfD tags have been removed; not sure what the process is for closing the request. —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)