Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 7

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 Grateful Dead as a {{R from incorrect name}}. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ungrateful Dead → Death  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Ungrateful dead → Death  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Simply put, the term is not mentioned in the target article and doesn't make sense. So, either delete it or weak retarget to Grateful Dead as a {{R from incorrect name}} (which I think is probably a bad option since there are probably parody or tribute groups/bands that have this name.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Grateful Dead: seems a plausible typo. --Rubbish computer 00:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• REtarget by {{R from incorrect name}} per Rubbish -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget as proposed. I mean... umm... ... hey, it was eight years ago! Red Slash 02:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Grateful Dead.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Grateful Dead... it's a very plausible mistake, as stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2015 (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 delete. The discussion below shows that this phrase is too obscure and such a redirect is too much of a surprise. There isn't much appetite for editing the target article to mention the phrase either. Deryck C. 10:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Stemming the rose → Brokeback Mountain  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

According to Wiktionary, this is slang for anal sex that was used in Brokeback Mountain. No iteration of the phrase appears on the articles for the film or short story. The redirect will WP:ASTONISH and confuse readers unfamiliar with the phrase; those that know the phase's origins will learn nothing more. --BDD (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and add the material to the movie page. Just knowing that the movie is the source of the quote aids the reader. Plot summaries are continuously edited and text is removed and added and then removed again over time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, what makes you think this is significant enough a concept? As you probably know, Wikipedia has a perennial problem with overly detailed plot summaries for fictional works. Does the phrase have significant usage or influence? Was it a moment commentators especially remarked upon? It wasn't mentioned in the article when the redirect was created either. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have a problem with plot summaries that are too long, some editors have a problem with detailed plot summaries. Some have been so shortened, that after reading I have to wonder if it is the same movie I just watched, or if the person who wrote it even saw the movie. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s point. --Rubbish computer 19:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - added {{R from quote}} to the redirect. Wiktionary has a entry on the phrase- wikt:stem the rose.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional - if the material is actually added to the article, then it should clearly be kept. If it isn't (and it's not there now), a soft redirect to Wiktionary is appropriate. WilyD 09:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't personally mind extended summaries for fictional works, since they can be informative. But this seems to be obscure slang and would fall under the policy for neologisms. Is this actually what a reader would expect to read in a film article? Dimadick (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since there isn't any information on the topic. The Wiktionary entry is wikt:stem the rose, which is a little different than "stemming the rose." -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Very obscure... I honestly don't find the usage of this slang to be notable at all. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2015 (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 delete. WP:INVOLVED close given the size of the backlog and clear consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• SpongeBump SquarePants Theme Song → SpongeBob's Greatest Hits  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:RFD#DELETE #8. I'm reviewing creations by this indefinitely blocked editor. He was a prolific creator of redirects, many of which seem innocuous. But his user talk page is about half RfD notifications. A few have come up recently. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 19:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. We do not have either an article or a section about this theme song. Dimadick (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2015 (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 WP:SNOWBALL keep; withdrawn by good-faith nominator (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Jimbo Wale → Jimmy Wales  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is spelled incorrectly, so I think it should be deleted. There is no evidence that this misspelling is used frequently enough to justify keeping it per WP:R#KEEP. Everymorning talk 12:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it's a typo, not a misspelling. WilyD 12:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CHEAP and WP:RFD#HARMFUL; also, it's getting a steady 20-25 hits per month, which is pretty good for a typo/misspelling and indicates it's actually useful. Sideways713 (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Appears to be useful and this is a plausible typo. --Rubbish computer 13:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• How many hits are "not frequently enough"? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zero? — Earwig ^talk 22:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry if my nomination doesn't make sense; I don't spend very much time at RFD. I will therefore withdraw it. Everymorning talk 00:27, 8 August 2015 (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 The Night of Nights. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Night of nights → List of prizes, medals and awards  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Originally a redirect to Logie Award with unclear connection to the ceremony in question (no mentions of "night of nights" in the article body), by a series of bots it seems to have transformed into a confusing and pointless redirect to List of prizes, medals and awards. It doesn't seem to serve purpose other than befuddling visitors. mathrick (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- At best RFD#D8 still applies here; too obscure to be useful. --Rubbish computer 12:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not redirect it to The Night of Nights instead? →Σσς. (Sigma) 23:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - This, clearly, should point to The Night of Nights. I don't see why it would be otherwise. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Night of Nights — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 19:42, 12 August 2015

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 no consensus. Geez, this is a pretty poor string of results here. English Wikipedia—where you have to use English, unless you're looking for the UK! --BDD (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Vereinigtes Königreich → United Kingdom  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not related to German. GZWDer (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. (And given the head of state is a nice german lady, it's obviously related to german anyhow) WilyD 10:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The rationale for removig this, as well as all the other coutry-related redirects, has been given and is consistently the same: WP:FORRED. People who look United Kingdom up on English wikipedia can be expected to use the English name. If they want a resource where the German name is used, it exists already and is called the German Wikipedia. They can also follow the Languages sidebar from there if they wish to see the English version of the article. There's no reason to create 500+ redirects for all possible local-language names for every single country and territory on Earth, especially ones like "いわゆる中国", which means literally "so called Middle Kingdom" in Japanese. mathrick (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FORRED as this is a redirect from an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WilyD: Although it has not been explained here and on the similar redirects on this page, per the guideline WP:FORRED redirects to a subject from an unrelated foreign language are advised against. I thought I should tell you as this is the rationale behind many of the redirects on this page being proposed for deletion. Thanks, --Rubbish computer 12:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've read the guideline FORRED, and it doesn't say anything that would motivate the deletion of this redirect. WilyD 12:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @WilyD: This page in a nutshell: Redirects from other languages should generally be avoided unless a well-grounded rationale can be provided for their inclusion. So it could be argued this should be deleted because there is not a well-grounded rationale, as this is in an unrelated language. Thanks, --Rubbish computer 12:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not a rationale; it's a baseless assertion that contains absolutely no justification whatsoever. WilyD 12:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • @WilyD: Please calm down. Why would somebody be searching the UK's name in German on the English Wikipedia? Also, remember to ping me so I can reply sooner. Thanks, --Rubbish computer 12:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • @WilyD: Often it is too uncertain for an immediate decision to be made; that is why these redirects are put here to be discussed. Calling somebody else's point baseless because you happen to disagree with it is counter-productive. --Rubbish computer 12:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • @WilyD: Can you stop writing that no rationale has been suggested for deletion even at times when a rationale has been given? The fact that the reason for deletion is possibly inconconclusive is why they are here to be discussed. Please come up with reasons why they should be kept instead, in order to benefit the overall discussion, so a decision can be reached sooner. Thanks, --Rubbish computer 12:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • The why is pretty unambiguous - they want to find (or perhaps, verify) information on the United Kingdom. But beyond that, you don't seem to have a point, so I don't see how it can be discussed. You haven't provided a reason to delete this redirect. There's a reason to keep it - readers who search for the term will be directed to the information they're looking for. That's good (in the context of being an encyclopaedia). We summarise information, but it's only purposeful if readers can find the information; if we hide it from them, why are we writing an encyclopaedia? But we can't discuss the reason for deletion unless it's provided, and no rationale for deletion has been provided here. Oh, though @Rubbish computer:, since you asked (though personally, I dread the little red box). WilyD 12:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • @WilyD: I have provided a reason: why would somebody type the name of the UK in German on the English Wikipedia. I have backed this up with a guideline and you are ignoring it. Fair enough if you don't agree, but please stop stating that other people's arguments do not exist. Sorry if you don't like being pinged but I don't see the point in writing this if you might not see it as soon. I am not trying to persuade you to vote Delete, I am explaining my rationale, which you are saying does not exist. Also, per WP:NOTFAQ some redirects get voted to be deleted--and sometimes deleted--as they consist of a question somebody types in, which leads them to information. While this is useful, this is somewhat objected to as Wikpedia is a place where you type in names and get articles, not a place where you type in questions and get answers. Again, feel free to disagree, but please stop saying the arguments do not exist. It is not accurate to say, and it doesn't help. Thanks, --Rubbish computer 12:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • A question is not a reason unless perhaps it's rhetorical. If you have a reason why it would be beneficial to the encyclopaedia to delete this redirect please present it, as of now no reasons have been presented. Otherwise, please stop falsely insisting you've provided a reason when you have not. WilyD 16:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WilyD: It costs nothing to ping somebody, but it seems you prefer for me not to respond. I managed to see this on Recent Changes by fluke. You are missing the point (please read this): you are saying there is no reason when there is a reaon. I am not going to perpetuate this futile discussion. Also, you are not assuming good faith when you say I am falsely insisting this. Thank you. --Rubbish computer 16:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rubbish computer: - okay, sorry, habit. I'm neither assuming nor not assuming bad faith. It's perfectly possible that you're confused or mistaken, I don't know. It's a simple statement of fact that you haven't provided a rationale for deleting this useful redirect. If you think you have, I would implore you to re-read the discussion, no rationale has been suggested. If you meant to provide one, please do so. I agree that trying to discuss a rationale that hasn't been provided is fruitless. I'd rather do something productive (and hell, fun), but when large, useful chunks of the encyclopaedia are slated to get destroyed, there's nothing more urgent. WilyD 16:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is no policy forbidding this, just a personal essay. If you want the essay to be policy, lobby for it, until then it has no force, I can write an opposing essay right now and it would carry the same weight. If this were policy we would have to delete all the Latin and French that are redirected to the corresponding English phrases. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): That's not true. The essay that is being referenced (WP:FORRED) is an application of WP:R#D8, which is a guideline stating that obscure synonyms aren't helpful and are usually deleted. Your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS point aside, any foreign language redirect that has any affinity with that language is always kept, which is probably why you see all those Latin and French phrases. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. I think there's enough affinity here that it's worth keeping around. According to Languages of the United Kingdom, "9% [of the population of the UK] can speak/understand German" which is pretty significant. Historically, there have been a lot of Germanic peoples who have settled in what is now the United Kingdom, so there's some affinity from that perspective (although that was before the modern rise of Germany and the United Kingdom, the connection still exists today). -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit of an understatement here. The term "Germanic people" can be used to refer to speakers of modern Germanic languages such as English. Germanic is not a synonym of "German". Dimadick (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I'm aware of that... -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. Unlike some of the "keepers" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. (However, since this is a term that someone from a primary English-speaking country may hear about their own country, and thus is a plausible search term by an English-speaking individual (any-other-language to an English name), I am neutral on this one.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete English wikipedia is not a search engine for German wikipedia -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient importnt to be useful as an officil name--WP is not a place for beingdogmatic about hterules. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather silly argument. Why is it important? Why is this a good candidate for ignoring rules? Don't tell me you're going wiki-anarchist on us! --BDD (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale has remembered that the encyclopaedia's main purpose is provide information to readers - something the delete position either neglects or has contempt for. WilyD 16:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete per WP:FORRED. The sole purpose for the existence of FORRED is to stop this very sort of redirect. It applies here, 100%. If fact, it applies to no other situation. Per FORRED, we don't support searching WP in German -- doing so haphazardly in a few random cases can only give the false impression that we do support searching in German. It's bad, misleading, and very specifically against WP policy. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2015 (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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Royaume Uni → United Kingdom  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not related to French. GZWDer (talk) 06:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. (And given that sufficient French people live there to elect an MP, the non sequitor ain't even true. WilyD 10:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FORRED as is an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FORRED does not provide any rationale for deleting redirects in unrelated foreign languages. Can you explain why you'd link an unrelated essay, and provide some rationale for why you think this useful redirect should be deleted, knowing that such a deletion makes the encyclopaedia harder to use for readers? WilyD 16:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:R#K5. This nation is close to China and likely to be a search target for Chinese viewers. The page views confirm its usefulness to at least some people. ~ Rob^Talk 18:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: I'm going to assume that you copy and pasted and forgot to change "China" to "United Kingdom." Is that fair? -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wily. France and the United Kingdom have enough of an affinity for one another (especially from a historical standpoint) that the redirect makes sense. Definitely wouldn't call French an "unrelated" language to the UK. Also, per Languages of the United Kingdom, "23% of the UK population can speak/understand French" which is a significant population. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Affinity is exactly what they don't have, historically. Animosity, possibly. Oh, it's the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo, by the way. After all, what did France do for the United Kingdom in the two World Wars? Except provide a venue. Si Trew (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a tad of French in the English language, such as Honi soit qui mal y pense on British coins and the front of my passport, but then Ich dien (→ Prince_of_Wales's_feathers) is not French, I think. In short, French language has been a major contributor to English language, but the language is not the political union: that's WP:XY. Si Trew (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. Unlike some of the "keepers" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. (However, since this is a term that someone from a primary English-speaking country may hear about their own country, and thus is a plausible search term by an English-speaking individual (any-other-language to an English name), I am neutral on this one.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HARMFUL WP:RFD#HARMFUL. The possible harm caused by deleting a long-standing redirect outweighs any benefit. Further, this is occasionally used in English media e.g. the Eurovision Song Contest! :-). Just Chilling (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? WP:HARMFUL R's to WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and rather than avoiding it you are co-opting it? I don't get it. Si Trew (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is an {{R from shortcut}} to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#It does not do any harm but was not marked as such. Is now. Si Trew (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake; thx for picking it up! Now fixed. Just Chilling (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per User:Steel1943 (whose !vote was Neutral). This term is not used in the English language. (DOI: I am English. But don't live in the United Kingdom nor France.) [Je peux parler français comme une vache espanol] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), but this is WP:NOTENGLISH. This would be WP:CREEP in that we suddenly allow any foreign-language term for the United Kingdom, which in itself tends to be a nightmare because often the idiomatic term is (back-translated) "England" to mean any of "England", "Britain", "Great Britain", the "British Isles" or "United Kingdom". By extension, f'rexample in Hungarian hu:Anglia means England, not Anglia (a DAB). WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also my comments at #Feilvbin, below. R titles do not have a [carte blanche] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help). Si Trew (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep we should be very selective about what of this type of redirect we include, & the official name for a country in another language might well be an exception. WP is not a place to be dogmatic about the rules. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 9 August 2015 (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. Even if this were a redirect from the Japanese for "China", it would be difficult to imagine a justification for keeping it, but it is in fact a redirect from a contemptuous, racist term, and as such it qualifies for speedy deletion as vandalism, and as an attack page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• いわゆる中国 → China  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not related to Japanese. GZWDer (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and as WP:RFD#D3. See wikt:いわゆる. Same title on Japanese Wikipedia (ja:いわゆる中国) was speedily deleted as vandalism. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2015 (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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Menggu → Mongolia  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not related to Chinese. GZWDer (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. (And given that Taiwan claims sovereignty over Mongolia, it's obviously related to Chinese anyhow) WilyD 10:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:R#K5. This nation is close to China and likely to be a search target for Chinese viewers. The page views confirm its usefulness to at least some people. ~ Rob^Talk 18:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: Could you explain interwiki links a bit? I've never heard of them before. If I'm understanding right, in the absence of this redirect and the presence of an identically named article on another language wiki, would the person searching this term be redirected there? ~ Rob^Talk 03:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @BU Rob13: That's essentially correct, except they would not be redirected there unless they use an external search engine of some sort, such as Google. The purpose of interwiki links (now handled by Wikidata) is if the English article is located on here and Wikidata has the connect established to its article on a different language Wikipedia, then it can be located there. If you haven't noticed them before, those links are located on the bottom-left side of the page. Steel1943 (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with Steel1943, per my notvote at #Feilvbin, below. These could usefully have been telescoped into one listing. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Taiwan still claims Mongolia. Mongolia was part of China until recent times -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Taiwan claims Mongolia A8v (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ...And how this is useful to those who speak English? Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Many people speak both Chinese and English. Although the effort to delete redirects related to non-English languages has done substantial damage to the ability of second language speakers to use English Wikipedia, it has probably done only very minimal damage to their ability to speak English. WilyD 16:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You just described the purpose of Wikidata and interwiki links. Having a non-English title built into the English Wikipedia as a redirect to an article in English rather than its "other language equivalent", in my opinion, causes more harm than good. Steel1943 (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• We usually have redirects for original/native language names. And this is Taiwanese territory (as claimed) so would be the native "official" language. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Feilvbin → Philippines  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not related to Chinese. GZWDer (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:R#K5. This nation is close to China and likely to be a search target for Chinese viewers. The page views confirm its usefulness to at least some people. ~ Rob^Talk 18:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with Steel1943's sentiment that any policy or guideline about article titles (WP:TITLE) applies equally to redirects, with obvious exceptions for {{R from typo}}, {{R from misspelling}} and so on (see WT:RFD#"Not mentioned at target").

After all, someone searching does not know, at that time, that the page title is a redirect, nor should they need to know. So a redirect should have the same rules for its title as an article.

My rationales or reasons given are:

1. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense (in English language)
2. WP:RFD#D2 not mentioned at target i.e. confusing (see the WT:RFD discussion I referred to)
3. WP:NOTDIC not a translation dictionary
4. WP:FORRED
5. ...but WP:USEENGLISH is the most apt.

Si Trew (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Jianpuzhai → Cambodia  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not related to Chinese. GZWDer (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:R#K5. This nation is close to China and likely to be a search target for Chinese viewers. The page views confirm its usefulness to at least some people. ~ Rob^Talk 18:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with Steel1943, per my notvote at #Feilvbin, above. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Chinese pinyin CANNOT be redirect to the country topics. WKDx417 (talk) 06:22, 10 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Miandian → Burma  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not related to Chinese. GZWDer (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:R#K5. This nation is close to China and likely to be a search target for Chinese viewers. The page views confirm its usefulness to at least some people. ~ Rob^Talk 18:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with Steel1943, per my notvote at #Feilvbin, above. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep the Shan plateau was part of China until recent times, much of its population is Chinese -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or (weak) retarget. A user who enters a search term into English Wikipedia's search box presumably is looking for encyclopedic information about that term, but.the current target does not give them that information: it doens't even mention this name, let alone contain any discussion of it (nor should it, per WP:WEIGHT). This name does get a bare mention at Names of Burma, but it doesn't seem like secondary sources have discussed it. Maybe there's content that could be added there about the historic or diplomatic context of this name. quant18 (talk) 06:02, 13 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nipoer → Nepal  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not related to Chinese. GZWDer (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:R#K5. This nation is close to China and likely to be a search target for Chinese viewers. The page views confirm its usefulness to at least some people. ~ Rob^Talk 18:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with Steel1943, per my notvote at #Feilvbin, above. I think these could have been telescoped into one listing since the pro's and con's are the same for all except the French one. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nipo'er → Nepal  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not related to Chinese. GZWDer (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with Steel1943, per my notvote at #Feilvbin, above. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Bajisitan → Pakistan  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not related to Chinese. GZWDer (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with Steel1943, per my notvote at #Feilvbin, above. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Kashimi'er → Kashmir  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not related to Chinese. GZWDer (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with Steel1943, per my notvote at #Feilvbin, above. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to Aksai Chin, where Chinese Kashmir points to. - TheChampionMan1234 04:18, 8 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Afuhan → Afghanistan  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not related to Chinese. GZWDer (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with Steel1943, per my notvote at #Feilvbin, above. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2015 (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 delete Just Chilling (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dajikesitan → Tajikistan  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not related to Chinese. Also misspelling GZWDer (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. It's a misspelling, so I don't believe that I have to advocate WP:FORRED on this one. Wikipedia isn't a translation service; Wikidata is. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with Steel1943, per my notvote at #Feilvbin, above. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yiselie → Israel  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not related to Chinese. GZWDer (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:R#K5. This nation is close to China and likely to be a search target for Chinese viewers. The page views confirm its usefulness to at least some people. ~ Rob^Talk 18:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is Israel "close" to China? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same continent?? -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete region is unrelated to China and has negligible Chinese population -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Balesitan → Palestine  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not related to Chinese. GZWDer (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with Steel1943, per my notvote at #Feilvbin, above. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete region is unrelated to China and has negligible Chinese population -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yindunixiya → Indonesia  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not related to Chinese. GZWDer (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with Steel1943, per my notvote at #Feilvbin, above. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep due to the ethnic problems with Chinese Indonesians -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Where the telephone was invented → Bell Homestead National Historic Site  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTFAQ -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete also no correct simple answer, Bell used prior art. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above points. --Rubbish computer 12:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:R#D2, as this can reasonably be expected to cause confusion given the prior art issue. Note that WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. ~ Rob^Talk 14:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but redirect instead to → Invention of the telephone. A reason for keeping the redirect is that this is a plausible search term. A redirect is not a FAQ, WP:NOTFAQ does not apply to redirects, and with the improved target none of the reasons for deleting redirects listed under WP:RFD#DELETE applies.  --Lambiam 20:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and retarget per Lambiam. Also, from the policy – Wikipedia articles should not list frequently asked questions (FAQs). Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s). There is nothing there that says that it does not apply to redirects in "article" mainspace. So if this redirect were titled "Where was the telephone invented?" or any redirect such as "How are pine trees trimmed?" then they are FAQ type redirects that go against the policy. ref. WP:NOTFAQ. Having said all that, this redirect, which is not a "question" per se, is a good search phrase that's probably better off kept and retargeted to the article that illustrates that the "where" of telephone invention is not a simple concept. – Paine  21:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. How many times did people WP:EDIANS say that already? --Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 10:43, 15 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Where hitler died → Death of Adolf Hitler  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTFAQ -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 14:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as being a plausible search term. A redirect is not a FAQ, WP:NOTFAQ does not apply to redirects, and none of the reasons for deleting redirects listed under WP:RFD#DELETE applies here.  --Lambiam 20:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perfectly plausible search term. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not even a proper question in English, and in order to serve any kind of search engine purpose, we'd have to add where did Hitler die, where did hitler die?, where did Adolf hitler die?, and any other possible permutation. WP:NOTFAQ exists for a reason: article namespace makes a crappy search engine. mathrick (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, it's not a question, which makes the invocation of NOTFAQ bizarre. But it's proper English, for the place where Hitler died. WilyD 16:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL, it is a statement! Statements are not questions with poor grammar, except on Jeopardy! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 10:45, 15 August 2015 (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 delete. (Who writes Wikipedia? We do! We do!) --BDD (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Who writes Wikipedia? → Wikipedia community  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTFAQ -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 14:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I think the average person, anyways, is going to be searching something like "Wikipedia writers" or "Wikipedia users" or something like that rather than this full question. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Who writes Wikipedia → Wikipedia community  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTFAQ -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 14:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as being a plausible search term. A redirect is not a FAQ, WP:NOTFAQ does not apply to redirects, and none of the reasons for deleting redirects listed under WP:RFD#DELETE applies here.  --Lambiam 20:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a plausible search terminology. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:43, 10 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Who killed Osama bin Laden? → Death of Osama bin Laden  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTFAQ -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. Given that NOTFAQ relates to article content, which redirects don't have, I can only assume something totally different was meant. WilyD 10:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 14:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as being a plausible search term. A redirect is not a FAQ, WP:NOTFAQ does not apply to redirects, and none of the reasons for deleting redirects listed under WP:RFD#DELETE applies here.  --Lambiam 20:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This statement is entirely incoherent. We only manage to achieve your goal of preventing readers from getting their questions answered if we delete the information from the article. Sure, we make it harder for readers to use the encyclopaedia, but we don't really make it impossible, so some may still be able to get information out of this encyclopaedia despite our best efforts to ensure they don't. WilyD 16:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Having readers look up "questions" that are not titles of subjects give readers the false expectation of finding either a complete answer to their question, or expect to find an actual subject by this name, such as a book title. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:43, 10 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Who killed Osama bin Laden → Death of Osama bin Laden  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTFAQ -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 14:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as being a plausible search term. A redirect is not a FAQ, WP:NOTFAQ does not apply to redirects, and none of the reasons for deleting redirects listed under WP:RFD#DELETE applies here.  --Lambiam 20:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This statement is entirely incoherent. We only manage to achieve your goal of preventing readers from getting their questions answered if we delete the information from the article. Sure, we make it harder for readers to use the encyclopaedia, but we don't really make it impossible, so some may still be able to get information out of this encyclopaedia despite our best efforts to ensure they don't. WilyD 16:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Having readers look up "questions" that are not titles of subjects give readers the false expectation of finding either a complete answer to their question, or expect to find an actual subject by this name, such as a book title. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:43, 10 August 2015 (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 delete. There's disagreement about where to point this, and plenty of support for just throwing it out. --BDD (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Who killed JFK → John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a statement "[This is] Who killed JFK" ... It is not "Who killed JFK?" --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTFAQ -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Change redirect to Lee Harvey Oswald. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 14:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as being a plausible search term but redirect instead to → Assassination of John F. Kennedy. A redirect is not a FAQ, WP:NOTFAQ does not apply to redirects, and none of the reasons for deleting redirects listed under WP:RFD#DELETE applies here.  --Lambiam 20:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a plausible search terminology → Lee Harvey Oswald --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. Super Weak Retarget to John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories is what the conspiracy theorist part of me wanted to advocate, but it didn't win, hence the super weak.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Assassination of John F. Kennedy, which is a better cover of the topic. WilyD 16:43, 10 August 2015 (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 no consensus, default to keep. The comments are split between WP:NOTFAQ and the argument that the target article pretty much exactly answers the question posed by the redirect title. Deryck C. 10:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Who elects the new pope → Papal conclave  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTFAQ -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 14:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as being a plausible search term. A redirect is not a FAQ, WP:NOTFAQ does not apply to redirects, and none of the reasons for deleting redirects listed under WP:RFD#DELETE applies here.  --Lambiam 20:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a plausible search terminology. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - direct readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been proposed. Given that no questions are involved, the invocation of NOTFAQ is bizarre. WilyD 16:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to College of Cardinals. That's who elects the new pope. Papal conclave describes how a new pope is elected. Delete as second choice. --BDD (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Who discovered america? → Voyages of Christopher Columbus  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTFAQ -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:R#D2. This redirect can reasonably cause confusion, as many different peoples "discovered" America at different times in history. There is no unambiguous answer. ~ Rob^Talk 14:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:43, 10 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Who discovered America? → Settlement of the Americas  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTFAQ -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but make the page redirect to History of the Americas. I think that WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not to (the titles of) redirect pages sending users to appropriate articles that provide the information in the form of neutral prose. For example, Why was Auschwitz not bombed? leads a user to Auschwitz bombing debate, an appropriately npov article with an equally npov title, which however, for many users, is not a search term that is likely to occur to them.

To explain the present situation requires delving into some history. I came to the topic on February 10, 2008, because of a question at the Humanities reference desk. The first answer given linked to Discovery of america, which at the time was a redirect to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. I thought any encyclopedic discussion of the dicovery of America should deal one way or another with the narrative that someone by the name of Columbus "discovered" America, and not skirt the issue by switching to "Pre-Columbian" without any prior discussion. For that reason, I changed the page to redirect to Discovery of the Americas. Later the page Discovery of america was changed to redirect to Voyages of Christopher Columbus, which represents the opposite point of view to the original pov target Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact! The page Discovery of America was also changed to redirect there.)

In February 2008 the redirect target Discovery of the Americas was a reasonable stub that, in my opinion, had the potential to become a normal full-fledged article. (Just before doing this, I had moved the stub from the title Discoverer of the Americas to Discovery of the Americas, which I thought was a more reasonable title.)

I then also created the page Who discovered America? as #REDIRECT[[Discovery of the Americas]]. I don't remember now exactly why I created the redirect page, but probably because I thought it was a plausible search term – there was already an older page titled Who discovered america?, and there is now even a book by that title.

Since then, Discovery of the Americas was reclassified from history stub to dab page on April 24, 2009, moved to Discovery of the Americas (disambiguation) (since deleted) on July 13, 2009, moved back to Discovery of the Americas on February 13, 2014 with an appeal to WP:MALPLACED, and immediately afterwards replaced by a redirect to History of the Americas, now with an appeal to WP:DABCONCEPT. I happen to think this is not an optimal situation; the various viewpoints and theories concerning the discovery of the Americas, although connected to the history of the Americas, nevertheless constitute a clearly discernible separate issue that has its own history, even though the topics are obviously connected.

In the meanwhile, the page Who discovered America? had also been changed (together with Discovery of America) to redirect to the pov target Voyages of Christopher Columbus, but then it was changed again (on November 15, 2014) to redirect to Settlement of the Americas, which is the current situation. Quite ironically, the edit summary was Npov.

I still think we should have a separate article on the Discovery of the Americas, to which Who discovered America? then should redirect, but as long as that is not the case, both should redirect to the same target – but not to any of Settlement of the Americas, Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, or Voyages of Christopher Columbus. At the moment, the mosr reasonable target is History of the Americas.  --Lambiam 11:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or Retarget I prefer Settlement of the Americas to History of the Americas, as I think the former is closer to what readers are looking for, but either is acceptable. WilyD 12:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linking an unrelated policy with no explanation is not a very helpful !vote. This is supposed to be a discussion, do you have any rationale whatsoever for wanting to delete this useful redirect, thereby making it harder for readers to use this encyclopaedia? WilyD 16:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:R#D2. This redirect can reasonably cause confusion, as many different peoples "discovered" America at different times in history. There is no unambiguous answer. ~ Rob^Talk 14:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • which can also be used as an argument for redirecting instead to History of the Americas, which covers all: the migration process during the Ice Age, the Viking settlement L'Anse aux Meadows, and the exploration led by Columbus.  --Lambiam 17:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that NOTFAQ is only about the layout of articles/information, and cannot apply to redirects (which do not lay out information, and Steel1943 has provided no rationale for deletion, can you articulate a rationale for deletion? WilyD 09:13, 11 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How wikis work → Wiki  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTGUIDE -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 14:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as being a plausible search term. A redirect is not a FAQ, WP:NOTFAQ does not apply to redirects, and none of the reasons for deleting redirects listed under WP:RFD#DELETE applies here.  --Lambiam 20:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plausible and useful, which is enough for a redirect. NOT HOWTO does not strictly apply outside article space. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:33, 10 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How volcanoes are formed → Volcano  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the redirect is not a question, but a topic, how could NOTFAQ possibly apply? Linking an unrelated policy with no explanation is not very helpful in a discussion. WilyD 16:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 14:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as being a plausible search term. A redirect is not a FAQ, WP:NOTFAQ does not apply to redirects, and none of the reasons for deleting redirects listed under WP:RFD#DELETE applies here.  --Lambiam 20:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:31, 10 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How transistors work → Transistor  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 14:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as being a plausible search term. A redirect is not a FAQ, WP:NOTFAQ does not apply to redirects, and none of the reasons for deleting redirects listed under WP:RFD#DELETE applies here.  --Lambiam 20:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a plausible search terminology. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This redirect is not a question, it's merely a topic. Given there's no questions involved here (frequently asked or otherwise), how could NOTFAQ possible apply? WilyD 16:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 7#How internet use affects humans for a reply that fits this question.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:36, 11 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How the structure of starch is suite to its function → Starch  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this search term does not make sense. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and it doesn't make sense anyway--Rubbish computer 12:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, I don't think CSD G1 quite fits. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:R#D5. This makes zero sense. ~ Rob^Talk 14:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:31, 10 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How the solar system was formed → Nebular hypothesis  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Change redirect to Cosmogony, a more general page addressing this rather than just the most widely accepted. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 14:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as being a plausible search term. A redirect is not a FAQ, WP:NOTFAQ does not apply to redirects, and none of the reasons for deleting redirects listed under WP:RFD#DELETE applies here.  --Lambiam 20:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Change target to Cosmogony. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:31, 10 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How television works → Analog television  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTGUIDE -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:R#D2. As there have been many television technologies, this does not have an unambiguous answer and could cause confusion. ~ Rob^Talk 14:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but change the redirect target to → History of television. A redirect is not a FAQ, WP:NOTFAQ does not apply to redirects, and none of the reasons for deleting redirects listed under WP:RFD#DELETE applies here.  --Lambiam 20:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:31, 10 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How rainfall calculated → Rain gauge  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTHOWTO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above points. --Rubbish computer 12:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 14:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is not a question, it is a statement. Questions end in question marks. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, because it's a sentence fragment, which is equally misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible due to the awkward grammar. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:31, 10 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How plants make food → Photosynthesis  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 14:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Photosynthesis is how plants make food, right? Or is that oversimplifying things? --BDD (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Apart from the WP:NOTFAQ issue, whose applicability to redirects ought to be resolved generally, a redirect to photosynthesis is an oversimplification; photosynthesis is how plants fix carbon, but there are many more biochemical steps between that and the production of food components such as proteins, starches, fats (and oils), and vitamins. Plant anabolism would be a plausible redirect, but it doesn't exist, and I doubt that it will exist in the near future. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How old the earth is? → Age of the Earth  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTFAQ -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 14:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible due to the Yoda-like syntax. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:24, 10 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How noise pollution affect our health → Health effects from noise  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 14:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a reasonable redirect. The redirect itself is not an FAQ. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ...Due to a lack of a question mark at the end of the redirect's title? If there was a question mark there, it would be a question, based on the redirect's wording. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that this title is not a question, but a rephrasing of the title, how could NOTFAQ possibly be relevant? WilyD 16:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 7#How internet use affects humans for a reply that fits this question.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This ins't a question, so it can't have a reply. You see to have placed this comment in the wrong place. WilyD 09:08, 11 August 2015 (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How mapping has changed over human history → History of cartography  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - unambiguously directs the reader to the content they're looking for. No rationale has been suggested for deletion. WilyD 12:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 14:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. Note that this redirect isn't even a question, it's simply a more everyday English phrasing of the title. For the layman rather than the cartographer. WilyD 16:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This redirect isn't even a question, it's merely a rephrasing of the academically nomenclatured title into more ordinary English phrasing. Given that the title isn't a question, how can NOTFAQ possibly be relevant? WilyD 16:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 7#How internet use affects humans for a reply that fits this question.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't a question, so it can't have a reply that fits it. Are you sure you're not thinking of a different redirect? WilyD 09:07, 11 August 2015 (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, refining the target to Taxation as theft#How many men?. --BDD (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How many men? → Taxation as theft  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned. This can also refers to Population. GZWDer (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, but bonus points for specificity! North of Eden (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this does not make sense -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: this makes no sense. --Rubbish computer 13:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per CSD G1. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per above. While funny, this is nonsense. ~ Rob^Talk 14:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]