Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 26

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 17:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ginger Seperatist Movement → Ginger Kids

Delete - unlikely and misspelled redirect. Otto4711 (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, harmless, and helps prevention of useless article, see history of the correctly spelled Ginger Separatist Movement. Kusma (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If Ginger Separatist Movement was an article, then this redirect would defnitely be justifiable as a redirect from a misspelling. However, as things stand, this redirect is a misspelling not of an article title but of another redirect's title, which I think makes it less plausible as a search term. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. (I will merge one revision into the history of William II of the Netherlands.) Ruslik_Zero 18:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Don Carlos (double sighted dog) → William II of the Netherlands

This unusual redirect was created as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Carlos (double sighted dog). There was originally an article about an allegedly psychic dog named Don Carlos, and it was merged into William II of the Netherlands on the grounds that the dog's claim to fame was that he had performed before King William II. However, the content about the dog was removed from the article about the king almost immediately after the merger, because the dog was not particularly relevant to the article about the king. Thus, the target article contains no information about Don Carlos the dog anymore. The best thing to do may be to delete this redirect, as the prior content of Don Carlos (double sighted dog) was not deemed worthy of keeping as a separate article. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, confusing. Bad merge, AFD should have been extended instead of closing early with this target. From a totally process-wonky point of view, one should un-redirect and re-AFD with a proper close, but deleting here would do. Kusma (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the deletion rationale, but we should do a history merge before deleting so that the page history can be preserved (even though the merged content was quickly removed, the fact is that a merge took place). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, no. Let's rather excise the one revision that includes the merged material from the history instead of cluttering it up with this junk. Kusma (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to dog, redirects are cheap and someone may have bookmarked the page when it was an article. In sort, does a little good and no harm. We may need to keep the edit history.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided. On second thought, I don't know what to do with this redirect.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 18:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• CT:INV → Category Talk:Articles_with_invalid_ISBNs

I propose that this redirect be deleted. Strictly speaking this should be a speedy, but I'm listing it here as it has been discussed before with a 'keep' result, primarily as it was a link to a very active and successful project page. Since then, two things have changed; firstly R2 now explicitly forbids links to the 'category talk' namespace (discussion of the change , current policy). Secondly, the target page is far less active - it has not seen any edits for over two months now. TB (talk) 08:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Cross namespace redirects are evil. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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