The result of the debate was Delete. GlassCobra 11:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe this has existed for two years. As far as I am aware no one has ever referred to Tiger Woods with this phrase, so what possible use is this redirect serving. bigissue (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - obscure reference to the nth degree. Vikram Vaz was a Harvard student who won three days on the game show Jeopardy!. B.Wind (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we need not indulge redirects created under such superfluous circumstances. This redirect is far more likely to cause confusion than help. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:40, 24 October 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 Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from userspace. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless originator wishes it deleted (in which case CSD G7 would apply once he/she asks for it). Redirects from userspace often occur as an article is moved into article space. In this case, the redirect was formed when the originator changed username (and the subsequent double redirect was fixed). I hesitate to recommend the deletion of something in someone's namespace without very good reason, and I see none here. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Redirects to articles from user space are fine, unless they are causing some specific problem. I don't see the redirects causing any specific problem, so there's no reason to delete them. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per above. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 23 October 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 Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from userspace. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless originator wishes it deleted (in which case CSD G7 would apply once he/she asks for it). Redirects from userspace often occur as an article is moved into article space. In this case, however, the redirect was formed when the originator decided to abandon his/her rewriting of the deleted Encyclopedia Dramatica article and redirected to another, perhaps more complete version (see below). I hesitate to recommend the deletion of something in someone's namespace without very good reason, and I see none here. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Redirects to articles from user space are fine, unless they are causing some specific problem. I don't see the redirects causing any specific problem, so there's no reason to delete them. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per above. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 23 October 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 Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from userspace. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless originator wishes it deleted (in which case CSD G7 would apply once he/she asks for it). Redirects from userspace often occur as an article is moved into article space. In this case, the redirect was formed when the originator rewrote a deleted Encyclopedia Dramatica article following deletion review and then moved it into article space. I hesitate to recommend the deletion of something in someone's namespace without very good reason, and I see none here. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Redirects to articles from user space are fine, unless they are causing some specific problem. I don't see the redirects causing any specific problem, so there's no reason to delete them. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per above. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 23 October 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 Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from userspace. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless originator wishes it deleted (in which case CSD G7 would apply once he/she asks for it). Redirects from userspace often occur as an article is moved into article space. In this case, the redirect was formed when the originator attempted to recreate a deleted article from scratch, but redirected the rewrite to a "draft" article that another editor subsequently moved into article space (after that, there was an attempt to fix a double redirect, followed by a move caused by the originator changing usernames). I hesitate to recommend the deletion of something in someone's namespace without very good reason, and I see none here. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Redirects to articles from user space are fine, unless they are causing some specific problem. I don't see the redirects causing any specific problem, so there's no reason to delete them. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per above. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 23 October 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 Retargeted by User:B.Wind. GlassCobra 11:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help space CNR, does not have page move history to preserve, does not link to content. MBisanz ^talk 14:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Cut, copy, and paste, maybe? It's a weak one, though. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Cut, copy, and paste#Cut and paste per UsaSatsui. The suggestion is not as weak as he/she has indicated: it is a much more appropriate target for the redirect. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Cut, copy and paste#Cut and paste per 147.70.242.40 (talk · contribs). Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Cut, copy and paste#Cut and paste per 147.70.242.40 - improper cross-namespace redirect. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I've boldly retargeted it per the discussion above. B.Wind (talk) 03:05, 25 October 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 Delete. GlassCobra 11:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-template redirect for userboxen, is not content. MBisanz ^talk 14:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I would like to keep this template but since I created it in April no one else seems to use it. Instead of deletion maybe it just needs to be put in a category where others can find it. Any suggestions? CubBC (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template isn't under consideration here (whether to delete it would be more properly done at WP:TfD, far beyond the purview of WP:RfD); the redirect is. The lack of a colon in the name makes it a redirect out of article space, resulting in a cross-namespace redirect (which is usually frowned upon in Wikipedia, with certain selected, historical exceptions). If the originator of the redirect wishes it deleted, he/she may arrange for a speedy deletion by tagging with ((db-author)); if it cannot be speedied, I'd recommend that it be deleted after the close of this discussion. B.Wind (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, I never thought my simple request was going to get disected like that!! It's like I had made request for water and got an answer about how water is clear, sometimes salty (which is usually frowned upon in Wikipedia), and may come from the sky or the ground or the sky then the ground (a puddle). No one has told me how to kept the template so if follows wiki guidelines. I guess what I'm saying is "Can you give me a glass?" CubBC (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have the glass already, but you need to realize that this is the place where deletions of redirects are proposed, discussed, and (sometimes) carried out. Your "request for water", as I understand it, is not whether or not the redirect Template Retired CF should be deleted (within the purview of the redirect) but what category (or categories) should include the template that you created and moved to a new name (not a purview of WP:RfD). The new name is fine; the old one has its problems and should be dealt with. However, may I suggest asking WP:WikiProject Canada for suggestions for new categories - I'm sure that someone there can think of a couple. Good luck. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - in appropriate cross-namespace redirect. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - malformed title created a cross-namespace redirect. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 21:01, 27 October 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 List of Star Wars races (F-J)#Gorog where it is mentioned. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely CNR to a category redirect, maybe point at a more general star wars article. MBisanz ^talk 14:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless a better target can be found, keep. This page had history which was subsequently merged into a list page, then the list page converted into a category. Redirects of specific minor instances to a category covering the general topic are an appropriate compromise in many situations - including this one in my opinion. Rossami (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not a useful redirect, as the target is not mentioned in any of the articles in this category, as far as I can tell, so this is entirely unhelpful to someone searching for this term. Terraxos (talk) 12:52, 25 October 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 User:Elonka. GlassCobra 11:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely, CNR to a template, duplicated by template function MBisanz ^talk 14:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was under the impression we never redirected article space to other namespaces...--Crossmr (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - cross namespace redirect is inappropriate. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:05, 24 October 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. While I'd tend to agree that anyone using this is likely to know who it refers to and would search by the proper name, there is no consensus for deletion shown. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable right wing neologism –– Lid^(Talk) 11:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Created today - Speedy delete as an attack page. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I created this redirect and I believe it is quite notable. Google finds over a hundred thousand mentions of "Obamessiah", including websites of influential people like Michelle Malkin and news sources such as Newsbusters. -Lapinmies 18:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bulk of the blogosphere is not compliant with WP:RS. This protologism was created in the blogosphere and has not been reliably reported per WP:V and WP:RS. Both "sources" stated above are repeating it as an attack term without attribution or citation. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Redirects don't have to be meet all the policies for articles. If there are 100,000 hits for "Obamessiah", it's likely someone would come to Wikipedia to search on the term, and since it doesn't warrant its own article, the most useful thing is to redirect to the Barack Obama article instead of the search page. PaulGS (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:Redirects for discussion#Neutrality of redirects confirms that WP:NPOV does not apply for redirects, but suggests that WP:V and WP:RS still apply - but this word coined as an attack has not yet made it to multiple mainstream reliable sources as mentioned above. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ::A Google search returned 157,000 pages; a Yahoo search gave me 808,000. Both included a couple articles by Michelle Malkin, who's mainstream media, and with that many Internet hits, even if much is blogs and forums, many people might search Wikipedia for it. The policy you linked to ("If a redirect is not an established term and is unlikely to be used by searchers, it is unlikely to be useful and may reasonably be nominated for deletion. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources), it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms.") seems to me to be less about reliable sources themselves as usefulness as a search term, and there can certainly be cases where a slang term isn't reported in mainstream sources but still widespread on the Internet and useful as a redirect. PaulGS (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - policy states Non-neutral redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term.Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:... The subject matter of articles may be commonly represented outside Wikipedia by non-neutral terms. It is a very notable term in print media. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as inherently POV term; POV redirects should be avoided if possible, and only used when they are clearly helpful. That is not the case here: anyone who knows this term would know to search for Obama instead. Keeping this redirect adds no value for users, and makes us look bad. Terraxos (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say POV redirects should be avoided? The policy says "Note that redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This covers only article titles, which are required to be neutral (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article naming). Perceived lack of neutrality in redirects is therefore not a valid reason for deletion. Non-neutral redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term." PaulGS (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I wasn't aware of that policy; all I can say is that I disagree with it. I don't think we should allow POV redirects except when they're very widely used to refer to the subject (and thus a likely search term). If POV redirects are OK, does that mean Bush crime family (a 3-times-deleted redirect to Bush family) should be recreated? Terraxos (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both "Obamessiah" and "Bush crime family" get several hundred thousand hits on Yahoo, and the latter appears to be part of some book titles, so I'd be fine with "Bush crime family" being a redirect somewhere, whether to the George W. Bush article or some sub-article about criticism of the current president or some such page, or to whoever came up with the phrase (assuming it's some notable figure who has his own article). PaulGS (talk) 03:23, 28 October 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 Keep as plausible typo. GlassCobra 11:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Badly spelled redirect --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Eurovison" seems like a plausible mistyping for "Eurovision", especially if someone is typing quickly, and as the policy says, better to have a redirect than the search screen.
• Keep Very likely misspelling. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Common typo. Lugnuts (talk) 07:24, 22 October 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 Keep. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect seems to be a response to "argument by analogy" being added to a list of "requested articles." However, since the article makes no distinction between these two concepts, the redirect is both misleading (implying that the two concepts are one and the same -- which they are not) and useless (since a reader looking for information about a debate strategy would instead learn only about when that strategy is used incorrectly -- but not about legitimate uses) Minaker (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep until/unless nom's concerns are addressed in a standalone article. The fact remains that most arguments by analogy are false analogies, and the target article does discuss - at least partially - the fallacy of the argument by analogy form. The alternative, retargeting to analogy is a weak one, because the lede states that analogy is an argument. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above contributor's reasoning is based entirely on two highly questionable premises, 1) "that most arguments by analogy are false analogies" (really? according to whom?) and 2) that the only alternative is to retarget to analogy, which ignores the requested alternative that was brought up in the first place before the redirect even existed, which is to give "argument by analogy" its own article. The point of a redirect should be to help a reader find information about the topic they're looking up. The bottom line is that "false analogy" provides insufficient information on the subject because the article is related but tangential and that, as I have stated above, the link is misleading in its implication that the two concepts are the same. Minaker (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then all that's needed is to add the information that you deem is lacking, whether it be in a standalone article or in the target. Absent that, "incomplete information" is not a reason for deletion of a redirect (see WP:RFD#KEEP and WP:RFD#DELETE). Regarding the "implication" - there is no implication in the redirect: it merely points to an article that mentions the terms (note that redirects often are used to point individuals to sets containing them or narrow issues to broader categories containing them). A "see also" type link (which a redirect is) gives no information by itself: to think otherwise is to misunderstand the purpose of the redirect in the first place. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding your comment that "all that's needed is . . . the information": I know! That's why I requested an article on the subject in the first place! Don't tell me to write the article -- the whole point is that I'm the one who wanted to learn more about the subject!
        I see your point about the "see also" purpose of redirects, but I must disagree that a redirect has no implication, since, regardless of its intended purpose, it actually acts as a "see instead" rather than a "see also." If I look up "emotion" and see an article, and at the bottom, in a list of "see also"s, there is a link to fear, that's fine. But if I look up "emotion" and I am automatically taken to an article on fear merely because the article mentions the word "emotion" -- that's not fine. There is a definite implication regardless of whether such an implication was intended that the two are one and the same. At the absolute least, the potential for misunderstanding is there, because now, for all I know, the novel that says "he showed emotion" means "he showed fear." Likewise, when someone looks up "argument by analogy" and they are redirected -- or, in other words, told to "see instead" -- "false analogy," there is indeed an implication, or at the absolute least, the potential for misunderstanding, that the two terms are the same.
        Maybe you're right that I'm misapplying the letter of the law regarding the rules of redirect, but if the point of Wikipedia is to get information, this redirect is potentially destructive (for the reasons mentioned above) yet still unhelpful. If I want to use Wikipedia to find out about argument by analogy, how do I go about this? Right now, there is no way to do so because when I search for that term, I instead get an article on a related topic. Minaker (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the target mentions the term, albeit not overtly. Since the article that Minaker is wanting does not yet exist, we are left with two options: either deletion or keeping the redirect. Clearly the latter is the better option (with the hope that someone is knowledgeable and ambitious enough to overwrite it with a standalone article). As it is, there is no valid reason to delete the redirect right now. B.Wind (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the pagehistory intact. No opinion about whether there is a better target or whether the redirect could/should be overwritten with content. Either can be done without deleting the pagehistory. Be bold! In the meantime, the redirect is more helpful to our readers than a redlink. Rossami (talk) 18:57, 23 October 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 Keep. Conversion to article is encouraged. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book is culturally significant enough to require an article of its own, especially since a search for the book by title redirects to an article on the author -- an article which provides zero information on the content or purpose of the book. Minaker (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - title is mentioned in target; thus a valid redirect until someone overwrites it with an article about the book. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that the "title is mentioned in target" seems a low standard to use as a criteria, and the fact remains that the target fails to provide any information on the content or purpose of the book. The above user has a good point that the redirect is better than providing no information at all until someone writes an article about the book. My concern is that when looking at the "requested articles" list, the link to that title might mislead people into thinking such an article already exists, since links to original articles (for lack of a better term) and links to redirects look identical. Minaker (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above reply completely misses the point of having redirects. Please see WP:R, WP:RFD#KEEP, and WP:RFD#DELETE. If you're proposing to add a title to WP:Requested articles that happens to be a redirect, put a statement such as "currently a redirect" on the same line as the listing. 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the book deserves its own article and you have sources as to why it's notable, go ahead and create one, even if it's just a stub for now. Otherwise, someone searching for the title should be redirected to the article about the author. PaulGS (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The "completely misses the point" remarks above are much more contentious than constructive. My reply does not miss the point of redirects, and I even concede that, in light of the very rules this user refers me to, it's better to keep the redirect for now rather than delete it entirely. It's worth repeating, I actually agreed with your basic standpoint, but you still respond this way because I'm expressing a concern about the consequences of the redirect? Just because I'm discussing the redirect -- the very point of this page -- doesn't mean I don't understand it. As for me creating my own article on the book -- I came to Wikipedia to learn about the book, how am I the best person to create the article? My whole point is that I want to learn about the book and Wikipedia is not helping me to do so. Above user: Please actually take the time to read comments and consider what they're saying before jumping to the accusatory and dismissive stance. I am familiar with the rules and I'm trying to discuss their application here, which is the point of the page. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I or my comments "completely miss the point." Minaker (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - book is mentioned in target article. This is consistent with Wikipedia precedent for books from notable authors when the book itself doesn't have a standalone article. Granted an article discussing the book is far more preferable, but until someone writes it (or at least a stub), this will have to do. B.Wind (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First, I'm not convinced that this book really deserves an independent page. This is an encyclopedia, not a book review site. But whether the book deserves an independent page or not, that page can be created by any editor merely be overwriting the redirect contents. There is no need or reason to delete the pagehistory first. Rossami (talk) 19:03, 23 October 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 List of Dragon Ball characters. That is the main page for the category the page that is mostly likely to have information that people using this link would be looking for. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The parade of Dragon Ball cross-namespace redirects coming to RfD continues. This one has the added "benefit" of a typo. Other entrants in this parade (also nominated):

• List of Dragon Ball Villains → Category:Dragon Ball characters
• Villains (Dragon Ball) → Category:Dragon Ball characters
• List of Androids in Dragon Ball → Category:Dragon Ball characters
• List of Majins in Dragon Ball → Category:Dragon Ball characters
• List of Dragon Ball GT characters → Category:Dragon Ball characters
• List of Robots in Dragon Ball → Category:Dragon Ball characters
• List of Villains in Dragon Ball → Category:Dragon Ball characters

B.Wind (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article to category namespace redirects are in a gray area. I've seen them kept in the past as long as the category being targeted was for readers (not a maintenance category, etc). -- Ned Scott 04:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also be fine with restoring these links to their original article space targets. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Ned Scott. Those that do not have appropriate article space targets should be deleted. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Applying both of the above would mean...

  Deleting (no valid target): Villans, List of Dragon Ball villans (this one was formed by a currently banned user, too), Villains, List of Dragon Ball GT characters, List of Robots in Dragon Ball (note: if an earlier version of List of Androids in Dragon Ball is restored, it would be a valid target for this redirect: a copy of the text appears in this redirect's history), List of Villains in Dragon Ball (formed by currently banned user)

  Restoring an earlier version (and likely take to AfD): List of Androids in Dragon Ball[1], List of Majins in Dragon Ball[2]

  Looking at the histories, I reiterate that deletion seems to only viable option. With three exceptions (noted above), the histories seem to indicate targeting after targeting, all to redirects or the category (two of the three originated as standalone articles, the third had a brief "interlude" as a copy of another article). I have no objection to restoring the older versions of the latter two, but I would also then urge strongly that these be taken directly to WP:AfD upon restoration. B.Wind (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was speedily delete and a slap on the wrists for Gb. _Gb^T/c 06:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect. Created in last 24 hours, so no meaningful history to preserve. --Allen3 ^talk 01:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a recently created cross-namespace redirect, I think this could even be speedy deleted. C Teng ^[talk] 02:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - recreation of a deleted redirect. ((editprotect)) request for a speedy tag left on talk page. Request for speedy deletion left on talk page of admin who protected the redirect. B.Wind (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to speedily delete it if consensus appears to go that way, but not under G4, as there's been no prior deletion discussion that I can see. That said, though, I think that it's a cross-namespace that serves a useful purpose. New users wanting to go to their user page may, in all probability, simply type in User Page at the top - the last entry prior to the redirect being created was the userfication of a page where a user had done just that, and then proceeded to create their userpage just there. Having the redirect to take them to the userpage not only tells them (a) that User Page isn't the right place for them to be doing that, but also (b) points them in the direction of the actual place they should be doing it...(v. hasty answer as am in a bit of a hurry). _Gb^T/c 08:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete twice deleted, twice recreated CNR. Pointing this to a userpage instead of WP:User page simply adds to the confusion. Either way, it's a CNR out of article space. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of confusion, it does point to WP:User page, not any particular userpage or Special:Mypage. _Gb^T/c 15:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: What else would Wikipedia editors be looking for when searching "User Page" in the search box? Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This CNR can appear in any search containing the word "user" and/or "page", not only the phrase "user page", so it can cause confusion for legitimate searches, and having WP:User Page come up as a potential result when people search for (say) memory management terms doesn't make sense. As an aside, this is why the longer the CNR the more harm it does. MartinRe (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above comment and while having a cnr may be temporarily useful to a small number of new editors, it permanently limits the rest of the editors by reducing their ability to filter search results for just encyclopaedic content as search results specifying only article space will still return project space results due to CNR's. Also, CNR's may appear to help new users, but I believe they actually confuse in the long term by blurring the line between wikipedia and the project it creates, which is an important, if subtle, distinction to be aware of. Regards, MartinRe (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as there are userpages on other wesites.--Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 00:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Poor CNR. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 22 October 2008

(UTC)

Ok, well, per my original comment, I'll speedily delete the page and close the discussion now in a snow-like manner, since it was me what started this whole mess in the first place... _Gb^T/c 06:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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