Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 20

The result of the debate was Deleted. Move history objection is not relevant as such history is still contained at the target article. -- JLaTondre 01:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khwaja Mahbooballah without quotes exists as a redirect, making this one useless. Let's delete it. Magioladitis (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unnecessary quotation that is unlikely to be used. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it documents a pagemove of content which was subsequently merged into the current target page. According to the "keep if" criteria above, changes to the title are generally considered useful history. There is no possibility of confusion with another article just because of the quotes. Rossami (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yet another useless redirect with quotes. -- Nips (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unneeded. Reywas92^Talk 22:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. Move history objection is not relevant as such history is still contained at the target article. -- JLaTondre 01:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has apostrophes in the title. It is an implausible typo. Magioladitis (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnecessary quotation that is unlikely to be used. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep because it documents the pagemove to the correct (non-quoted) title. Weak because the pagemove was the second edit in the page's history and occurred very soon after the move, making intervening links unlikely. Rossami (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yet another useless redirect with quotes. -- Nips (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. Typically, we only "protect" (real protection or redirects) articles against recreation if there is a demonstrated history of recreation. -- JLaTondre 01:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IZAR without quotes exists as a redirect, making this one useless. Let's delete it. Magioladitis (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unnecessary quotation that is unlikely to be used. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The first version of this page was a copy-paste of the first version of the Navantia page (minus wikification). This makes me think that a new user attempted to create a new page using content from one of our mirrors and accidentally forked the page. This is not a redirect that we would ever proactively create but now that it's here, weak keep just to prevent the fork from reoccurring. Rossami (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yet another useless redirect with quotes. -- Nips (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Quotes unneeded. Reywas92^Talk 22:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. Move history objection is not relevant as such history is still contained at the target article. -- JLaTondre 01:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Sayona without quotes exists as a redirect, making this one useless. Let's delete it. Magioladitis (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unnecessary quotation that is unlikely to be used. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep because it documents the first of a multi-stage pagemove. Weak because the original contributor is the person who moved the page. Rossami (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yet another useless redirect with quotes. -- Nips (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 15:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Similar redirects Educational counsellor, Educational counselor without quotes exist. This one has quotes. Magioladitis (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unnecessary quotation that is unlikely to be used. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yet another useless redirect with quotes. -- Nips (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 15:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

It has apostrophes in both sides. Magioladitis (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is not a plausible typo. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has a ' in the beginning which is an implausible typo. The same redirect without the ' exists. Speedy deletion was declined because the redirect was created in September 2004. I propose that we delete it. Magioladitis (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is not a plausible typo. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an obvious implausible typo. -- Nips (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 15:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Nineteen hundred → 1900
• Nineteen oh two → 1902
• Nineteen oh three → 1903
• Nineteen oh four → 1904
• Nineteen oh five → 1905
• Nineteen oh six → 1906
• Nineteen oh seven → 1907
• Nineteen oh eight → 1908
• Nineteen oh nine → 1909
• Nineteen ten → 1910
• Nineteen eleven → 1911
• Nineteen twelve → 1912
• Nineteen thirteen → 1913
• Nineteen fourteen → 1914
• Nineteen fifteen → 1915
• Nineteen sixteen → 1916
• Nineteen seventeen → 1917
• Nineteen eighteen → 1918
• Nineteen nineteen → 1919
• Nineteen twenty → 1920
• Nineteen twenty-one → 1921
• Nineteen twenty-two → 1922
• Nineteen twenty-three → 1923
• Nineteen twenty-four → 1924
• Nineteen twenty-five → 1925
• Nineteen twenty-six → 1926
• Nineteen twenty-seven → 1927
• Nineteen twenty-nine → 1929
• Nineteen thirty → 1930
• Nineteen eighty-six → 1986
• Nineteen eighty-seven → 1987
• Nineteen eighty-eight → 1988
• Nineteen eighty-nine → 1989
• Nineteen ninety → 1990
• Nineteen ninety-two → 1992
• Nineteen ninety-three → 1993
• Nineteen ninety-four → 1994
• Nineteen ninety-five → 1995
• Nineteen ninety-six → 1996
• Nineteen ninety-seven → 1997
• Nineteen ninety-eight → 1998
• Nineteen ninety-nine → 1999
• Two thousand and one → 2001
• Two thousand and two → 2002
• Two thousand and three → 2003
• Two thousand and four → 2004
• Two thousand and five → 2005
• Two thousand and six → 2006
• Two thousand and seven → 2007
• Two thousand and eight → 2008
• Two thousand and nine → 2009

Recently created links, not likely to be entered correctly, even if tried; probably, if linked, should be a disambiguation between the year and the number, and generally not good. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete nomination - {{rfd}} not entered in actual articles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added tags and proper summaries in all the articles using AWB. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unlikely and implausible search terms or links. Would fall under CSD R3. — Edokter • Talk • 16:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Who would search for "Two thousand and eight" or any of the other article names? There's no possible ambiguity that needs disambiguating, no possible misdirection that needs redirecting, no possible confusion that needs clarifying. These articles are just clutter added by a disruptive editor simply to make some sort of point. andy (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I see no usefulness in having these around. I can't seem to imagine anyone spelling out years. Isn't that what the numerical keypad is for? Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 07:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Two thousand (redirecting to 2000 (number)) and nineteen eighty-four (redirecting to Nineteen Eighty-Four (the novel)) are explicitly not part of this nomination. The first was created in 2004 by a respectable editor, and the second is a clear {{R from capitalization}}. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Some of these seem better suited to the Wikitionary. —SlamDiego_←T 13:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - True, nobody will ever search for a year by spelling it out, and neither will anybody put a fully-spelled-out year as a link. Completely useless. Cbdorsett (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre 01:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All references to this redirected template have been removed from the affected articles. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 04:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but tag as historical. The references have been removed from current content but are still in history. Anyone attempting to follow the prior versions of our pages would need some reference to the current location of the now-preferred version of the template. Rossami (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Jehochman. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from Talk: to User talk: that was created as a result of userfication of the content page, and was left behind when the content page was deleted. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 11:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user requested deletion of the target page, so I have deleted the redirect also. Jehochman ^Talk 16:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 15:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Tagged for speedy for being an unrelated redirect. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unrelated and probably vandalism. I just reverted 3 edits by an unregistered user who tried to remove the tag. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. User:I alway enjoy my Ice Cream =)......Meow who created is a vandalism only account. The account was blocked forever from wiki. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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