The result of the debate was No consensus (kept). -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect. Powers ^T 14:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not all our readers know how to find categories. This one seems clear and unambiguous and points the readers to exactly the page that I would have expected it to. The arguments against cross-namespace redirects 1) don't usually apply to categories and 2) don't outweigh the need to assist our readers. Rossami (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As the author of this redirect, I'm not entirely satisfied that it is done correctly. My problem is that I can see no other way of placing a link to a category directly into a substantive article. Simply adding a link to the category would cause the entire article to be marked as an entry in the category, which is not the required effect. Neuralwarp (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories can be linked like so: [[:Category:Aviation checklists]]. Powers ^T 23:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks - I'll go and work on it. Neuralwarp (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • They can be linked that way but very few new users know that. You're talking pretty esoteric wikicode that's not part of any of our early help documentation. Rossami (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the category contains only one article - BUMMMFITCHH --Have a nice day. Running 21:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's under construction. There are 2 articles in the category now. Neuralwarp (talk)
• Delete Not necessary, since the category can be linked as stated above. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted by MZMcBride as CSD R3. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "ｓ" at the end of this redirect's title is apparently now banned from all new page titles, so I guess it should be deleted -- 144.32.177.168 (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it's probably unsearchable, since that s appears to be a special character and not a normal "s" --Enric Naval (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Special character at the end of the redirect makes this an almost impossible search term. Useless. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 09:31, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as implausible redirect.--Lenticel ^(talk) 13:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an implausible redirect. Midorihana みどりはな 08:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Close - doesn't matter now: it's been deleted. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Re-targeted to Khagan as an alternate spelling[1]. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on the target page indicates that this name should redirect there. meco (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and redirect to Khan (title) Looking at Gengis_Kan, it seems to be another name for the "Khan" title. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Well, it's abviously a name also. The problem is that the article to which it redirects makes no mention of this, nor that the two names are related. And, the Gengis_Khan article refers to Khagan, different word which may be cognate, but we don't have any source or assertions to that effect. __meco (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Google Book Search says that this might be another variation of the Mongol title. Weak because it seems that other cultures have the title as well so a dab might be in order. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep per consensus and snow.

• Rationale:This doesn't fall under CSD R2 so that !vote is not a valid or critical reason to delete. The guiding principles on this page at bullet point 4 clearly state that: Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goes from WikiSpace to userspace. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 01:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete cross-namespace redirect into userspace. One can argue that CSD R2 would cover it. B.Wind (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Great_Cabal_Debate and search for "BRC". --Enric Naval (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep zomg, I hadn't noticed that it was from WP: space and not from mainspace. This redirect was done before the restriction on the crossspace redirects and it is grandfathered by the restriction, so it you shouldn't invoke the restriction to delete it. Also, there are many similar redirects to essays that are being written on userspace before they are moved to WP:. They should de dealth with on a case by case basis and only be deleted when they are being abused somehow --11:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Weak Keep Hehe, this redirect was probably tolerated until now because of historical reasons and because the cabal is composed of very productive users. Maybe Lara will have to start thinking of moving the cabal to wikipedia namespace. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (Note: there is also WP:BATH to nominate if you wish) It definitely does not meet CSD R2 which is for mainspace redirecting into the userspace so that argument is irrelevant. However, should we really be using the Wikipedia space for redirects into user communities, that although amusing and enjoyable for the members do not exist directly to serve the project, which is of course the point of the project space? It could be argued that the Bathrobe Cabal does indirectly help the project by keeping up the morale of its members, encouraging them to continue to contribute. With regards to the precedent of Wikipedia space to user and user talk space redirects, we have WP:GURCH (to User talk:Gurch), which survived RfD and also WP:ZN (to User talk:Bishonen). Not forgetting WP:JIMBO of course. There does seem to be a history of giving some leeway to productive editors, and if the sum total of that are a few "cabal" subpages and two redirects from the Wikipedia space, I don't think I can put in many complaints. I am slightly worried that the nomination is in retaliation for the deletion of "cabal" redirects from the Wikipedia space into Basketball110's "cabals" and the "cabals" of his friends, such as WP:GEEK and WP:NERD – I hope this is not the case. In conclusion, the redirect does not cause harm (I know, bad argument), has precedent, and is useful for searching. EJF (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those were deleted for, if I am not mistaken, the same thing. This is not a retaliation. This is me taking the things learned from that RfD, and being bold by applying them here. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 22:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they were not deleted for the same thing. Those cabals were unproductive wastes of database space. EJF (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not talking about the cabals. I'm talking about the redirects. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 17:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So was I. The cabals were a waste of space, therefore so were the redirects. This cabal is somewhat useful, as is the redirect. EJF (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do you mind telling me why this cabal is so useful? And is that why the WP:GEEK and NERD redirects were deleted... being a waste of space? Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 00:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It provides a place for constructive editors to enjoy themselves. WP:GEEK and WP:NERD were deleted because they did not advance the project (the point of the project-space) because the target pages were bureaucratic time-sinks and pulled users away from the aims of the project, by spending all their time discussing whether a user should be made a member of a certain "cabal" or whatever nonsense. EJF (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It doesn't violate policy. And note I don't appreciate not being informed of the nomination. Lara❤Love 15:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, it is courtesy to to inform the "owner" of anything being deleted – especially given that when WP:GEEK was having a deletion discussion, today's nominator canvassed his friends about the nomination. EJF (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with any allegations of canvassing on that matter. And indeed, I should have informed LaraLove, my mistake. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 04:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Read the canvassing guidelines; those messages clearly fall under votestacking. EJF (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per bad faith, pointy nomination. hmwithτ 18:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Redirects for essays which have been moved between the Wikipedia space and the user sub-spaces are routine. They rarely present any possibility of confusion to readers and can never be confused with article content. This one seems perfectly reasonable. Rossami (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (w/ note: I have a COI as a member). Mainly due to WP:COMMUNITY, as most things that add faces to a faceless community should be endorsed— even if they reside in the User: space. --slakr^\ talk / 18:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and it goes without saying— keep per cabal decree. :P --slakr^\ talk / 19:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The exact policy/deletion precedent on this seems to run in both directions, with consensus for deletion of this type of redirect on both sides. However, in the name of ignoring the rules when they get in the way of the project's goals, I move to keep. This is obviously a useful redirect that causes no harm either in principle or practice. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 19:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This causes no harm and it's not like the redirect is needed for something else (I realise this may invoke WP:BEANS) so there's no real reason to delete other than to make a point. Astral (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Also keep per slakr's extra comment. (Joke, mmkay?) Astral (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Astral. The timing of this request is suspect. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Nominator is making a point about what happened to their cabal redirects, the cabals also were deleted. --Chetblong (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Gurchzilla (talk) 07:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Tucky. SF, Dfrg_msc 11:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gurchzilla ~ Riana ⁂ 03:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really see this as a possible misspelling. It's original target was the Naruto character, and a Google search shows the Naruto reference as a more popular search term. Maybe the link should be changed back to that? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Naruto-related article lacked a disambiguation link to the other Orochimaru article which I have now added. As for the redirect, it does no harm and it could be useful. __meco (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern is not the disambiguation link but which page "Orochimaro" should target. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is a reasonable mis-spelling, violates no policy and does no harm. Abtract (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a plausible misspelling. As Abtract said, it does no harm. Rossami (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment would anyone object if I redirected the term to Orochimaru (Naruto) per this search? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't object myself. It's way more likely that they are looking for the manga character under that spelling, since it seems that it's the spelling used on the english and spanish versions of the manga. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say keep it since the current target is the more generic term. It does have a hatnote to the Naruto character. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me understand, are you ok with a re-target to the Naruto character? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created as a reaction to a C&P page move that reeks of POV forking. Additionally, I explained to the person who did the C&P that such a title would suggest that sunscreen is a database, not a lotion. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Well, as Rossami says, it documents that the fork existed Delete unlikely search term. Nobody would put those two words together --Enric Naval (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it now documents part of the debate and discussion of the article and its edit history. I would agree that we should not endorse article forking, turning the fork into a redirect is not only allowable but often the preferred way to resolve the problem. Now that the page has been turned into a redirect , the redirect does no harm. Rossami (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense. This is an unlikely search term. Teh Rote (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, it's nonsensical. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom (also to be said is: "Huh?"). Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 01:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as "Huh?" can be pointed in too many directions. B.Wind (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Huh? It's an unlikely search term. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 06:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Found it It's from one sketch on MadTV[2]. As one non-notable sketch, it does not appear on the article, and it's a totally unlikely search term, so Delete it --Enric Naval (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a viable search process or normal process of mind to go from one to the other. --Pmedema (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The connection is far too tenuous and general. Rossami (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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