The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 07:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Talkheader2 → Template:Talkheader (links to redirect) (stats) 

Like Talkheader3. No reason to keep a redirect like that. The non-trivial history consists of tests that should be in a sandbox. Created by the same editor and shortly became a redirect. Magioladitis (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as below, it's a ridiculous redirect with a largely useless history. If the history needs to be retained for GFDL purposes, I'd suggest moving it to Template:Talkheader/Talkheader2. —Zach425 ^talk/contribs 09:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - transcluded in an archive page. We may have to keep it for that specific purpose. Neutral as I'm not sure about the policies that require keeping of archived templates. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can just subst the template in the archive or replace it with talkheader. No big deal. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed. It's not even transcluded in archives. It's just linked. Useless. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:41, 30 September 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. Jafeluv (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Talkheader3 → Template:Talkheader (links to redirect) (stats) 

No reason to keep a redirect like that. The non-trivial history consists of tests that should be in a sandbox. Magioladitis (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a ridiculous redirect with a largely useless history. If the history needs to be retained for GFDL purposes, I'd suggest moving it to Template:Talkheader/Talkheader3. —Zach425 ^talk/contribs 09:12, 25 September 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. Magioladitis (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Terri Smith → The Weather Channel (links to redirect) (stats) 

Subject's name is nowhere to be found in the target. Most of the time this has been a redirect, but early in its history it was a one-line "article" about a Weather Channel meteorologist; the "article" was quickly merged into The Weather Channel, but nobody bothered to give the new redirect any context. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - although Terri Smith worked at the Weather Channel (see here), she left them in 1995 to work at other stations (including WALB & WXIA) and currently works at KXNT. It would be far better for her name to appear as a redlink/search page to encourage creation of an article. Besides, a search page will yield more information on her than if she were to be retargeted to any of the sites I've linked. —Zach425 ^talk/contribs 04:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 04:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Six Sigma Pricing → Six Sigma (links to redirect) (stats) 

Delete - No talk about "Six Sigma Pricing" in Six Sigma. And that's a non-notable term made up by a self-promoting author. Damiens.rf 14:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? (as creator of said redirect) I was under the impression redirects were cheap, and redirecting a "non-notable" neologism to its parent concept was a perfectly valid thing to do. Nifboy (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect needs to have something to give it context... and there's none here. If there were a mention of "Six Sigma Pricing" in the target article, then the redirect would be closer to valid (if not already there). The words "price" and "pricing" are absent from the Six Sigma article. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of a "valid" redirect, only invalid ones. Hence "redirects are cheap." Nifboy (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they're not invalid... 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not under the impression this redirect is invalid by those criteria. Nifboy (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced one way or another. If there is some context in the target article I'd be wholly in agreement with your point. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this appears to be an appropriate redirect: it seems to give partial information on the term (i.e., the methodology behind it), and there's the possibility that an article on the topic will meet notability criteria in the future. Of course, as IP mentioned, the keep would be much stronger if "Six Sigma Pricing" were mentioned in the article. —Zach425 ^talk/contribs 17:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If you do a Google search, Six Sigma pricing is a real concept. It's based off the Six Sigma approach to system and process control. It would be helpful if the article noted this, but it's not a reason to delete the redirect. I also wish to know what proof Damiens.rf has that the creator of the redirect is engaged in self-promotion. Nothing in his edit history suggests a vested interest regarding Six Sigma. Such groundless accusations add nothing to the Wiki and I have duly noted this on his talk page. 141.214.37.134 (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A valid redirect, unless it falls under criterion "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject.", in which case an article should be substituted for the redirect rather than deleting the redirect. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 speedily deleted by User:Orangemike, CSD G6 (housekeeping). Non admin close. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Villanelle/Example → The House on the Hill (links to redirect) (stats) 

This is not a standard article title. We're redirected to an example of the villanelle. It's pretty useless. JIMp _talk·cont 14:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As an aside, much of the target page should be transwikied to Wikisource, provided that it clears a copyvio check. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the page should have been put up for CSD after the page move. Also, I second Blanchardb's Wikisource recommendation, as the target is not an encyclopedic article by any stretch of the imagination. —Zach425 ^talk/contribs 17:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Retarget to WTC. Magioladitis (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wtc → World Trade Center (links to redirect) (stats) 

Delete. Creates confusion with disambiguation page WTC and is not a common abbreviation.   Cs32en  04:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to WTC. Any reason why not? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to WTC --- The disambiguation page at WTC seems like the natural place for wtc. In fact, I'm very surprised that it wasn't pointing there already. —mako๛ 04:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to WTC - as above, this is the most logical alternate capitalization target. —Zach425 ^talk/contribs 13:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I have just retargeted it to WTC. I hope nobody minds... 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 speedily deleted by User:Orangemike two times - CSD G10, then CSD G4}. Non admin close. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• BADSITE → Wikipedia Review (links to redirect) (stats) 

Unnecessary redirect; not a common misspelling, and the project should not be taking positions on subjects via use of judgmental pagenames. Nathan ^T 02:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Nathan ^T 02:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No mention whatsoever of this name in the target page. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- As per nominator and Blanchardb above. —mako๛ 04:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No obvious connection to the target and potentially defamatory (as in the target subject is a "BADSITE"). --Allen3 ^talk 12:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The connection here is surely the failed WP:BADSITES policy, which in practice concerned itself with the target website and one other. Even apart from the derogatory labeling, this sort of project-specific stuff doesn't belong in mainspace. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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