Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 31

August 31

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 31, 2009

various New London County, CT, redirects

The result of the discussion was Delete all - Precedence in the older nomination batches linked below shows deletion is certainly okay. Redlinks encourage new articles. Killiondude (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 6th batch of Connecticut NRHP Historic Districts (HDs), for which I propose deleting the redirect from NRHP name, to facilitate orderly article creation at the red-links that will then appear in the county-wide list articles such as National Register of Historic Places listings in New London County, Connecticut. Previous batches of similar NRHP HD redirects were: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 25#various Hartford County, CT, redirects, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 10#various Litchfield County, CT, redirects, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 17#various Middlesex County, CT, redirects, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 13#various New Haven County, CT, redirects, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 25#various Tolland County, Connecticut NRHP HDs. As Aervanath noted in closing the similar Tolland County batch "While certain of the target articles contain information about the history of the town, and some contain a small list of sites of historical interest, none actually discuss the historic district as such. Per WP:Red link, "red links help Wikipedia grow", as they encourage people to build articles to fill the gap, whereas redirects do not."

Redirects proposed to be deleted:

doncram (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --- It seems Wikipedia is ready to grow into these articles. I agree that red links would be useful. —mako๛ 05:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Cool Icons

The result of the discussion was Delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect Little Professor (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per Little Professor. --Zach425 talk/contribs 09:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- per Little Professor. —mako๛ 05:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this started off as an aborted article that, if developed beyond a single line, would still have been a quickly-deleted article. There is no Wikipedia purpose for this redirect at all, thus making this a poor search item (Google or Bing would be a far better place to look for "cool icons."). B.Wind (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:CTSEOP

The result of the discussion was No action taken - I'm not sure how familiar you are to XfD processes, but it's not necessary to nominate a redirect for deletion after you nominate the article, too. In this case, the project page you nominated for deletion was kept due to no consensus, so I don't believe any action is needed here. Killiondude (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unused shortcut to unused page. Damiens.rf 18:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait until close of MfD of target - if the target is deleted, the redirect will be speedily deleted as well; if it's userfied, the redirect will be deleted, too (I believe); if it's kept, then would the appropriate time to discuss this. This nomination seems premature. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait as per above. If Wikipedia:Comparison to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is kept, I don't see how the redirect would be getting in anybody's way. —mako๛ 19:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Associated with the Taliban

The result of the discussion was Delete - See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 18#Taliban Airfield Commander and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 20#Al Qaida faciliator for more context into these redirects. Killiondude (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed about several dozen similar unhelpful redirects a couple of weeks ago, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 20#Al Qaida faciliator and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 18#Taliban Airfield Commander. My request here is for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- every example I saw of the link text should be changed to just linking to Al-Qaeda or Taliban. The "associated with ..." is bad link text anyway and seem to mostly be done as part of a template of some sort. All the links to these redirects should be cleaned up and then the redirect can be safely deleted, I'm sure. —mako๛ 18:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree the links should be deleted. But, IMO, collapsing the links from Associated with al Qaida to Al-Qaeda and from Associated with the Taliban to Taliban is ill-advised. The documents drafted in Guantanamo distinguish between "al Qaida fighters", "al Qaida members", and "al Qaida associates" or individuals "associated with al Qaida". Legal scholars at Seton Hall University have written multiple documents that analyzes this distinction. Military scholars at West Point were commissioned to rebut those conclusions. That report also addresses the distinction between being "al Qaida fighters", "al Qaida members", or an "al Qaida associates". It is an important distinction. Collapsing these links to all point to "Taliban" or "Al Qaeda", in addition to being a lot of work, would throw away that significant information. Even while these links remain red-links interested readers can use the "what links here" button. I see no value in collapsing these links. Geo Swan (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think I'm suggesting anything that disagrees with what you're suggesting which all sounds very reasonable. I think the link text should say whatever appropriate description of and that only the term Al-Qaeda should be a link and that, appropriately enough, that should be to Al-Qaeda. —mako๛ 05:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 20#Al Qaida faciliator. A bold admin can easily assert that this should have been packaged with the others and that the consensus was to delete all of this type. The arguments in both cited discussions for deletion apply here as well. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Koala Lemur

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 (non-admin close). B.Wind (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted because the capitalization makes no differnece and automatically redirects anwyay. Visionholder (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - no valid deletion rationale given. Alternate capitalisation makes it a likely typographical error/search term - there's no need to delete something that is already in place and not harmful to Wikipedia. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an example, if you type "Sloth Lemur", it still takes you to the Sloth lemur page, even though no such redirect exists. For this reason, I feel that this redirect can safely be deleted without affecting likely typographical errors when searching. –Visionholder (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah but if Sloth Lemur is a red-link, readers are apt to avoid clicking on, unaware that doing so will take them to sloth lemur. Geo Swan (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • ...And if they do click on it, they don't go to sloth lemur. --Thinboy00 @330, i.e. 06:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- as per above... Geo Swan (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --- as per above. I'm not convinced of the harm this is doing and can see some of the possible benefits even if they are minor. —mako๛ 18:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mostly Harmless and could be useful. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is I think standard policy not to delete these redirects when they exist--if nothing else, it is considerably more work to discuss and delete them than to leave them alone. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nominator is the creator and only editor of this redirect which was created relatively recently (well, May -- not that long ago) and so his nomination deserves special merit. This is minor kruft of the sort probably not worth seeking out for deletion, but deletion of this particular redirect may be of benefit to the creator/nominator who appears to be trying to undo what he now considers a mistake. -- Thinking of England (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- If the outcome is to keep --- which seems likely at this point -- someone should explain the situation to the person who proposed the deletion so he realizes that it's not really a problem and doesn't suggest these types of deletion in the future. —mako๛ 05:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Harmless, could aid in accidental linking. --Thinboy00 @330, i.e. 06:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Beloberezhye

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. Anybody who wishes to contribute a standalone article on Beloberezhye and overwrite the redirect is welcome to do so. (Non-admin close) B.Wind (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect should be deleted because "Beloberezhye" is applied to the whole region, not just Berezan Island.Benda2 (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - pending someone writing a page on Beloberezhye, the redirect seems fine since it takes readers to a page where it is mentioned. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this should be made clear in the target text. It should certainly redirect somewhere. If it's redirecting to the wrong place now, that should be changed or the target should be changed so that it is the right place. —mako๛ 18:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It seems the best solution to this would be for you to change the redirect into a stub-length article (or better) on Beloberezhye, Benda. --Zach425 talk/contribs 08:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of extinct animals - British Isles

The result of the discussion was No clear consensus to delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of extinct animals - British Isles → List of extinct animals of Britain (links to redirect) (stats)
  • Delete = Originally redirected to "List of extinct animals of the British Isles" but this article has now been renamed since it only dealt with Great Britain. This redirect is now technically incorrect and should be deleted. HighKing (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - it is conceivable of someone entering "List of extinct animals - British Isles" (compare with the more properly disambiguated "List of extinct animals (British Isles)" or "List of extinct animals of the British Isles"), but do we wish to go down that road of ad hoc disambiguation styles? I'm not too sure it would benefit Wikipedia if we do. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term and it takes the reader to a relevant page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Basically as per above. I'm not totally convinced that this is a plausible search term but I don't really see the harm in keeping it around either. —mako๛ 18:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if we had it before the name change, we should keep it now for continuity. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per http://stats.grok.se, there were no hits to List of extinct animals - British Isles in the 20 months from 12/2007 to 07/2009. Therefore, given the mild naming controversy and its disuse, I see no reason to keep it. --Zach425 talk/contribs 08:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the article does not include any part of Ireland (Republic and Northern). It is also a totally wrong form and as can be seen, consequently never used. Nobody familiar with Wikipedia naming would ever type this in instead of the standard forms, and it is unlikely this would be of any particular use to new users. MickMacNee (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In correct redirect. However it could also be made into a dab page (if necessary) linking to the articles on GB, Ireland and others. However if it's not getting hits should probably be deleted. Canterbury Tail talk 12:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article actually does relate to the British Isles so this is a valid redirect. Note that the more accurate name of the article to which the redirect points was recently changed as part of the Wikipedia anti-British Isles campaign. LevenBoy (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Using that logic, we should direct "List of extinct animal of Europe" to Britain as well, seeing as how the article also relates to Europe. Also, can you please keep your comments related to content, and not accuse editors of being part of a campaign (as per WP:AGF). Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your example would make more sense if the hypothetical redirection were reversed: using the commonly-observed definition of the terms, Britain is a part of Europe, but most of Europe is not part of Britain. B.Wind (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Britain is a subset of British Isles and a subset of Europe. If it's OK to redirect British Isles to Britain, then using the same logic it's OK to redirect any superset to a subset, e.g. Europe to Britain. --HighKing (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a ridiculous argument. Great Britian makes up 2/3 of the land mass of the British Isles. Redirecting from the British Isles to an article pertaining exclusively to Britain makes much more sense, therefore, than going from Europe to Britain (which makes up just 2% of the land mass of Europe). That being said, I maintain my delete opinion, for the reasons I laid out above. --Zach425 talk/contribs 00:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Uw-4

The result of the discussion was Delete. Killiondude (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{uw-4}} refers to the fourth level of a user warning, which may or may not be a vandalism warning (it could be {{uw-joke4}}, {{uw-delete4}}, {{uw-spam4}}, etc.). There is no reason for this to redirect to {{uw-vandalism4}}. This is inconsistent with {{uw-1}}, {{uw-2}}, & {{uw-3}}, none of which exist. Please delete this ambiguous and unnecessary redirect page. Zach425 talk/contribs 07:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this is a case in which it is better to delete than to disambiguate. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - useless, might mean any of the few mentioned. Pmlineditor  Talk 13:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- As per above. —mako๛ 20:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Lies

The result of the discussion was Delete. Killiondude (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly bitey, horribly sign of good faith assuming all uncited statements are lies. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or retarget to Template:Hoax or something. Do NOT keep it the way it is. --Thinboy00 @262, i.e. 05:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inflammatory. Had it not been for the edit summary on the first nominee, I would not have thought the redirects in question to have been started in good faith. The latter looks more like vandalism than something done in good faith. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Kind of funny. Let's all have a laugh and delete this. {{lies}} is not something we can have showing up in articles where {{citeneeded}} is supposed to be. Template:Lies might make more sense as a redirect to Template:Hoax but I'm doubtful. Template:Liez can safely go. —mako๛ 19:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as one of the authors. I've had my laugh.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just delete it; burn it with fire. Bitey and useless. Pmlineditor  Talk 13:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessarily bitey and sarcastic redirect. I was close to nominating this myself a while ago.[lies] Jafeluv (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Workshop on bulding top-class universities

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per G7. SoWhy 11:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely spelling mistake Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per Jezhotwells (talk · contribs). Tim Pierce (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Unlikely, sure. That said, presumably, at least one person already made it. The harm seems minimal here. —mako๛ 19:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jezhotwells. (P.S. I made it in the course of moving the article so to correct the spelling mistake in the title). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds like speedy delete {{db-author}} per above post... 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tagged per above. B.Wind (talk) 03:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Axem Rangers, Queen Valentina

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete these; no strong case has been made to suggest these are useful or harmful; so the status quo persists. ~ mazca talk 21:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't covered within the article. TTN (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, she isn't one of the seven stars? Or is she a boss that holds one of the stars? I Googled and found she is a boss in that game. How often do people search for her? Any harm in leaving the redirect there? Is there anyone similar search term which people might get confused by? I see no reason to delete anything someone might find useful, and no one is harmed by in any possible way. Dream Focus 17:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The redirect would make more sense if there is (at least a cursory) mention of her in the target. Presently, this is not the case: the redirect is confusing because there is no context. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the redirect helps someone find general information on the subject (i.e. Super Mario RPG), wouldn't that be enough? Though, information on the characters could be added later. –blurpeace (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not beforehand? It would have rendered this discussion moot. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete independent of action above. "Go" in the search tool has long worked for this style of miscapitalization. Note that a recent search tool upgrade allowing it to match article titles with mixed capitalization obviates the need for all redirects from other capitalization except for those which directly aid in linking. (That's right, WP:MIXEDCAPS is gone.)-- Thinking of England (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC) (This pre-merger comment applies to Queen valentina.)[reply]
  • Keep, and ditch the nonexistent section link. I imagine this would help somebody trying to find information on Super Mario RPG. –blurpeace (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, in the spirit of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR, I have merged these similar debates. –blurpeace (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - I've posted a message over on Talk:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars and asked folks to either add relevant information to the article or to come over here and let us know that the redirects in question should either be kept or deleted. —mako๛ 19:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Moon-speak

The result of the discussion was create soft-redirects to Wiktionary. Killiondude (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how this relates to Japanese, there doesn't seem to any WP:RS that discusses "Moon speak" and Japanese (Plenty of unreliable sources (ED, Uncylopedia, etc). Either way, it doesn't seem like someone would type this in when looking for info on the Japanese language. There is also, no mention of this in the article either. Also I would like to nominate Moon language and Moonrunes using the same rationalle. Feinoha Talk, My master 03:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as slang for Japanese, these probably should exist as entries in Wiktionary if they don't already. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral -- I suppose I'm having the same trouble as other editors. I've never heard the term so it's hard for me to know one way or another if this something people look up. That said, if someone said "moon language", and I looked it up on Wikipedia, I'm not sure that I would feel that my question were answered if I was just redirected to Japanese. I would probably just be confused. —mako๛ 19:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As these are existing slang terms, it's possible that a reader would use such a search term. That said, I think a soft redirect to Wiktionary (moonspeak and moon language) would be more appropriate than redirecting to Japanese language. Jafeluv (talk) 08:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. A Wiktionary redirect seems like a much better idea. Keep vote withdrawn. -Toptomcat (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

British Royal Air Force Cross

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 (non-admin close). B.Wind (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion - never an official description, there is only one Royal Air Force - the British one, which awarded "The Air Force Cross". All redirects have been re-directed ditrect to the appropriate page, with British as a separate wikilink where appropriate. Lynbarn (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no problem with this redirect being deleted, seems pointless. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible search term that hits the most likely intended target. This one would be especially useful for external search engines. youngamerican (wtf?) 14:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is a plausible alternative to the target for someone who does not know the formal name. PaulJones (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirects are cheap. Harmless. Potentially helpful per above. Etc. --Thinboy00 @264, i.e. 05:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Seems like a likely search term to me. —mako๛ 19:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article has an average of ~20 hits per month, plus there are many RAFs other than that of the UK (see Royal Air Force (disambiguation)). --Zach425 talk/contribs 08:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Saad Kahn

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Person who drowned while filming a Pakistani reality TV programme sponsored by Unilever. News articles are not WP:RS yet so redirection to Unilever is contraversial and fails WP:V. Also WP:1E applies. --Triwbe (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - too far afield from the sponsor to make any realistic connection. Should Saad Khan merit a standalone article, one should be written, but it is rare for a cameraperson to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for inclusion. If the reality program mentioned above has a Wikipedia article, a mention of the incident should be sufficient. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not mentioned in the target. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --- At least for now. If Saad Khan ends up being discussed in Unilever, I see no problem with recreating this. At the moment though, it would just be confusing. —mako๛ 19:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not relevant enough for a redirect. Canterbury Tail talk 13:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_31&oldid=1136083790"