Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 4[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. -- John Reaves 00:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedians/History → Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians in order of arrival[edit]

The page has no significant incoming links and is, I think confusing. To me, the title implies that the target would be about Wikipedians interested in history or involved with history-related articles. This function is served by Category:Wikipedians interested in history and has nothing to the with "order or arrival". Black Falcon (Talk) 23:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedians using foreign-character sigs → Wikipedia:Signatures[edit]

Implausible search term and no useful incoming links. I was prepared to delete it per CSD R3 (typo, misnomer, or very unlikely search term), but noticed that it was not recently created. So, I bring it here. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

probably left over from a merge, and of no particular use as a redirect. DGG (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure it was merged. Prior to being redirected, it contained only the conversation of a few users. — Black Falcon (Talk) 05:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedians by fields of interest → Category:Wikipedians by interest[edit]

This is an unneeded cross-namespace redirect to the category namespace. It has no really significant incoming links (mostly old archives). The most logical target, Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest, was deleted about a month ago per an MfD discussion. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

CNRs to the category namespace[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. Singularity 09:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These cross-namespace redirects are leftovers from an outdated system of listing Wikipedians. They are not plausible search terms (only a few remain) and have no important incoming links (all are from defunct project pages or user talk page messages posted en masse in 2005). In addition, it is not at all clear whether they should redirect to location or ethnicity/nationality categories.

  • Delete all. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and anything similar. Shalom Hello 20:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, have incoming links, not clearly harmful. Kusma (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The incoming links are all from defunct project pages (e.g. database dumps), really old user talk page archives, or user talk pages that haven't been archived because the users are inactive. Almost all of these links were created in 2005 ... it's extremely unlikely anyone use them. — Black Falcon (Talk) 16:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Incoming links can be fixed. These are impausibles search terms and unnecessary XNRs. That these were used in the past doesn't mean they are a good idea now. WjBscribe 01:06, 11 August 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. -- John Reaves 03:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Queer → m:Queer Wikipedians[edit]

This is a soft redirect to a Meta page titled "Queer Wikipedians", which is itself a redirect. In addition to being an implausible search term (a leftover of an outdated system of listing Wikipedians), the target page serves no real purpose and is an redundant to Category:Queer Wikipedians. The redirect has no significant incoming links and no history worth preserving. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Linux users → m:Linux user Wikipedians[edit]

This is a soft redirect to a Meta page titled "Linux user Wikipedians", which is itself a redirect. In addition to being an implausible search term (a leftover of an outdated system of listing Wikipedians), the target page serves no real purpose and is an redundant to Category:Wikipedians who use Linux. The redirect has no significant incoming links and no history worth preserving. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Vegetarians → m:Vegetarian Wikipedians[edit]

This is a soft redirect to a Meta page titled "Vegetarian Wikipedians", which is itself a redirect. In addition to being an implausible search term (a leftover of an outdated system of listing Wikipedians), the target page serves no real purpose and is an redundant to Category:Vegetarian Wikipedians. The redirect has no significant incoming links and no history worth preserving. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Neopagan → m:Wiccapedians or other neopagan Wikipedians[edit]

This is a soft redirect to a Meta page titled "Wiccapedians or other neopagan Wikipedians", which is itself a redirect. In addition to being an implausible search term (a leftover of an outdated system of listing Wikipedians), the target page serves no real purpose and is an redundant to Category:Neopagan Wikipedians. The redirect has no significant incoming links and no history worth preserving. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Mac users → m:Mac user Wikipedians[edit]

This is a soft redirect to a Meta page titled "Mac user Wikipedians", which is itself a redirect. In addition to being an implausible search term (a leftover of an outdated system of listing Wikipedians), the target page serves no real purpose and is an redundant to Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers. The redirect has no significant incoming links and no history worth preserving. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Other → m:Wikipedians who don't like to be categorised[edit]

This is a soft redirect to a Meta page titled "Wikipedians who don't like to be categorised", which is itself a redirect. In addition to being an implausible search term (a leftover of an outdated system of listing Wikipedians), the target page serves no real purpose. The redirect has no significant incoming links and no history worth preserving. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not per nom, but because this redirect makes no sense at all. "Other" doesn't mean that you don't like being categorised. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 21:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Diamond DA40 Star → Diamond Star DA40[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy close, Pilotboi withdrew the procedural nomination that Ceyockey made on his behalf. BigNate37(T) 04:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originally tagged for speedy deletion with the reasoning "This form of the name of this product is not used for official certificates or advertising." Personally, I do not think this is an unreasonable permutation of the title of the target article. I am bringing this here as a deletion-path correction rather than opting for requesting hesitation in the speedy process by applying Template:hangon User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, the original poster of the speedy deletion, have decided that it doesn't need to be deleted anymore. At first, I looked at it as just a mixup of the words of the real article, but then I realized that is actually a commonly used term, even if it's not correct. A redirect to the correct article is fine. I will remove the RFD, please let me know if anyone else has any thoughts on the subject. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 03:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Eric Muller (disambiguation) → Eric Muller[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page originally with two entries, a red-link and a blue-link, subsequently converted to redirect pointing at the blue-link. Improbable search term; Eric Muller would be used as the dab page if needed, rather than this title. (originally tagged for speedy deletion and re-pathed to RFD) User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should have clarified ... this is an administrative nomination after the redirect was nominated for speedy deletion with the reasoning "Nothing actually links here, and the other Eric Muller was speedied, so nothing to disambig". This nom is a path correction from CSD to RFD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these kinds of redirects are being nominated all the time, I think we need to put some note up at WP:RFD. The reason why we keep them is that (disambiguation) is a common suffix for disambiguation pages, and while this may not be a likely search term for newcomers/non-Wikipedians, people familiar with Wikipedia may be looking for them when they think the page is named as such (because one cannot know whether a certain page uses the main article/article(disambiguation) construction or not). Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 03:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a redirect to a disambiguation page. -- JLaTondre 14:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apologise for this extremely stupid comment. Because these kinds of redirects are being nominated all the time, I didn't even take the time to click the redirect. Delete. This is misleading, because it has the suffix (disambiguation) while it doesn't even redirect to a disambiguation page. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 17:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, bordering on speedy keep, as redirect from well-formed disambiguation title per growing consensus of past RfDs to keep these without exception. Additionally, someone had pointed out there are templates that use the (disambiguation) prefix, yet another reason to keep. BigNate37(T) 04:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a redirect to a disambiguation page. The previous consensus applies to redirects to disambiguation pages. The template argument actually favors deletion. If someone uses a template, they should see it as red so they know a disambiguation page doesn't exist. -- JLaTondre 14:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a redirect to a disambig page. If it was, I would strongly recommend it be kept. Instead, it's a redirect to an article. If people link to this, they are going to expect it to be a disambig page and not an article. We should not confuse them. If there is ever another article on an Eric Muller, a proper disambig page can be created, but until then, this shouldn't exist. -- JLaTondre 14:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, looking quickly at the last couple months shows very few examples of this situation, and you're right—all the ones I am thinking about actually were disambiguation pages at the target. I've withdrawn my recommendation. BigNate37(T) 16:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the person who called for the speedy -- I didn't really know about RfD. As noted above, this page was created to disambig between a notable Eric Muller and a non-notable one who was speedied. Since there's nothing linking to this dab page, I didn't see any particular reason to keep it around.--SarekOfVulcan 13:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. This is not a dab page, nor is it a redirect to a dab page. So it is confusing and useless and should be deleted. If the other Eric Muller becomes sufficiently notable or other notable Eric Mullers turn up, we may want to recreate this as a proper dab page. But until then.... Xtifr tälk 21:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WP:HP → Wikipedia talk:Help Project[edit]

The result of the debate was retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter. WjBscribe 01:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retargeting to Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter. HP is the common and widespread abbreviation for Harry Potter, and the Help Project is currently inactive. Like they did with the redirect WP:EA after Esperanza was shut down, we can let a bot change all links to this redirect. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 01:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see that only 7 pages link to it. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 01:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget. The project appears to be inactive since December 2006, and there's no reason why an inactive project should keep an active one from using a logical shortcut. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom. ~ Wikihermit 14:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom -- it's a rather obvious abbreviation for the Potter project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) 15:41, 6 August 2007
  • Retarget: although the Help Project would seem to be of far broader interest, the fact that it's inactive severely limits its usefulness (to put it mildly). If there's no Wikipedia:WikiProject Hewlett-Packard, then I suppose the Harry Whatsit project has as good a claim to the shortcut as anyone. I just hope we don't end up regretting the decision in a year or two. Xtifr tälk 21:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we get to regret it, we can always renominate the redirect. Melsaran 16:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shortcut links should not be changed often, as they are common in edit summaries and those are impossible to change afterwards. This is probably not a big problem here. However, the Harry Potter project should try to cut down on the number of shortcut redirects they use (other people also want short shortcuts, and the good ones shouldn't all be used by the same few projects). Kusma (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm... What redirects used by the the Harry Potter project could also be used by other projects? Melsaran 15:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WikiProject Pottery? WikiProject Prince Harry? WikiProject Hewlett Packard? Perhaps not very likely, but the geenral point remains that WikiProjects should rather not reserve any possible shortcut. Kusma (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As long as those WikiProjects do not exist, we can safely grant those redirects to WikiProject Harry Potter. Once other WikiProjects exist, we can reconsider. Melsaran 15:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Hatnotes → Wikipedia:Hatnotes[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect, we have WP:HATNOTE etc for this. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 02:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Get Back (Britney Spears song) → Britney Spears' fifth studio album[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete - not mentioned in target article. WjBscribe 04:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was originally deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get Back (Britney Spears song), then it was recreated, before being converted into a redirect. The 'Get Back' song title is only a rumour and this redirect does not need to exist. --Kurt Shaped Box 10:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, mentioned at target. Whether the song exists or not is irrelevant. If the rumour is common knowledge, we should have the redirect to help readers find information about the subject (the pseudo-song). Had there been no information about the song at the target, I would say delete. Note that the article links to Get Back (single) when referring to this song. Pending keep of this redirect, it may be best to unlink Get Back (single) at the target and point it at Britney Spears' fifth studio album aswell, marking both as {{R from song}}. Keeping them both will serve to prevent the potential for duplicate article creation if the song does indeed turn out to exist. On the other hand, if it becomes known the song will not exist and it is deemed not important enough to keep the information at Britney Spears' fifth studio album, one of that article's editors should bring these redirects back here. That's the problem with articles about anticipated things, I suppose. BigNate37(T) 17:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've removed the information about the song at Britney Spears' fifth studio album. Besides being completely unreferenced, "several celebrity gossip websites and magazines" (unnamed) are not reliable sources. --Kurt Shaped Box 17:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you sure? Searching the page for "get back" I see "This was later confirmed by Nate "Danja" Hills as one of his songs for her album called "Get Back"[citation needed]. It was rumored to be the new single, along with other songs, titled "Freakshow" and "Gimme More"[citation needed]." It is obvious from the link Get Back (Britney Spears song) what sort of content one will expect, and there is no harm in having this redirect unless and until it creates confusion by directing readers to an article that does not discuss the title at all. It isn't like we're somehow asserting the song is real; redirects exist in part to help people get to information when they don't know anything besides a few keywords, not to provide the information directly. BigNate37(T) 18:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That info is currently unreferenced - and to be honest, going on past experience I expect it to remain so (I wasn't actually aware that the 'Get Back' thing had actually been re-added when I nominated this redirect). I don't know if you're aware or not but this particular article is a huge magnet for the rumour-mongers with (not mincing words here) crap and lies added to it on a near-daily basis. I'm going to give it a couple of days and remove all mention of it if no-one has managed to come up with a reliable source. Fair enough, if someone manages to reference it then all well and good - I'm just very strongly opposed to the idea of WP giving any credibility to this kind of thing at all (even with a redirect). --Kurt Shaped Box 22:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin: consider me in favour of deletion if this pseudo-song is not mentioned at the target—I haven't bothered to officially change my position based on the instability of the target article. BigNate37(T) 15:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the rumour was never reported in reliable sources, we shouldn't be perpetuating it with content such as this redirect. Extraordinary Machine 23:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've missed the purpose of redirects. They are not content; they assist people in finding content. Please read this discussion to see why the rumour's origins is not of direct implication here. BigNate37(T) 14:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Mosoon → Monsoon[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. Singularity 02:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an unlikely mis-spelling of Monsoon. Ds.mt 12:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In many languages the word is spelled something alike "mosoon"... That's why I've added it. The one that edits 12:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this can aid non-native speakers of English in navigating, as The One That Edits is right; for example, in Dutch it is called a "moesson". Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 13:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag with {{R from misspelling}}. There is only one letter missing?—as long as that doesn't cause confusion with another term, we should always keep a misspelling that is only one letter off. Now if it were bosoon, I'd be hesitant because of the confusion with boatswain. BigNate37(T) 17:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag per BigNate (although I think I'd expect bosoon to be a musical instrument). :) Xtifr tälk 04:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:User-[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 04:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:UBX#Which namespace?, every userbox in template namespace must start with "user" and a space. This is something not everyone realises, and as such there were quite a lot of user boxes starting with User and a hyphen. Yesterday, I weeded out Special:Prefixindex/Template:User-, but I feel that the redirects should be deleted as they are simply not allowed (they don't start with "user" and a space). Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 13:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Standardizing the location of these user templates is a good thing. So is discouraging new templates with variant titles. Note that some of these are linked, and these links will have to be updated. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WP:PER → Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests[edit]

The result of the debate was keep, the arguments provided by CBM have somewhat convinced me. Melsaran 19:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retargeting to Wikipedia:Per. We generally use CAT: for categories (compare with CAT:CSD), and WP: for project pages. CAT:PER exists already. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 14:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • What do you think the chances are of this shortcut being littered in page histories via edit summaries? BigNate37(T) 17:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, yes, that could be. But we can put a hatnote on Wikipedia:Per. And if we take edit summaries into account, we could never retarget a redirect to a project page. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 19:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, that depends. Changing WP:AWB would be disastrous because edits made with the AutoWikiBrowser use that redirect in the summary, but changing WP:SM wouldn't be since WikiProjects don't typically get linked in edit summaries. However, when adding the {{editprotected}} template an editor may mention the fact that they've made a request to edit. I guess what I'm saying is do we think this particular shortcut has a propensity to being linked in edit summaries? I'm leaning towards no, but that would be entirely speculation since I do not respond to such requests. BigNate37(T) 19:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for your explanation. That seems to be a valid concern. Do you know whether there is any tool for calculating the links to a page in edit summaries? Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 20:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds reasonable, but I should note that Perennial proposals may be a better target. >Radiant< 09:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, I considered that, but WP:PEREN is already in widespread use. Also, Wikipedia:Per does not currently have a shortcut, and I couldn't come up with any other than WP:PER. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 14:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep status quo. Redirecting WP: to a category page is unusual though not unheard of (e.g. WP:NEEDCAT; note also WP:JIMBO which redirects to a userpage). Protected edit requests is a page that admins check many times daily, whereas Wikipedia:Per is just an essay and doesn't really need an incoming shortcut because the title of the page is already short. A disambiguation link will suffice. Shalom Hello 20:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a valid point. But as we have CAT:PER, is having WP:PER at the same target really necessary? Melsaran 16:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the one WP policy page that is short enough that it can sit at the top of a category description. If there were actually a page Wikipedia:Protected edit requests, that would be where this redirect points. The reason it points to CAT:PER is because that is the policy. On the other hand, Wikipedia:Per is a very short dictdef essay and WP:PEREN is established already. So I think the current target is the right one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CBM. The category includes the policy. Its therefore logical for the policy redirect to point to the category. WjBscribe 17:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. I think that this is probably the most looked for target out of the all the possibilities. --- RockMFR 17:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Watt (disambig) → Watt (surname)[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. — Black Falcon (Talk) 22:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: page "Watt (disambiguation)" also exists. This is a misnamed DAB page, with a redirect to a surname page! Nominated for deletion because most (if not all) people will go to the correct DAB page name. JohnI 21:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and per precedent regarding "disambig" titles. Shalom Hello 20:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Lloyd LaCuesta → KTVU[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. (Using same form as others in section) CitiCat ♫ 04:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KTVU links to Lloyd LaCuesta, which redirects to KTVU. Pointless and potentially confusing loop. Anastrophe 23:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keepStruck for now Melsaran 22:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC). Lloyd LaCuesta is only known for his work for KTVU, apparently, so he should redirect there. Simple as that. For the loop, well, you can always unlink it if you do not think that he is notable enough for an article. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 14:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this isn't a criticism or belittling of lloyd lacuesta. if you review the list of current and past personalities on the KTVU page (and most television station pages for that matter), you'll see that most are wikilinks to non-existent pages. that is as it should be, until someone writes an article about the person. you are more than welcome to create such an article and expand it - then there will be no need for the bare redirect. if we apply the principle you've described, then all of the current wikilinks would be turned into redirects - but that really accomplishes nothing of value for the encyclopedia. Anastrophe 15:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Do you think that Lloyd LaCuesta is notable enough for his own article? If so, you're quite right, there's no need for a redirect as all redlinks on the page would have to become redirects. Melsaran 22:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: either the redirect should be deleted or it should be unlinked at the target. It doesn't really matter which; both are acceptable solutions with ample precedent. I'm leaning towards weak keep, mostly because we generally need a better reason for deleting redirects (redirects are cheap, much cheaper than the effort required for deletion). But ultimately, it doesn't matter, so I'll stay neutral for now. Apologies to the closer if this doesn't help clarify the closing. :) Xtifr tälk 22:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_4&oldid=1138574446"