Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 December 20

December 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on December 20, 2007

Non-standard shortcuts[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete all. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are non-standard shortcuts to the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces with destinations that have existing standard WP or WT shortcuts. Following a recent MediaWiki configuration change, all standard WP and WT shortcuts have been moved outside the main article namespace to reduce the number of self-referential cross-namespace redirects from the article namespace. As these are non-standard, they remain in the main namespace as self-referential cross-namespace redirects and should be deleted. None of these pages document any page moves, have any significant edit history or have any incoming links. matt br 23:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete improper cross-namespace redirects. –Pomte 01:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - Improper use is exactly why redirects exist. If "improper" use is what stops it from being kept, then what about all the mispelled articles turned into redirects? Are you going to delete Misisipi, just because it's mispelled? Feedback ^☎ 20:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP and WT shortcuts (such as WP:RFD) were a specific group of redirects that were permitted in the main article namespace to redirect users to the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. Cross-namespace redirects from the main namespace are generally considered inappropriate as they blur the line between the encyclopaedic content in the article namespace that anyone can take and use under the terms of the GFDL, and the coordination of writing the encyclopaedia in the Wikipedia namespace. Since WP and WT redirects are no longer in the main article namespace (WP: is now an alias for Wikipedia: and the redirects now exist in the Wikipedia namespace), these redirects are inappropriate (they were beforehand, they are even more so now) and are in the improper place. All the nominated redirects have existing appropriate standard shortcuts which should be used in place of these. Redirects from plausible typos such as Misisipi are perfectly valid as they exist in the article namespace to direct users to encyclopaedic content, and I am not going to suggest the deletion of such redirects. matt br 21:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - they are all non-standard, as has been pointed out, and are superseded by standard redirects. I would even recommend speedy deleting them per WP:CSD#G6. The Hybrid T/C 06:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- G6 specifically requires deletions be "non-controversial". There's already been opposition to these, so they don't qualify.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Mostly as above. Regardless of their status in the past, the new system allowing WP: redirects to be outside of the article namespace makes nonstandard shortcuts like this undesirable, and they can be easily replaced by more properly formatted shortcuts.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Inherent notability → Wikipedia:Inherent notability[edit]

The result of the debate was delete, cross-namespace redirect, I can't see anyone objecting to this. John Reaves 08:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A cross-namespace redirect to a rejected idea no less. Uncle G (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The essay should almost certainly be userfied, which would still result in a cross-namespace redirect. Chaz ^Beckett 12:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cross-namespace redirect. –Pomte 01:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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