Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 February 10

< February 9

February 11 >

February 10

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on February 10, 2008

Bloomit → Bloomit Consulting

The result of the debate was closed following deletion of the target article and speedy deletion of the redirects under WP:CSD#R1. mattbr 16:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Double redirect.  UzEE  07:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

All cross-namespace redirects beginning with Wiki

The result of the debate was No consensus. Previous debates have shown there is no community consensus for banning all cross-namespace redirects. This nomination is way to wide to be practical. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

These kinds of redirects are problematic since they make impossible to have a list of all articles beginning with wiki (see "see also" part of Wiki (disambiguation)). So I think all these redirects should be deleted. 16@r (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is so vague, that I do not know what it is about. Can you not list all of them that you want deleting? I really do not like blanket deletes where I do not know what is going to disappear. --Bduke (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, please list and tag all the redirects you wish to see deleted so they can be discussed fully, otherwise this will be closed as an incomplete nomination. Thanks, mattbr 16:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep WikiEN-l: deleting it will cause confusion when people try to find information about the mailing list, and pointing it to a mainspace page with a hatnote would mean replacing an invisible selfref by a visible one. In some cases we should keep cross-namespace redirects to avoid confusion and to avoid unnecessary self-references. Kusma (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Irish twins → Sibling

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Completing for an anonymous editor who tried to use afd and couldn't finish it due to afd requiring the creation of a new page. No reason given, but appears to be because the same anonymous editor had just deleted the "Irish twins" section from the target article and thus thought it was unnecessary to keep. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 19:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I completed this nomination as a courtesy, but I completely oppose it. The section was removed for being unsourced, but I re-added it with a source. Talk:Sibling shows that several people had searched for the term, making a redirect to the article with info about it very useful. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 19:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Without commenting on the IP's original actions, this seems fine now. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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