Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 9

May 9
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 9, 2014.

O'Higgins Circunscription
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 20%23O'Higgins Circunscription

Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement)



 * 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement) → Queen& (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Wikipedia-only invention. This form is never used for the Award, and is not a likely search term. Fram (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest that round about now is a good time to read WP:RFD. To make it easier for you I draw your attention to this sentence

Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Consider creating only redirects for terms that are really in use. Fram (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Garbage redirects are harmful because they create clutter and invite indirect linkages which otherwise wouldn't be created. Worrying about historical linkages is pointless because unless you're using internet archive, you aren't seeing the historical version of the article anyway. It would be nice if the interface supported that but it doesn't. Mangoe (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We maintain redirects in order not to break the Internet. There is no such thing as "clutter", in terms of database entries we have created at least 10 new entries discussing this one, most of them sizeable:  Redirects are very cheap, wasting time discussing basically good ones is not. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC).


 * There is of course such a thing as clutter, as you would find out by entering my shop. And "cheap" is at this point a very dated notion. We could set bots loose trying to create every random misspelling of every entry here, and the resulting mass of links and disambig pages would vastly outnumber actual articles. It would make just as much sense to delete all the misspelling redirects automatically since their utility has largely passed. Mangoe (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There are more redirects that articles, and quite rightly so. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC).


 * In terms of "cheap" this discussion has already consumed a raw 2Mb of space, compared with about 1k for the redirects - which is not regained by deleting them. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Commment. I'm with Mangoe. It is not a question of how many bytes, but how much we waste readers' time sending them to the wrong place: WP:SURPRISE comes in to play. Sometimes, it is better to delete a redirect to make it easier for a reader to find what they are looking for. Si Trew (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, and concur with Mangoe. —  Scott  •  talk  10:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Mangoe and Scott. Redirects are cheap in that bytes and so on are cheap. For fuck's sake I started out programming on a Sinclair ZX81, where bytes were very expensive. THat is not the point: it is not the byte count where it says "redirects are cheap" that they are referring to, it is whether it is a likely search term. We come here to discuss how to make the encyclopaedia better when someone looks up something. Bear in mind, Farmbrough, that external search engines reference Wikipedia a lot. We have to bear in mind whether that a redirect helps or hinders a search. That is the primary criterion. Farmbrough as always is being deliberately contrary, which doesn't help to improve the encyclopaedia. Farmbrough, have you ever taken something off here and made an article out of a redirect? I think I did two last month and three this month, mostly translation which takes a lot of – not brilliant but a start that others could then improve. Si Trew (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.

Natinal Geallery



 * 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Natinal Geallery → National Gallery (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Unlikely double typo Fram (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Fram. National Gallery, to my surprise, is an article for the one in London, I was expecting it to be a DAB as obviously there are Countries that are not the United Kingdom that also have national galleries. I would have thought it were a DAB but presumably consensus was reached that is where it should be: it's hatnoted to National Gallery (disambiguation) – so we could but as Fram points out the double typo is unlikely. Stats show 0 or 1 hits per day: a massive 3 on 4 April 2014 (was it discussed somewhere then?) Si Trew (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Fram unless a good explanation can be provided for this seemingly very bizarre redirect. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unlikely double typo. —  Scott  •  talk  10:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.

CCC Erfa Ulm
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 20%23CCC Erfa Ulm

Intercaluary day
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 20%23Intercaluary day

Mr. MIchael Angelo Titmarsh



 * 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 Athaenara as WP:CSD G6. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Mr. MIchael Angelo Titmarsh → William Makepeace Thackeray (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Unlikely typo. The version with the lowercase "i" in Michael will probably be sufficient. Fram (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Fram. "Enough" not "sufficient": always prefer the English to the Latin. Si Trew (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Fram. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Guise, guise... -- it's a red link. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC).


 * 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.

Bournw identity



 * 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Bournw identity → The Bourne Identity (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Unlikely typo, no indication that this happens any more often than any of the other thousands of similar possible typos for this search term Fram (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Once that term is searched for, it will become immediately apparent that it's a typo, as a list of suggestions will include the proper one. We don't need this any more than we need Bournr Identity Bourn Identity, BourneIdentity, or Bourne Identitu. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 13:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Again fact checking will show that this is in the top 1/2 percent, contrary to the OP's suggestion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Fact checking where? Top 1/2 percent of what? Fram (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny how you expect me to do your work for you. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Oh yes, I forgot, you can make random, unverifiable claims, which we are to believe blindly even though there is not enough context to really understand what you are trying to say, and even though many of your claims which can be verified turn out to be totally incorrect. Good going. Fram (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "no indication that this happens any more often than any of the other thousands of similar possible typos for this search term " random, unverified, and patently wrong! But of course that's never stopped you before. RF 22:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, unnecessary, bournw -> bourne misspellings are already supported by the search 'did you mean' (DYM) functionality provided by mediawiki and Google, and probably most other half-way serious DYM implementations because off-by-one-key is pretty basic stuff. see fr:Spécial:Recherche/Bournw identity. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why go out of our way to cost anyone an extra mouse-click - in other words make things worse. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC).


 * I'm not seeing how you can cost anyone an extra mouse click on this. Indeed, at least on my machine it takes an extra mouse click to get this to show up as a result. Well, you can put it in quotes, in which (again) this discussion is the primary result, along with a couple of search traps. Mangoe (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * delete These typo redirects are no longer useful, and really it's time for a speedy deletion guideline as far as they are concerned. Mangoe (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Mangoe, I agree. —  Scott  •  talk  10:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. per above. It is not for Farmbrough to come here with no references: do your own homework. I come here with references, and sometimes they are agreed and sometimes they ar dismissed. At least I come here with them for other editors to check. Farmbrugh as always is being deliberately contrary without doing any homework. Si Trew (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.

Jendre



 * 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 Sphilbrick as WP:CSD G7. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Jendre → Genre (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Unlikely misspelling. Fram (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Documented in the literature. Please do better fact checking. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Rich Farmbrough, for the umpteenth time, could you perhaps provide some evidence for your claims? You are claiming that "jendre" is documented as a variant of "genre" in "the literature" (whatever that may mean here). Fine, that could well be true, but when challenged, like here, the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide evidence for your claims. Fram (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN does not apply to redirects. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Since when? In any case, without evidence, your claim is totally empty and should be disregarded. Fram (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is up to you to show that this redirect is harmful. We only delete redirects that re very new or harmful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC).


 * It was created on 18 april 2014, that's hardly old... Fram (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Recently created redirect from an implausible spelling. It's hard to prove a negative, but I will be bold and assert that I cannot find any uses of this term in English to mean "genre". — This, that and the other (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing at Dictionary.com or at Wiktionary, and it's a sufficiently weird mis-spelling that it's hard to believe it ever happens without at least some sort of supporting evidence. I suppose it's just possible that an illiterate might spell "gender" this way, but "genre" seems rather unlikely. RomanSpa (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, lack of evidence this is an appropriate redirect. user:Rich Farmbrough, it is up to you to provide a justification for this redirect. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well if John says so, he's probably right. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC).


 * 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.

Eithe genoimen



 * 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Eithe genoimen → Rupert Brooke (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This is not a "page name in Greek" or a pseudonym, this is a small part of a poem by Brooke, which was earlier used in a poem by Plato. I don't think it makes sense to start redirecting fairly random pieces of poetry to poets, certainly not when the same "sentence" (two words) is used by multiple famous poets. Fram (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good,make it into a disambiguation page then. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC).


 * What, "Eithe genoimen" is a combination of two words used by two poets? That would be an interesting disambiguation... Fram (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well ideally, and I think fairly (pace Plato) it would redirect to The Old Vicarage, Grantchester, a very important poem deserving of its own article.  The would discuss both the source and influence of the poem.   There are at least three widely used quotations, and probably half a dozen reasonably widely used ones Strong men have blanched and shot their wives'.  If you think that the redirect has to wait for the article to be written, then you are, of course, entitled to that view. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Make that article, then. Si Trew (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In general, a redirect has to wait for the target article to be written, yes. Note that this line isn't included in e.g. The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, despite having 6 other quotes from the same poem. Note also that of the 9,000 books mentioning this poem, only 5 mention this line... Fram (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, only reasonably widely used. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Excuse me? I have three versions in print of the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations; the Collins Book of Quotations, Muir's Humourous Quotations, The Guinness Book of Humourous Quotations, and several others. Now it is hard to prove a negative but do you want me to provide you with quotation? Or why don't you do your homework for a change? Si Trew (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * delete I would think that someone looking for the phrase stands a good chance of looking for the poem and not its author; at any rate, if they find the former, they will find the latter anyway. This is not a search we should be trying to trap, and if it "breaks the web" to remove the linkage, well, it ought to. Mangoe (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, this belongs on Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikisource, and ... on Wikipedia when someone writes a proper article about the topic. no random junk redirects. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could team up with Fram and write the article ? Better use of resources I would think. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC).


 * 'Keep If this page name isn't "in Greek" then I'd like to know what language it is in. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC).


 * It's not in Greek. It's written in the Latin alphabet instead of the Greek alphabet: in what sense is it Greek? We have had numerous discussions lately about foreign-language redirects and most have gone Delete though I have argued for a couple to be kept (and I think lost both). Si Trew (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I might have a look at doing the poem, is it mentioned at Jeffrey Archer who bought the Old Vicarage, Grantchester? "Stands the clock still at ten to three, and is there honey still for tea?" I am surprised it hasn't an article, but it hasn't, WP:NOTFINISHED. I haven't the reference books on me to do this properly, though I can access Cambridge libraries both public and University (though I went to a redbrick) and contribute to the Cambridge Folk Museum so that is not a problem – being 1,000 miles away from Cambridge with all my books in store rules me out from starting the article, otherwise I would just get on with it, as I and other editors did with Gray's Elegy in a Country Churchyard (which similarly is not technically an elegy), and we got it to GA but then I think lost it, but it is GA again, but to which this could in a way be considered analagous. Si Trew (talk) 07:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.

P D J F de P J N M de los R C de la S T R y Picasso



 * 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * P D J F de P J N M de los R C de la S T R y Picasso → Pablo Picasso (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

No evidence that this form has even been used by Picasso or by any source referring to him. Very unlikely search term... Fram (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Used at Artistic things (with less spacing). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Could you, in general, please provide some reference when you make such statements? They aren't always easy to find or verify. In this case, nope on all accounts as far as I can tell. Artistic Things used "PDJF de PJNM de los RC de la STR y P" (ending in P, not in Picasso!, plus like you said with different spacing as well), so your redirect is not even used there; and apart from that, it was a joking question, not a real alternative name for Picasso. Not everything that appears anywhere on the web in a somewhat similar form should be created as a redirect here. Fram (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK I didn't realise you were joking. P stand for "Picasso" here, btw. That's the third P, the first stands for "Pablo".  The second one is "Paula".  You might think Paula is a girl's name, but in this case it isn't. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC).


 * ???I wasn't joking, Artisticthings was. It was not a real "I encountered this mysterious name on a a painting, can anyone tell me who the artist is" kind of question. The remainder of your reply has no bearing at all on whether this redirect should be kept or not. OF course the artisticthings letter thingy points to Picasso, that's rather obvious. That still doesn't explain why we should recreate that one-off from their site here, and it explains even less why we should have a different one, which has the clou already revealed at the end... Fram (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is fairly reasonable to have a redirect from the surname with initials to the person's article. It seems that your only grounds for objecting are the fact that Mr Picasso had a long name.  Well, it's not his fault.  He was christened with the name.  You only have four letters in your name, you probably have no experience of what it's like when there is not room on the form for your full name.  I can tell you it's no fun!  And for Mr Picasso it must have been a nightmare.  I think he deserves proper redirects on Wikipedia. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC).


 * I'll take that as a "delete, I've had my fun" opinion. Fram (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Nobody will make the mistake of googling or searching that one – it's as surreal as much of the subject's cubist output. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 13:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep doubtless this will be a widespread riddle or quiz question, whether the full surname is listed or not.  The length makes it somewhat unusual, but it's still a standard redirect form. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Yes, of course a list of letters ending in Picasso will be a "widespread riddle or quiz question". Are you now just trolling, or are you serious? For someone so insistent on fact-checking, you seem to be very good at making up your arguments as you go along, without any care whether they have even a remote connection with reality or not. Fram (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please take the trouble to read what I said. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC).


 * It is troubling to read what you said, that much is true. I see no reason to change anything in my previous reply, your "doubtless ..." claim is a figment of your imagination without any link to reality. Fram (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * delete Nobody is every going to type this correctly, and if they type it wrong, Google or Bing is going to do the finding, in which case I imagine it's more likely to find whatever-the-hell string this is supposed to match on its own without our help. The notion that we need to make redirects to trap bad searches is terribly outdated anyway and needs to go by the wayside. Mangoe (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would imagine those who are not forbidden use cut and paste with strings like that. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC).


 * And since I am not so forbidden, I visited Google and discovered that the only hits on that exact phrase are in this discussion, and the only hits on it without the double quotes cause Google to to assume you want to squish the letters together and then find our redirect and a couple of pages on ArtisticThings which both include the same underlying page. Oh, and a few other junk hits. I'm utterly failing to see a point this, especially seeing as how it already has the target's name in it. Mangoe (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Redirects are cheap, this harms nothing, and it's a plausible, albeit unlikely, search-term. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Plausible? Why would anyone ever type a long list of characters and add "Picasso" at the end, and not know that this is about Picasso? Why would anyone ever use this string anyway? Fram (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. This certainly won't appear as a typo, so the only possibility is that it might be a search term. But right now the only search result for this term is this discussion. This is needlessly circular, so let's get rid of it. RomanSpa (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete the title of a blog post (http://artisticthings.com/pdjf-de-pjnm-de-los-rc-de-la-str-y-p/) is not sufficient justification to create a WP:NEO redirect. Big Sigh from me. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * keep Improbable, but valid Staszek Lem (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - This appears to be an attempt to popularize a neologism based on a blog post, and per RomanSpa it's unlikely as a search term, I strongly disagree that it is a "probable" search term. --  At am a  頭 18:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mangoe, John Vandenberg, etc..—  Scott  •  talk  10:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Denis Norden said "Never quote your sources. My mother told me that". It is for Farmbrough to quote his sources, not for others to do his homework for him. That does apply to RfD as equally as to article space. Si Trew (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I can't remember now whether it was Norden or Rory Bremner doing a rather kindly impression of him. The point stands either way. Si Trew (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.

Olga Kireef de Novikoff
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 19%23Olga Kireef de Novikoff

Olga de Kireef Novikoff



 * 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 that has the stronger arguments and also reflects the policy position. The approach adopted here is given at WP:RFD that states "Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones." Normally harm is indicated by one of the criteria in WP:RFD being met. No claim of harm has been made by any of the commentators. Whatever the basis for creating the article at this title, nonetheless this was the original title. The statement by Fram "That's not standard practice, usually the page gets moved without leaving a redirect." is not correct. Not all editors are able to suppress the creation of a redirect on a page move and the policy is given at WP:R "However in general, the redirect will be a useful entry in the history, and it is best to leave it behind, unless there is a good reason to suppress the redirect ...". NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Olga de Kireef Novikoff → Olga Novikoff (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Wikipedia invention, author is never referred to by this name or even a close variation of it. All Ghits are Wikipedia and its many mirrors. Fram (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * per this name is used with diacritics. WP standard is to have redirects from names without diacritics. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Wrong. WIkipedia standard is to have the article at the correct title, then to mark reasonable redirects with and so forth. Not all letter marks are even diacritics: in some languages (e.g. Hungarian, Turkish, Arabic) they make distinct letters. Si Trew (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete this is a ridiculous misuse of redirects on English Wikipedia. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How so? Established version of the name (established by Fram ironically).  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Keep Harmless, and useful, getting hits. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Comment. Rich, you're doing it on purpose as you always do, beinf deliberately contrary. Go somewhere else and do that: usually RfD has a kinda reasonable discussion instead of just being swings and roundabouts. Si Trew (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep As it's a former title of the page, I'm inclined to keep unless there's a serious problem apparent. I don't see one. Maybe not a very likely search term, but not ambiguous either. --BDD (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So if people create a page at an invented name, it should be kept as a redirect? That's not standard practice, usually the page gets moved without leaving a redirect. It's not ambiguous, that was never an argument, but it is just plain wrong. Having redirects for variations that haven't been used in the 100 years the subject has been notable seems completely pointless. Fram (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It depends on the nature of the redirect. If it's the subject's name in a different order, I don't see a problem with it. If it were a complete invention that didn't resemble the actual name, certainly not. --BDD (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per BDD. It's one thing if you create gibberish as a redirect in the first place: that doesn't warrant keeping.  It's completely different if you create the page at the wrong title and later move it.  In the latter case, you're almost certainly breaking links from old revisions of WP pages — we know that it's bad to leave an article orphaned, so we typically create links to a new article if they don't already exist.  In this case, see a previous version of the OK disambiguation page, which links Olga de Kireef Novikoff: I found this example with thirty seconds of searching.  Nothing mentioned here is harmful; without evidence of how this redirect is harmful, it ought to be kept.  Nyttend (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, as could be expected, that entry was added by the same editor who created this at the wrong title, . So if you want to make sure that your errors get kept, just add a link to them somewhere else? That's not really logical. Fram (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter why the page was previously at that title: it was, and links exist. Now: if you continue saying that the creator was intentionally editing to preserve errors, without presenting any evidence, you will be blocked.  Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can't read what is written, you shouldn't go around making ridiculous block threats. I didn't say that anyone intentionally did that, I jut said that your reasoning was incorrect, as that would mean that anyone could intentionally do this. Please don't use block threats so lightly, they are not helpful for open discussions. Fram (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.

John Russell (1838-1956)



 * 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 Malik Shabazz as WP:CSD G7. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * John Russell (1838-1956) → John Russell (1885-1956) (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Very unlikely typo Fram (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.

Chinese Republic



 * 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 Republic of China (disambiguation). --BDD (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

People's Republic of China redirects there and in the first sentence of the lede it says "officially the People's Republic of China". Big though it be I was half-expecting a DAB at China but no, it is the state: the DAB's at China (disambiguation). There is Republic of China which redirects to Taiwan and both terms (and the link) are hatnoted at China, but I think it would be a bit WP:SURPRISEing for this redirect to go there: Taiwan is also well hatnoted, though. I could imagine that others might take a different view and want it retargeted to the DAB, though... and I'd be easily persuaded by them. Si Trew (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Chinese Republic → Republic of China (1912–49) (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ] TheChampionMan1234 06:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Republic of China (disambiguation), several republics in its history. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Republic of China (disambiguation) per anon.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 08:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Republic of China (disambiguation) as is obvious, the name being ambiguous. Mangoe (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Republic of China (disambiguation) per the three above. "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" –(John Maynard Keynes Si Trew (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.