December 29
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on December 29, 2007
The result of the debate was
keep.
WjBscribe 02:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
WP: should not redirect to an essay that was userfied out of the Wikipedia: space. Dl2000 (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing which says that such cross-namespace redirects are inherently deletable. The redirect is still in fairly heavy use - in fact, I'd say that the vast majority of the links to this essay are via WP:50k (29 out of 39, to be precise). I'll admit I'm biased, but I'd say the userfication of the essay is still pretty questionable in itself, given the frequency of its reference within Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect?, point 5 for retaining redirects). The main problem with cross-namespace redirects is with redirects out of article space (see Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect?, point 5 for deleting redirects). If the argumnt is that the "WP:" pseudonamespace is in fact in article space, then - like other similar situations - a "Wikipedia:" redirect would be a logical replacement for it. If you do not deem it as "true" article space, then none of the reasons given at Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect? apply. Several of the points in favour of keeping the redirect, as listed at Wikipedia:Cross-namespace_redirects#Arguments_for_keeping_CNRs do however apply. It's easier to type (point 5), is a holdover from before when the essay was userfied (and therefore in the form that several of the regular users of it will know best; point 7), risks breaking links to it on talk and project pages (point 8), and - since it is exclusively used on project and talk pages - causes no problems for accidental browsers (point 9). Although I am understandably biased, I'd say outright deletion is not required, not recommended, and not in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Grutness...wha? 05:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PS - you seem to have broken the redirect by adding the RfD notice. Grutness...wha? 05:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Breaking the redirect during the RFD discussion is normal and, in some ways,even beneficial because it draws greater attention to the discussion. Rossami (talk)
- Ah, sorry - didn't realise that. I assumed they would be like redirect discussions at WP:SFD (where it's seen as harmful to break a redirect link during discussion). Grutness...wha? 23:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Essay pages are moved from the Wikipedia space to user space and back all the time. The creation of convenience-links like this are often one of the first signs that the essay is ready to be promoted. As Grutness points out, the redirect is in active use and is being used appropriately. The redirect creates no possibility of confusion for readers of the articlespace. Rossami (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this one is probably in more active use than most of the "official" WP: links. I can confirm from experience that this one does get cited by WP:UKRD and WP:HWY all the time as a de facto policy. — iridescent 23:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP regularly redirects to the userspace. Cross namespace redirects are generally okay outside the mainspace and portal space. WP:ADMINSTATS and WP:CRATSTATS are two similar redirects.--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 12:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball keep per all. --Thinboy00 @62, i.e. 00:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.The result of the debate was
no consensus, defaults to keep.
WjBscribe 01:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Ditto as Wikipedia:50k. Dl2000 (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- More readily deletable - only one use for this one compared to dozens for WP:50k. No objection, though deletion is largely incompatible with general wikipedia practice since neither page nor redirect is in general article space. Grutness...wha? 05:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP regularly redirects to the userspace. Cross namespace redirects are generally okay outside the mainspace and portal space. WP:ADMINSTATS and WP:CRATSTATS are two similar redirects.--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 12:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete not used
and author specifically does not contest deletion; on the other hand, redirects are cheap. --Thinboy00 @64, i.e. 00:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am the author of the essay, but I was not the creator of the redirect. As such, the second of your points doesn't really apply. Grutness...wha? 08:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.The result of the debate was stub created in place of redirect. ---
RockMFR 06:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
The article pizza contains no discussion whatsoever of pizza rolls. 170.140.210.108 (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Create article -- do not delete. Create an article instead. Guroadrunner (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.The result of the debate was
delete.
WjBscribe 01:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Unhelpful redirect. David Pro (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy-delete as advertising. It was probably created in good faith but hyperlinks are not redirects. Rossami (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If someone types "Www.mariahcarey.com" into the Wikipedia search box, they probably meant to type it into the address bar instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.The result of the debate was
retarget to
Bubba.
WjBscribe 02:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Harmful and offensive redirect. David Pro (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as G3 since it's pure vandalism. David Pro (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget to Bubba. Plausable typo. Not vandalism or a personal attack, it's one of his nicknames. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Retarget to Bubba. Obvious MikeHobday (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
A house divided against itself cannot stand → Abraham Lincoln
The result of the debate was
delete.
WjBscribe 01:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Quotes such as this can't redirect to articles. David Pro (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't see why a famous quote cannot redirect to the the individual who said it. This particular phrase is mentioned in the article and it's plausible that someone may search for it. CIreland (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lincoln said it but he was not the first person to say it. This quote traces back to Matthew 12:25. That said, when he used it on 16 Jun 1858, it was so memorable that the speech is now known as the "House Divided Speech". I can see arguments both ways but in the end, I think that Wikipedia is not WikiQuote. Either delete or (perhaps better) soft-redirect to q:Lincoln#The House Divided speech (1858). Rossami (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Inappropriate and U.S. centric. Abberley2 (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this is Wikipedia, not WikiQuote. David Pro (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per precedent: 4 score and 7 years ago TheBilly (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.The result of the debate was
delete.
WjBscribe 01:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Unneccesary. David Pro (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong (conditional) delete assuming that the redirect's title is not the name of a Mario game, as this is a highly unlikely typo.
If that actually is a game, Neutral --Thinboy00 @66, i.e. 00:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete this is defently not a mario game. The closest google could find was a site that was referencing the target article and a Uncyclopedia article called Wario the Quario. Neither of these support this redirect. It is also not a common typo since the M and Q key are not even remotly close on the keyboard and the two letter are not phonetically similar either. --67.71.79.81 (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. Unpleasant typo. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.