Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 June 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 27[edit]

Grand theft auto: san andreas stories → Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. While this is a potential search term, there is not content at the target regarding this possible, future game. Anyone searching for this term is more than likely specifically looking for this & is already aware of the current game. -- JLaTondre 15:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pointless, San Andreas stories isn't mentioned ANYWHERE in the article. TheBlazikenMaster 22:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:-( → Wikipedia:Vandalism & WP:( → Wikipedia:Vandalism[edit]

The result of the debate was keep (early close per WP:SNOW). There is an overwhelming consensus forming that we should keep these redirects - the result is a foregone conclusion. No need to keep these high profile shortcuts broken any longer than necessary. WjBscribe 02:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a likely or needed search term. I can't really imagine someone typing in WP:-( expecting to be directed to Wikipedia:Vandalism. --AAA! (AAAA) 05:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy keep. AAA!, please don't take this the wrong way. When you nominate a redirect to a high-profile page such as Wikipedia:Vandalism, you should check "What links here" to see if the redirects are being used. Since they have been used extensively, they need to be kept. Shalom Hello 16:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have reverted your speedy close and moved your close statement to an opinion. High usage because of a template is not a valid reason for a speedy close. If the consensus is to delete, links can be easily fixed by a bot. This was a valid nomination. -- JLaTondre 22:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are correct. I apologize for the mistake. I am still concerned, though, that if the redirect is deleted, someone will have to redesign the redirects or program a bot to do it, and I don't think it's worth the bother. If it makes a difference, I also don't see a substantive reason to delete: I think there's a logical connection between ":(" and vandalism. Shalom Hello 02:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not about accidentally getting to the page. If this were a mainspace redirect, I would obviously agree with you, but it's not. If a large number of people like using this redirect when referring to the policy, I see no reason to force them to use other redirects instead. If you had evidence that silly redirects to Wikipedia pages was a menacing and growing problem that was harming the project, then I would also agree. But so far, all I see is one harmless cutesy redirect. nadav (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Highly used shortcut. It's not intended to be a search term. --- RockMFR 00:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Extensively used redirect. No gain in deleting. ~ João Do Rio 06:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As RockMFR said, it's supposed to be a shortcut rather than a search term.  hmwith  talk 22:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Got nothing to add what has already been said. TheBlazikenMaster 16:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am actually glad to hear about the shortcut and will use it in the future. Dayleyj 16:56, 29 June 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_June_27&oldid=616134805"