July 19

Belgian language →Belgium

There is no Belgian language.Picaroon(Talk)23:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perhaps we should retarget it into one of the language articles of one of the languages used in Belgium?TheBlazikenMaster23:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur.Retarget to Languages of Belgium. --Loukinho23:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget toLanguages of Belgium. I found this by looking throughCategory:Languages of Belgium, which was linked froman old version of the article that used to be atBelgian language.BigNate37_(T)23:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget toLanguages of Belgium.Kusma (talk)12:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget as abovePhil Sandifer17:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dam damn disambiguation andDam disambiguation →Dam (disambiguation)

Extremely few (if not none)of the disambig pages have redirects without brackets,delete.TheBlazikenMaster21:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as harmlessPhil Sandifer17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All redirects (most if not all) are harmless, but still many of them get removed since they are useless or pointless. Why would anyone look for Dam disambiguation? Most would look for Dam (disambiguation), I can't imagine anyone looking for Dam disambiguation, especially not Dam damn disambiguation.TheBlazikenMaster17:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• _{The initial article'sauthor has beeninvited to participate in this discussion. --Aarktica18:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)}[reply]
• Delete both, especially the first—that's not how we disambiguate homophones. Anyway, anyone who knows enough to look for or link to a disambiguation page will know enough to use parens. This is simply unjustified (and probably unjustifiable) inconsistency left over from old page moves.Xtifr_tälk19:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• OK OK, sorry,delete them, they are redundant. I created them 2 years ago and I have learned more about Wikipedia procedure since. I joined Wikipedia around 24 October 2004. May as well let me {{db-author}} them.Anthony Appleyard20:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually you can only do it with one of them, since the other one was created by different contributor.TheBlazikenMaster 20:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Nevermind that, I just noticed you created, but another user moved it.TheBlazikenMaster20:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I see that at 02:15, 27 July 2005User:Rhobite madeDam disambiguation as a redirect left behind by moving my oldDam disambiguation toDam (disambiguation). Uhh. Anyway, the currentDam disambiguation seems to be redundant.Anthony Appleyard20:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furry (gay slang) →Furry fandom

The termfurry does not imply homosexuality nor does the article assert that this is whatfurry means. There's little likelihood of this being a search term and it carries the potential to offend.BigNate37_(T)21:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Aarktica23:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If a stub explaining the context was written, that would be acceptable, but this is just wrong. —Arthur Rubin |(talk)14:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as offensive redirect.Phil Sandifer17:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cammy (Street Fighter) →Cammy

There aren't another articles with this name.David Pro21:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom.TheBlazikenMaster21:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless. We do not delete useless redirects, we delete harmful redirects.Kusma (talk)12:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is a similar situation asNoob Saibot (Mortal Kombat) → Noob Saibot which you nominated two weeks ago. This one doesn't have useful history, but my other arguements there are still valid: "...helps prevent duplicate creation. There is the possibility of accidental linkage: for example, a list of [Street Fighter] characters which is missing [Cammy], and all current list entries have [(Street Fighter)] in the name—common sense suggests adding a link to [Cammy (Street Fighter)]."BigNate37_(T)12:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Could concievably be used, and the nominator's reason for deletion is insufficient. —Gavia immer(talk)13:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no harm demonstrated.Phil Sandifer17:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No harm in its existence, prevents duplication, and helps people if they figure that it'd be at Cammy (Street Fighter) based on other articles having said disambig. -A Link to the Past(talk)20:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Dictionary →Category:Oxford dictionaries

The result of this debate was speedy redirect, nominator's closing.TheBlazikenMaster20:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect shouldn't be removed, that's not what I'm saying. And it shouldn't redirect to a category, most people except info, not a category. I don't know where to redirect it that's why I'm bringing this here.TheBlazikenMaster20:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget toOxford English Dictionary, which is what most people would expect. Yes, there are other OD's (as the category indicates), but the OED is by far the best known, and will be the intended target in probably 90%+ of all searches.Xtifr_tälk20:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that's all I needed to know.TheBlazikenMaster20:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furfag →Furry fandom

Redirect from an insulting term for furry fans. The term is not used in the article. The redirect isUser:Elnod's only main-namespace edit.GreenReaper15:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Morgoth Bauglir →Morgoth

This and following are leftovers from a move-maniacal vandal (Special:Contributions/Sauron161)Súrendil15:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plausible search term, prevents creation of duplicate article. Note that this applies only toLord Morgoth Bauglir—the others are less plausible and (at least for now) I'm abstaining on them.BigNate37_(T)17:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless. We do not delete useless redirects, we delete harmful redirects.Kusma (talk)12:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as totally sensible redirect.Phil Sandifer17:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can be considered insulting or blasphemous by some fans, as intended to be "pro-satanist".Súrendil06:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is known asMorgoth Bauglir according to the article, which also attributes titles such asLord of the Dark to him. To me that makes this and similar redirects plausible. This isn't abiography of a living person, so we don't care if one of the titles this fictional character is referred to by is insulting. Being a fan and being offended by this seems to contravene the requirement to remainneutral while editing the encyclopedia.BigNate37_(T)18:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wedo delete useless redirects (that's why the rules for deletion offer such a verynarrow definition of "useless"), but in this case, I think there is a weak case to be made this this is remotely useful, which is sufficient reason to keep.Xtifr_tälk01:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morgoth Bauglir (LOTR) →Morgoth

the same, Morgoth BTW is not from LotR but from SilmarillionSúrendil15:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, misleading redirect. —Arthur Rubin |(talk)14:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as harmless.Phil Sandifer17:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Harmful: Morgoth is from SilmarillionSúrendil06:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And God forbid if somebody gets that wrong and types it in we take them to an article that would correct them.Phil Sandifer14:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, but absolutelynot for the reason provided by the nominator! Morgothis a character from the LOTRuniverse, and as Phil points out, it's not unreasonable to think that someone would have that connection in mind. On the other hand, the pre-emptive disambiguation of "(LOTR)" is completely unnecessary.Morgoth Bauglir is sufficient by itself. Which makes this redirect useless.Xtifr_tälk 01:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Change toKeep per BigNate37 below. I'm easy (and redirects are cheap). :)Xtifr_tälk05:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: disambiguation by subject is a common redirect which, in my experience, is kept even where there is no other article with that title.BigNate37_(T)08:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morgoth Bauglir(LOTR) →Morgoth

the sameSúrendil15:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, misleading redirect. —Arthur Rubin |(talk)14:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Keep' as harmless.Phil Sandifer17:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Harmful: Morgoth is from SilmarillionSúrendil06:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And God forbid if somebody gets that wrong and types it in we take them to an article that would correct them.Phil Sandifer14:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteKeep and/ordo whatever is done with the discussion on "Morgoth Bauglir(LOTR)" above. The arguments I provided for deletion there apply here as well. However, if that is kept, then I suppose this should be as well, as a redirect from typo (missing space). Which, I suppose, could be{{R from misspelling}}.Xtifr_tälk01:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. This one is plausible insofar as the former is.BigNate37_(T)08:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: since I changed my opinion on the other debate because of Bignate's arguments, I'm changing this as well—athough mymain opinion is still that this should follow the other debate.Xtifr_tälk05:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melkor/Morgoth Bauglir →Morgoth

the sameSúrendil15:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, misleading redirect. —Arthur Rubin |(talk)14:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - harm not shown.Phil Sandifer17:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete harmless is irrelevant; this is clearly useless, which is a perfectly valid reason to delete. Whether it's misleading is not actually a big issue, but the utter implausibility of this as a search or link target is.Xtifr_tälk01:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Middle-earth →The Complete Guide to Middle-earth

Leftover of vandal move, seeTalk:The Complete Guide to Middle-earthSúrendil14:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as an attack page.TheBlazikenMaster20:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: this is G3, not G10, but I have deleted it regardless. --After Midnight⁰⁰⁰¹20:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Lorentzen →Susan Myrtetus Lorentzen

NN - seeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Myrtetus LorentzenGordonofcartoon12:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Myrtetus →Susan Myrtetus Lorentzen

NN - seeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Myrtetus LorentzenGordonofcartoon12:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait on the AfD. There's no need to nominate these before the AfD closes, since it might not result in deletion (though this one seems headed that way). Once the AfD closes, any redirects left behind are deletable under speedy deletion criterionR1 (no article at the target). —Gavia immer(talk)13:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]