Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ASE

Closing instructions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 17:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:ASE

Users don't need shortcuts. Damiens.rf 13:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:JJB which goes to a so-called "friends list". Sarah 03:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? What's it hurting? (Please note that Damiens.rf and AllStarEcho have a bit of an ongoing feud, and I'm not sure this nomination is made in good faith.) – Quadell ^(talk) 13:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you take these to WP:RFD it'd probably be deleted as a cross-namespace redirect. --64.85.210.121 (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What kind of harm is it doing to the project? User shortcuts have been nominated before...and kept. In regards to a good faith nomination, I agree with Quadell's assessment. APK (If You Wanna) 13:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:NOHARM. --Damiens.rf 13:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - See this. APK (If You Wanna) 13:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - See WP:OTHERCRAP. --Damiens.rf 14:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Considering the nom's attitude (above) and the disruptive editing mentioned here, this MfD was obviously made in bad faith. APK (If You Wanna) 14:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no reason to change them, unless they are needed for something, although P:ASTAR (not nominated here) can probably be speedied, as it's in the article namespace. snigbrook (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notwithstanding the probability of this being a bad faith nomination, such a shortcut adds no value to the project. It's also a cross-namespace redirect. Reso lute 16:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bad faith nom, but it's still a cross space redirect. Garion96 (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - serves no obvious purpose, other than being a vanity redirect. Andrei Rublev (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Close per this past discussion and if you delete this, you should delete the following too:

And I'm sure there are others floating around.

I'll also note that the nom is someone who's had a negative editing history with me for a while now so this is no doubt in bad faith. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Users don't get redirects to their User space. It's not helpful to the project. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure vanicruft. The very idea that this should just be kept because it's not used for anything else has got to be a joke. I already end up many a time at the wrong Wikipedia policy/process page by trying to guess the right acronym, we don't need to be directing people to user pages aswell. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary cross-project redirect. I'd not be opposed to any of the others listed as a keep rationale being deleted as well. AniMate^draw 19:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect that serves no purpose but the vanity of the user. I mean seriously, is there someone other than Allstarecho who uses this to contact the user? Also, looking at the redirect mentioned by Snigbrook above, I'd request Allstarecho to disclose any other such redirects that are being used. This debate is given as the right for such redirects. ^LeaveSleaves 19:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've filed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ZN. MickMacNee (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regardless of nom's motives. Cross space redirect with no reason to keep then other people have one. I also see from the previous MFD discussion that 2 of the 3 users involved would have been fine with deletion.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unnecessary. Viridae ^Talk 23:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - shortcuts to essays are one thing. Shortcuts to talk pages are entirely different. Many people in the past RfD page above make compelling arguments for deletion of WP:GURCH and WP:ZN which I believe apply here. Should WP:JJB be nominated as well...? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly a bad faith nom but cross-space redirects are a bad idea however they come about. There are exceptions when a policy or guideline starts and them moves from one to another but this doesn't seem to be the case here. -- Banjeboi 02:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt unless someone can come up with a policy reason to keep. If there was an important essay behind it or an historical reason, then we could keep, however this one has a history of about 1 day. I could speedy delete this as a cross namespace redirect, but at this point let the debate continue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I believe all cross namespace redirects should be deleted. (barring some extraordinary reason) Prodego ^talk 04:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This "vanity" cross-namespace redirect does nothing to help build the encyclopedia. Anomie ⚔ 12:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the delete comments above. Sarah 12:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no reason for individual users to be creating shortcuts to themselves with a WP prefix. Alansohn (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is worth noting that WP:GURCH is now at RfD, and Gurch has placed a speedy delete tag on the redirect. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regardless of nom's or creator's motives. I would not go so far as to call it a "vanity" redirect, but this cross-namespace redirect is definitely not necessary. In addition, it sets a poor precedent for creation of similar shorcuts for other users. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – regardless of either party's motives, it's not good to have random CNRs for specific users; it'd be generally unhelpful to let this stand as a potential precedent for others, like Black Falcon said. Also, it is plausible that a guideline/essay may be created that abbreviates to "ASE" as a shortcut, and userspace redirects shouldn't be a hindrance to that. Jamie^☆S93 17:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I've stated elsewhere, I think "vanity" redirects that just go to someone's user page should be deleted, as it's hardly a shortcut, but redirects to subpages that happen to bear a user's name shouldn't. Take that position with a grain of salt, given the existence of WP:EVULA, but I do think there's a difference here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no, just no.--Otterathome (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all (Yes, I am aware that this discussion only covers one, but my thoughts are the same for the rest). Since these are cross-namespace redirects, they should be nuked. The contents of the target page won't be affected, but there is no reason for any user to have a mainspace redirect. Horologium (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2009 (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 (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.