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The result of the discussion was withdrawn by the nominator; they issue is resolved by SF007. (Non-admin closure.)

• .tib → Acronis True Image (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• TIB (file format) → Acronis True Image (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Tib file → Acronis True Image (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• .tib file → Acronis True Image (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• .tib files → Acronis True Image (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Tib files → Acronis True Image (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Target article has no information about .tib file format. This humble recommends deletion. Fleet Command (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if you look at these external sites: [1][2][3][4][5] -- it says that ".tib" is the file extension used by the target. It was very easy to find to boot. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as handy redirects. The usecase is pretty evident. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § It's useful. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rejected Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Just pointing at a policy or guideline. Regards, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You yourself are just pointing to a guideline! Did you even read it? Anyway, reject all you want; Wikipedia is not run by votes unless you supply a reason for your rejection other than "pretty evident". And please respect Wikipedia:Civility. Mocking others by imitating their style of writing is very impolite. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, You've just expressed the reason why I actually replied to Your previous comment. Only forgot to mention that the section You've linked is specifically void in RfD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects are so cheap that being useful is a valid and common reason to keep them, see WP:R#KEEP point 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)
    • See also the last line of the section you quote, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § It's useful, which says, "There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument.". Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, yes but I am directly contesting the usefulness of these redirects. See discussion below in your own section. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I've added "which uses a .tib filename extension." to the last sentence of the lead paragraph to make the connection with the target explicit. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection Please see "links to redirect". It will tell you that the user knows that much before clicking the redirect; but it sends him to read a long article that eventually tell him nothing more than what he already knows. If the subject is not adequately covered in an article, creating a redirect to it is pure harassment. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not just internal links that people can use to find these redirects, but there are also direct searches and links from external sites, bookmarks, etc. There is no way to know what information is associated with these links. If you delete these redirects then you will also break the links from external sites, we do not and should not be encouraging link rot (see WP:R#KEEP point 4, and so unless a redirect is actually harmful (for example by being misleading or in the way of something) we need a good reason to delete them, see WP:R#DELETE. Point 10 is the only one that could reasonably apply, but it's most likely that any information on the format would go in the current target article. Anyway, as the article states the format is "proprietary" and "undocumented" it's unlikely that a standalone article could be written. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am afraid it seems you have misunderstood link rot: Link rot occurs when a link no longer leads one to the intended material. In that regard, link rot had already occurred long before I nominated the redirects for deletion because the target article did not have any material about the file format. IMHO, when the material are unavailable, the sooner the reader knows it (i.e. with a 404 error) is the better. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Link rot here was supposed to be related to external sites and bookmarks of users. Hope I didn't offend You this time? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't remember having suggested otherwise. Still, it is bad. As for insulting, I didn't take offense. But you don't need to offend a Wikipedian more than once. Once and one million are equal because in Wikipedia, it is impossible to forget and it is forbidden to forgive. Fleet Command (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Are You serious? You started with linking irrelevant essay, continued with pretending to get offended by the fairly neutral comment, and now You teach me. You must be kidding. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, I am not kidding and I did not pretend! But since SF007 has resolved the problem, I prefer we move this separate discussion of ours outside this RfD so that it can end. Contact me on my talk page if you wish to continue. Fleet Command (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, information about the file format was removed from the article but has now been re-added. --SF007 (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. That concludes it. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. Ruslik_Zero 16:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Angels, Early Christian Representations of → Angels in art (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete as duplicate with incorrect title format. Early Christian Representations of Angels already exists as a redir to the same place (and the caps are incorrect in that redirect as well). We don't do "index-style" titles on WP, and at the very least, "Representations" needs to be corrected. However, I do not see a need to have a double redir as the result of said fix, so I would prefer the redirect be deleted. MSJapan (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it generated 24 views in first 11 days of existence. It seems to be already linked from some web site. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's from the Catholic Encyclopedia index which I always redirect when creating articles so as not to have unnecesary redlinks. A bit surprised that this piece of housekeeping would attract ire, can't really speculate without breaking WP:AGF. JASpencer (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. Ruslik_Zero 16:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Desire Philosophy → Desire (philosophy) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Unnecessary redirect Greg Bard (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a valid search term. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.