The result of the discussion was Retarget to Composer. However I won't object if some creates a disambiguation page. Ruslik_ Zero 09:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Music writer → Music critic

Ambiguous. Someone not familiar with the language might use "music writer" to refer to a songwriter. I've found no uses of "music writer" as a term for a music critic. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{( Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Good point. I never thought about that aspect, but that's probably because I had 10 cans of beer and 2 large bottles of cider last night. Also, why do you, and others, waste your life editing Wikipedia all day? I'm serious. It will not do you any good. That is a fact. You only have one life. Do you want to die saying "oh, I spent my youth editing Wikipedia all the time"? Better to get out, meet people, do things. You know?-- Cicely of Sicily ( talk) 23:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete or change target. I certainly would think "music writer" means one who writes music, i.e. a songwriter composer (composer is superior per Euryalus below). -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 00:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Change target to Composer. A songwriter might be assumed to write lyrics, while a composer writes only the music (and is therefore a "music writer"). The definition of compsoer as a "music writer is also supported by both Webster's and the Random House dictionaries, [1] which adds to its validity as a reasonable target for the redirect. Euryalus ( talk) 02:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Composer, per Euryalus. Much better. American Eagle ( talk) 03:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Turn into disambiguation page. The primary meaning of 'music writer' is probably 'composer', but it could plausibly mean 'someone who writes about music' as well. If it isn't turned into a disambiguation page, a hatnote should be added to the top of composer pointing to music critic as another possible meaning. Robofish ( talk) 04:08, 27 May 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. The discussion showed that this redirect is useless, because no casual editor will ever type DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY. The only use of this redirect is to pick on other editors. The creator of the redirect should try to invent a shorter title. Ruslik_ Zero 10:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY → Wikipedia:Essays are not policy

Originally speedily-deleted under WP:CSD#R3, but subsequent discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_15 recommended that it undergo a full discussion here. I am personally neutral on this deletion. Aervanath ( talk) 22:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete per the precedent of WP:SOURCEITORDROPIT, i.e. shortcut that's not really a shortcut used uncivilly. Stifle ( talk) 23:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep without a policy- or guideline-based rationale for deletion. It seems a logical redirect if—albeit—long, and it's not misrepresenting the destination. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep – Agree with pd_THOR. Although its length it long, it is a understandable, useful shortcut. American Eagle ( talk) 00:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep, as creator, It isn't a shortcut it is a synonym. It is a compromise between brevity and clarity. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 01:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Rename. I suggest renaming to something easier on the eyes e.g. WP:DONT_QUOTE_PERSONAL_ESSAYS_AS_POLICY. If the link were one or two words it would be fine, but the name all runs together because it's all caps.
• Delete. totally unplausible that someone would type "Wikipedia:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY " LibStar ( talk) 14:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Harmless redirect, and this shows that it has already been used in AfD discussions, etc. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • It's not harmless; it's rude. And it's been used to attack other people in discussions. Stifle ( talk) 08:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

agree with Stifle, initially created unilaterally to attack me in a discussion, not a collaborative essay. LibStar ( talk) 04:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• • It has been used only by the creator of the redirect. ÷ seresin 18:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:DONTUSESHORTCUTSTOMAKEAPOINT and WP:TALKDONTSHOUT. Seriously, delete per Stifle's rationale citing the precedent of deleting WP:SOURCEITORDROPIT. Shorcuts exist to facilitate searching, not to be a means of shouting a point at someone else. – BLACK FALCON ^{( TALK)} 21:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Redirects are useful for expected terms, minimising keystrokes, or routine linking. This is none of those. It's hard to read. It's longer than the target. It's purpose is for those unfamiliar with the target, meanignt hat the full name of the target should preferably be used. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Agreed with Stifle and others. There was a recent RfA where using capital letters in a response was considered very uncivil. No one would willingly use a shortcut this long; this comes across as shouting. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete I agree with the above - a "shortcut" that is longer than the actual policy it points to would seem to exist only to make a point. Additionally, it seems slightly uncivil. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 21:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

You might notice that all Wikipedia policy has a shortcut or mnemonic in ALL CAPS. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS for instance. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 22:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Not sure if this was directed at my comment or not, but me calling it slightly uncivil has nothing to with the all caps. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 23:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep or delete other more rude and useless shortcuts like WP:FANCRUFT, WP:GAMECRUFT, etc. that are not used by serious editors. If we delete any and all nonsense shortcuts, okay, but otherwise, I can't see how this one is somehow worse. Best, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 04:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Those aren't used to attack people in AFDs. It seems funny how your view has changed since you nominated WP:PROVEIT for deletion in highly similar circumstances. Stifle ( talk) 08:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I don't agree that this is uncivil, but I do think it's pointless, as it's longer than the title of the page it's redirecting to. There's no good reason why anyone should ever need to type this. Robofish ( talk) 04:07, 27 May 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. Ruslik_ Zero 11:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• JESUS → Jesus

An IP put a PROD on this with a fake date. I removed the PROD since they can't be used for redirects, but they do have a point that this redirect serves only as a venue for vandalistic redirects since our search box is case insensitive & no article used be using all caps to link. Has been declined for speedy in the past, but I see no reason to keep it. ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete – Partly per nom. The only links to it are in relation to deleting it, and it doesn't appear to be needed. American Eagle ( talk) 20:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Wikipedia:Redirect#Spellings, misspellings, tenses and capitalisations: "Related [other-captialization] redirects are needed only if the article title has two or more words and words following the first have different capitalisations." (underlining added) The redirect is not needed for searching, since any search for Jesus will be case-insensitive, and the all-caps version has no legitimate use anywhere in the encyclopedia. – BLACK FALCON ^{( TALK)} 21:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete and salt - this isn't needed, and shouldn't be created. Alternatively, I suppose it could just be permanently protected, but since it isn't actually doing any good... Robofish ( talk) 04:02, 27 May 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. Misleading cross-namespace redirect. Ruslik_ Zero 11:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Famous black baseball players → Category:African American baseball players

Delete - Cross-namespace redirect from article space to category space. Unneeded, not even the same wording. If kept, allows creation of "Famous x" article redirects to a category for whatever profession/ethnicity combination x may be. VegaDark ( talk) 20:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• delete as African Americans are not the only black people to play baseball. PaulJones ( talk) 13:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete as an unnecessary and misleading (per PaulJones) cross-namespace redirect from the mainspace. The page has no significant incoming links or edit history worth preservingl; the page should never have been redirected and the speedy deletion should have been allowed to proceed. – BLACK FALCON ^{( TALK)} 21:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep or Retarget to a better target. Even though not all black baseball players are Americans, some are, and a partial list is better then nothing-- Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 12:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • If the redirect was to be kept, why should it point to the category for African American players instead of, say, South African players? In any case, I don't think that we have any purely racially-based ("African American" is treated more as an ethnic classification than a purely racial one) sports categories or lists, and there is ample precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion for deleting all such lists and categories. – BLACK FALCON ^{( TALK)} 17:49, 25 May 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 Move to the right capitalisation— Lin Jia Jun (redirect suppressed). Ruslik_ Zero 11:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Lin jia jun → Campus SuperStar

If there should be a redirect, it should be from Lin Jia Jun. Redirects based on incorrectly capitalized names of nn participants seems rather redundant. decltype ( talk) 15:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete as a redirect based on an incorrect capitalization (or, given the nature of the MediaWiki software, lack of capitalization) of the name of a non-notable contestant in a competition. No objection to creating Lin Jia Jun, though I don't see much need for it. – BLACK FALCON ^{( TALK)} 21:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep - the lack of capitalisation isn't a problem, as anyone who searches for Lin Jia Jun will find this redirect anyway. And this is the name of a contestant in a TV show, so redirecting to the article on the show (where she is mentioned by name) seems entirely appropriate. Robofish ( talk) 04:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Your point about capitalization is true for searching, but not necessarily for directly linking to the redirect, though I have to admit that I have a hard time thinking of a situation (other than RfD) where such linking may be needed... – BLACK FALCON ^{( TALK)} 04:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • True, except that her name is "Lin Jia Jun", not "Lin jia jun". decltype ( talk) 06:33, 27 May 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 Keep. Ruslik_ Zero 11:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• المحارمة → Maharmah

Uneeded redirect from other language Guy0307 ( talk) 12:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment the target is an Arabic subject, the redirect is in Arabic. The Arabic Wikipedia seems to have the same topic at ar: المحارمة ... so I don't see what the problem with the redirect is. 76.66.196.85 ( talk) 13:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep redirects from other languages are permissible and an Arabic redirect to an Arabic article makes perfect sense to me. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep - seems reasonable that Arabic- and English-speaking users may choose to use the English Wikipedia as a compliment to the Arabic one, and may type the Arabic-script name into a search box. Mnmazur ( talk) 23:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Mnmazur. – Meiskam ( talk• contrib• block) 06:12, 24 May 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 Confirm deletion of a self redirect and keep an example of double redirect.There was discussion a few months ago, which showed a consensus for enabling double redirects. In fact, double redirects worked for some time and no problems was found with them. So, they may be enabled again in the near future (see bug 17888). Having said this, I consider all policy based arguments for the deletion moot. Ruslik_ Zero 11:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia:Example of a self-redirect → Wikipedia:Example of a self-redirect

Deletion, per WP:CSD G8; discussion raised on Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Should there be a link to Wikipedia:Example of a self-redirect, so perhaps over-cautiously listing here rather than speedily deleting it myself. JHunterJ ( talk) 12:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia:Example of a double redirect → Wikipedia:Double redirect

and Wikipedia:Double redirect → Wikipedia:Double redirects. Delete as undesirable per Wikipedia:Double redirects and Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose. Also brought up on Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Should there be a link to Wikipedia:Example of a self-redirect JHunterJ ( talk) 12:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete the self-redirect. It is a bad example, see Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Should there be a link to Wikipedia:Example of a self-redirect, so weather an example of a self-redirect should exist is a moot point. But keep' the double redirect. The usual reasons against double redirects do not apply in this circumstance. The double redirect is an example of a double redirect. The example would help people understand double redirects, in the same way User:Example helps people understand User pages.It might be useful, so lets be on the safe side and keep it. Does it do any harm?-- Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 13:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  It exists when the guidelines tell editors it shouldn't. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 13:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  JHunterJ, the guidelines are guidelines, not hard and fast rules. Correct me if I am wrong, I do not want to stick words in your mouth. On Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Should there be a link to Wikipedia:Example of a self-redirect You argued that the double redirect is useless, but you did nothing to support your view. Maybe you should focus on how the double redirect is useless or harmful, and not so much on a guideline that is not intended to apply to an example of a double redirect.-- Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 21:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  And my view is that there is no benefit from that example that would make ignoring the guidelines worthwhile. You say that it helps people understand, but you did nothing to support your view. You should focus on showing how it is helpful, and not so much on how the guidelines might be ignored if it is. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 12:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  I have done something to support my view, I have said "The double redirect is an example of a double redirect. The example would help people understand double redirects, in the same way User:Example helps people understand User pages[boldness not in original]". Also I, at first misunderstood what a self-redirect is, I could have used an example. A similar thing could happen (to someone else not me) with double redirects if we do not have an an example.-- Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 14:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  JHunterJ, to clearly what something I was said above, In my opinion you should provide evidence that the double redirect is useless, or that it is harmful, or argue against my evidence that the double redirect is useful.-- Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 18:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  In case it isn't clear: "These pages are undesirable" ( Wikipedia:Double redirects). -- JHunterJ ( talk) 18:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  How is this particular double redirect, not double redirects in general, undesirable?-- Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 21:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  There is really nothing further to be said by either of us here. Double redirects are undesirable. This is a double redirect. Therefore this is undesirable. Then there's ignore all rules (with consensus). I do not need to show that the guidelines might be applied here; you need to show that they might not. I disagree with your claim that the example is educational in a useful way, so I brought it for discussion. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 01:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• While Wikipedia:Example of a double redirect is a good example of a double redirect, I have to wonder whether an example is necessary in the first place... "A redirect that points to another redirect is called a double redirect" (quoted from Wikipedia:Double redirects) is one of the most straightforward definitions I've encountered on Wikipedia—a far simpler concept to grasp than that of a user page. I'm not bothered by the fact that it violates the guideline against double redirects, but I'm also not convinced that an example double redirect is useful and ought to exist. – BLACK FALCON ^{( TALK)} 20:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  With the seer Numbers of people looking at Wikipedia:Double redirects at least a few will not understand, and double redirect might help touse, at least a few.-- Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 21:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  Because the double-redirect does no harm, and might help, it ought to be kept-- Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 21:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  Its "harm" is existing to illustrate a guideline which says its existence should be avoided. WP:BEANS again. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 21:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• How is "existing to illustrate a guideline which says its existence should be avoided" harmful? I do not see how having the double-redirect will cause people to start creating double redirect for no arguably good reason.-- Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 21:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore the example if it does no substantial harm. It is worth having a demonstration of what happens, and if double-redirect treatments change then a test area is needed. -- Rumping ( talk) 10:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  Rumping, by "the example" do you mean the double-redirect or the self-redirect-- Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 12:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  • I mean "restore the self-redirect". It would also be a self-double-redirect (easier to show than to explain, but difficult to show without existing) -- Rumping ( talk) 08:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep them both. I think exceptions from the rules are appropriate for the purposes of demonstration; WP:BEANS doesn't really apply here. Robofish ( talk) 03:57, 27 May 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 retarget to Suicide_methods#Traffic_collisions. VegaDark ( talk) 17:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Autocide → Traffic collision

"Autocide" is not a very meaningful name. On the face of it, it means suicide (auto + cide / self-performed death) 76.66.196.85 ( talk) 07:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Revert to this version, as that word is used very widely (see, for example, Google Scholar). It may or may not be notable, but that could be taken to AfD. American Eagle ( talk) 17:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• retarget to Suicide_methods#Traffic_collisions. PaulJones ( talk) 18:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• retarget to Suicide_methods#Traffic_collisions, I fully agree. Mnmazur ( talk) 23:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Suicide_methods#Traffic_collisions. It's a perfect match. – Meiskam ( talk• contrib• block) 06:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Suicide_methods#Traffic_collisions. - FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:23, 26 May 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 already deleted. JulieSpaulding ( talk) 06:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• WP:YORK → Wikipedia:Long term abuse/DavidYork71

DELETE PER WP:DENY, NO NEED TO GLORIFY THIS TROLL 96.255.198.126 ( talk) 02:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Long term abuse/DavidYork71 reply

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

The result of the discussion was delete. VegaDark ( talk) 17:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Dolby Surround® → Dolby Surround

Who is going to search this up? Pointless. gordonrox24 ( talk) 01:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete – Agreed, we don't need redirects for every page with a copyright notice in the title. American Eagle ( talk) 17:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete – Perhaps add the "®" symbol to the text of Dolby Surround, such as "Dolby Surround® was the earliest consumer version..." Mnmazur ( talk) 23:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The Manual of Style discourages use of the ™ and ® symbols "unless unavoidably necessary for context", so it probably should not be added in this case. – BLACK FALCON ^{( TALK)} 20:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete I can understand someone searching for it via copy/paste, but any good search engine will strip the character off. – Meiskam ( talk• contrib• block) 06:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep, there used to be an article at "Dolby Surround®", People may have bookmarked it or linked to it from another website. Do we need to break these bookmark and links. Does the redirect do any harm?-- Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 12:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per American Eagle. Any search for "Dolby Surround®", whether prompted by copy-pasting from a website or the discovery of a no-longer-valid bookmark, will bring up the article Dolby Surround as the first result. – BLACK FALCON ^{( TALK)} 17:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Why make people go though the trouble of looking at a search page when we could just show them the article. Why not make things easier even if only a little bit. Does the redirect do any harm?-- Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 20:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I do not consider a lack of demonstrable harm to be a reason to keep a page; I would much rather consider the utility, or lack thereof, of having a particular page. As for why it may be good to "make people go through the [minimal] trouble of looking at a search page", one reason is that it serves an educational purpose: it (indirectly) educates editors about article naming conventions or, at least, does not give editors the impression that trademark symbols should be used in articles. Another reason is that it sets a precedent against redirects that are implausible search terms (while the existence of a small number of such redirects is not a big deal, the existence of too many such pages creates clutter—for instance, when viewing Special:Whatlinkshere—which is actively harmful). One or two redirects more or less makes no real difference, but lack of real inclusion standards does. – BLACK FALCON ^{( TALK)}

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

The result of the discussion was No consensus to delete, retarget to Presidency of Jimmy Carter. VegaDark ( talk) 17:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Carter regime → Jimmy Carter

The redirect should be deleted, as no pages link to it, "the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym" for the Carter administration, and the redirect "is unlikely to be useful." Mnmazur ( talk) 23:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Presidency of Jimmy Carter. Outside of the United States, the term "regime" is often used in the same way as "administration" is used in the US, so I don't really consider this to be an obscure synonym. But it's true that the redirect is not used much: only three times last month. Note also that there are similar redirects for other presidents (e.g. Clinton regime). – BLACK FALCON ^{( TALK)} 20:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • To point out, those three times last month were mostly or all my own usage. I've been trying to find a way to get it deleted since I found out about it last month. Mnmazur ( talk) 21:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The term 'regime' usually carries a negative, critical denotation - usually a dictatorship/totalitarian government. Jimmy Carter's presidency was not a dicatorship. Violates WP:NPOV. - FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Per Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality of redirects, Neutral point of view does not apply to redirects.-- Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 01:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Reluctant Redirect to Presidency of Jimmy Carter. I don't much like these redirects (or the 'neutrality of redirects' rule, for that matter), but we have Bush regime, Clinton regime, even Obama regime (already!). They are, it seems, somewhat plausible search terms, or they wouldn't keep being created. Robofish ( talk) 03:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I'd like to note that Bush regime redirects to Public image of George W. Bush - due to his steep drop-off in popularity in the last year or two, I can get such a redirect existing. However, you'll note that no similar redirect exists for George H. W. Bush's presidency. Mnmazur ( talk) 00:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I have retargeted the redirect Bush regime to Presidency of George W. Bush, since redirecting it to the public image article seems like an attempt to associate negative connotations with the word "regime". Perhaps part of the reason that no similar redirect exist for George H. W. Bush is that Presidency of George H. W. Bush is a redirect itself, though I really don't understand why it's not a separate article. – BLACK FALCON ^{( TALK)} 18:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
      • I think it's fair to say that the use of the word "regime" with regard to George W. Bush's presidency is generally negative, and as redirects aren't NPOV, I think it's fair that it redirect to the public image page (though perhaps a hatnote "redirect" might be called for on whichever page it targets?). I recommend it be changed back, though if you prefer, we could start a whole new discussion for it. Mnmazur ( talk)
        • I do not think that applies as much outside of North America, where it is not as uncommon for the term "regime" (or, an equivalent non-English translation of it) to be used in lieu of "administration" or "government". Redirects do not have to be neutral, but I think that redirecting the page to the public image article rather than the presidency article unnecessarily introduces bias, even if Bush is one of the most globally-disliked leaders in history. – BLACK FALCON ^{( TALK)} 23:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply

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