Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 September 8

September 8[edit]

52005 → 11th millennium and beyond[edit]

The result of the debate was keep 52005 and 15232, and delete others. ♠P M C♠ 17:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous future date, unlikely to be entered, and not appearing in the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

435th century → 11th millennium and beyond
15232 → 11th millennium and beyond
15926 → 11th millennium and beyond
10,010s → 11th millennium and beyond
11000 → 11th millennium and beyond

Further comments: Although #2 does appear in an astronomical entry, it doesn't seem all that significant. #5 is conceivable, but not likely. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep 52005 which has some interesting history, and could be a valid target for a link from the article on the satellite. Weak keep 15232 which is of relevance to (and linked from) Solar eclipse. Redirects are cheap. Delete all the rest, especially the last which appears to have been initially created either as vandalism or a test. I checked the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers to see if it might be justified to redirect some of the purely numeric ones, but the answer was pretty clearly no. Redirects are cheap, but pointless redirects are, well, pointless. Xtifr _tälk 07:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 15232 - significant date now mentioned at target with ref. Delete the rest - 52005 may be the year that the KEO satellite is expected to re-enter the atmosphere but I can find no reference to support that. Its also unclear if so exact a date can be accurately pinpointed for the event. Without a basis for mentioning it at the target, its just another random date. WjBscribe 13:27, 17 September 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Main Page redirects[edit]

The result of the debate was delete all cross-namespace redirects and Main Page alternative (tomorrow). No consensus on the remaining three. WjBscribe 13:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of these redirects were caused by page moves from the main namespace to the Wikipedia namespace. They are [almost] all cross-namespace redirects that are currently in the article namespace. They probably should have been deleted when they were originally moved, however, they weren't. A previous RFD for this exact list was closed due to not having the individual pages marked. All of these redirects have been dutifully marked with {{rfd}}. The hard-and-fast rule is that the only page in the article namespace that is not an article is the Main Page. In my opinion, all of these cross-namespace redirects should be deleted. (If anyone would like to reformat this list, feel free.) --MZMcBride 20:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early closure[edit]

Main Page/tomorrow → Main Page/Tomorrow : This has been closed as keep. It is a standard {{R from other capitalization}} which RFD consistently keeps & the provided rationale does not apply to this redirect. I would note that the nomination statement is inaccurate in stating that these are all cross-namespace redirects. This redirect and several others are internal to the article namespace. -- JLaTondre 17:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for all[edit]

Delete per nom. Not necessary or important redirects to keep. Bad precedent keeping such a large stack. Delete as housekeeping. --Quiddity 22:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given the number of items in this mass nomination, please leave this discussion open for extra time so there is adequate time to properly research each of them. Rossami (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, please do leave this open for as long as necessary to check things like possible links from external sites. Also, please note that I have retargeted two of these, Main Page/Errors and Main Page/errors, from the main page to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors; this isn't necessarily an endorsement of their existence, just an improvement given the fact that they currently do exist. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Update: Delete all in the absence of objections to deletion. I have been holding off on voting to see whether there were any objections to the redirects being broken by tagging, since some uses might not be trivially detectable. However, in the absence of any objection, and my own failure to find explicit reasons to retain any of these, I believe they should be deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all which redirect into Wikipedia:-space, and also Main Page alternative (tomorrow); keep the other three. (The other three exist as backlinks to the Main Page itself when a user clicks on the 'article' tab when viewing a Main Page talk subpage.) --ais523 18:26, 12 September 2007 (U T C)
Delete the cross-namespace redirects, per Gavia immer's updated opinion. I'll stay neutral on the non-cross-namespace redirects since I'm really not sure what to make of those, and don't see any compelling reasons to delete (redirects are cheap). Xtifr _tälk 09:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Screech aka Leslie, purple LF sym (Symbiote (comics) → Leslie Gesneria[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 01:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be searched for. Was blanked by IP editor. Reverted and sending for RFD. → AA ^(talk) — 23:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very unlikely redirect. --UsaSatsui 16:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - since it's a harmful redirect. David Pro 21:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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