Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 14, 2009

Speedy keep[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Consensus seems to be that the advantages of this specific redirect are outweighed by the disadvantages that all cross-namespace redirects share.--Aervanath (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 23:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Let's not be ridiculous here -- violation of a minor policy regulation (if it is even of that status) for the greater good of allowing those editors who are not entirely familiar with WP regulation codes to quickly and effectively find what they need? This is perfectly reasonable. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cross-namespace redirect lacking any meaningful history. Creates confusion through the improper illusion that Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and administrative discussions are part of the encyclopedia. --Allen3 talk 10:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cross-namespace redirect lacking any meaningful history.
      • What sort of history would you prefer? Your assertion is an absurd substitute for opposing content.
    • Creates confusion through the improper illusion that Wikipedia's p...s are part of the encyclopedia.
      • No illusion is being performed. Policy and guideline pages begin with WP: and articles do not -- this is merely a redirect. No one is searching for an article on "speedy keep" except those looking for the Wikipedia guideline. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 21:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, cross namespace redirects are bad, especially from article space. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The depth of your argument makes it almost difficult to defend against. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 21:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, but cross namespace redirects simply should not exist, and that's the limit of my opinion. WP:CNR lays out additional reasons. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipeida rules are meant to be broken when reasonable, as per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. You present a premise, but no argument. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • My argument is at WP:CNR. I'm sorry you disagree, but that's why we have these discussions. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's not a matter of what's written at WP:CNR; it's a matter of interpretation. If WP:Ignore stands to neutralize what is written at WP:CNR for this purpose, an argument in favor of CNR is necessary -- merely stating the premise of CNR is inadequate. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 12:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • WP:CNR makes the arguments against cross namespace redirects (particularly from article space). WP:IAR is a wonderful thing, but having a redirect from Speedy keep to Wikipedia:Speedy keep does not improve the encyclopedia (which is generally the only acceptable time IAR may be invoked). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • On the contrary, the aforementioend redirect does improve the encyclopedia; essentially, that's what this dispute is all about. You do not argue that this redirect is detrimental to Wikipedia -- that is what CNR asserts -- and to use CNR as a basis for complaining that this redirect does not improve Wikipedia reveals your broken chain of an argument. And to assert that this redirect does not improve Wikipedia -- that is a false statement. This redirect redirects users who quickly type speedy keep with the intent of finding the policy guideline on speedy keep. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 18:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It is a meta issue unrelated to encyclopedic content. If you believe there should be an article on "Speedy keep" as it exists within Wikipedia, then that may be something worth considering (though it may not be notable on its own to warrant inclusion). Meta issues like this have no place in the article namespace. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It is for assistance purposes only -- unlike many other Wikipedia policy guidelines, though, the term speedy keep essentially has no other meaning, and anyone searching for it is looking for WP:SK. The same cannot be said for guideline nomenclature like civility or ignore, and so I did not propose redirects for them. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 23:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DESTROY Redirect to meta content from encyclopedia namespace; these are bad. What if there are other ostensible meanings for Speedy Keep? What if someone wants to write an article on it? Arma virumque cano (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 19:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then you'd create the article and add a {{selfref}} dablink there. Like in sandbox. But really, no one looking up "speedy keep" is expecting anything other than the wikipedia policy. This isn't one of the confusing cross-namespace links. - Bobet 09:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What if another man named Barack Obama becomes the new International Chess Grand Master -- should we remove the current article on the current Barack Obama to prevent such an ostensible situation? Your "it's bad" argument is unsatisfactorily hollow. We can worry about the unlikely event of the need for an article on Speedy Keep when it arises. And your "DESTROY" vote undermines your argument by revealing your attempt at brute intimidation as opposed to utilizing clever and well thought out arguments.DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful for navigation, no potential for confusion. - Bobet 09:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • … a potential surprise for readers browsing the encyclopaedia, and a problem for mirrors. Uncle G (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is it a potential surprise for browsers, exactly? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Read the first bullet point at Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects#Arguments for deleting CNRs, which was already pointed to above. Uncle G (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I already did, but re-read it at your recommendation. None of those reasons apply. It's not as though I have created a redirect from Nutshell to a Wikipedia policy entitled WP:In a Nutshell, thereby sending all readers searching for information on the chemical constitution of wallnut shells into the forbidden chambers of Wikipedia policy pages where he or she won't know what hit him or her. When and if an article needs to be written on either the Wikipedia policy of Speedy Keep, or a new television show or rock band by that name joins the Top 10 list, the article can surely be unredirected. Until then, no damage is being done because, ostensibly, no one searching for "Speedy Keep" is not looking for the Wikipedia policy on Speedy Keep. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 12:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a cross-namespace redirect from the mainspace with no meaningful page history. (I see that the definition of "meaningful history" was questioned above, so let me define it: Page history that needs to be preserved for compliance with the GFDL (as in the case of merges) or that contains information that could be merged somewhere or serve as the basis of a rewritten article.) Among other things, cross-namespace redirects blur the distinction between namespaces and, thereby, undermine efforts to convey that distinction to new users. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remarks about the lack of a meaningful history establish a strawman argument -- it is merely a concern for articles that meet all criteria for deletion (including consensus to delete). I find it odd that such an emphasis is being placed on the lack of meaningful history as a basis for redirect rather than an alleviation of a potential ancillary concern once redirection has been agreed upon. It can be virtually assured that anyone looking for speedy keep is either well enough aware of the behind-the-scenes of Wikipedia, including but not limited to policy/guideline pages, etc, or so unfamiliar with Wikipedia, that he or she doesn't realize anything at all and is better served by getting to where he or she needs to go rather than having us worry about confusing him or her. Again, no one is searching for speedy keep other than to locate the Wikipedia policy on said term. This is merely a tool to allow those who quickly type in "speedy keep" rather than "WP:speedy keep" to get to where they are going. It is not nearly akin to producing hidden cracks and chutes in a building for visitors to fall and slip to other floors without even knowing it. The potential for "undermination" is so slim that to worry about it is both a gross overexaggeration of the related CNR guideline and an underestimation of Wikipedia users' understanding. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lack of meaningful history is a necessary condition for deletion, and is frequently noted at "Redirects for discussion", but is itself not a reason for deletion. The reason I (and I suspect the same is true of Allen3's comment) mentioned "lack of meaningful history" is to indicate that the redirect can be deleted without violating the GFDL; if the page had meaningful history, then there could be no talk of deleting it—at least not without first performing a history merge.
        I agree that the redirect is ultimately just a tool. However, as a tool for experienced editors who are familiar with namespaces, I don't consider it to be particularly useful. It just shaves off 3 characters from a 14-character shortcut (WP:Speedy keep) and is much longer than a shorcut like WP:SK. As a tool for inexperienced editors, I think the redirect is likewise unnecessary. Based on the incoming links to this redirect, I would guess that most inexperienced users use this redirect when they see the term "speedy keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or some other deletion discussion venue. In that case, it becomes a matter of getting more experienced editors to link to the policy page rather than to this cross-namespace redirect; deleting the redirect is one of the simpler and more straightforward ways of at least partially accomplishing that. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Policy page shortcut are often cumbersome, as in WP:V (verifiability) that may be tried by editors searching for policy on violence or vandalism. Personal opinion on what is helpful does not trump the tremendous possibility that others will find something useful -- in addition to this redirect not leading to any potential problem (other than its technical violation of a guideline that can be trumped by WP:Ignore) because no one is looking up speedy keep for any reason other than finding WP:SK, there should be no contest on this redirect. Snowball arguments may ensue, however. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 15:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • As many pages to which WP:V could be a valid redirect (basically any page in the Wikipedia namespace that begins with the letter "V"), there are far fewer plausible targets for a two-letter shortcut redirect such as WP:SK, so I don't think that the analogy holds. I do not contest that those looking up speedy keep are looking specifically for Wikipedia:Speedy keep; what I do maintain is that we should direct users to search in the correct namespace (i.e. by using the "Wikipedia:" or "WP:" prefix). You are correct that this is nothing more than my personal opinion and interpretation of guidelines, but I should point out that few of us have anything else (such as definitive scientific results) to offer. As for WP:Ignore... I choose to ignore it. :) –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 16:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • We should direct users? I thought that's what we were doing...redirecting them to the proper location! Not only are all speedy keep searchers looking for WP:SK, but all speedy keep searchers are searching for the policy. To maintain that we cannot allow such a redirect because the person looking for the policy but who doesn't understand that policy pages are not within the article space is too farfetched of a protective fence for us to worry about. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 18:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • The full text of what I said was: "we should direct users to search in the correct namespace (emphasis added). You are talking about the purely technical function of redirection, whereas I am talking about guiding behavior. Your last point essentially hits on the reason that Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects still contains distinct "for" and "against" sections. Namely, differences of opinion about cross-namespace redirects and the porousness of namespaces are, to a certain extent, irreconcilable, and discussion frequently boils down to expression of competing opinions—reasoned opinions, but opinions nonetheless. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 17:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I commend your summation -- but as a useful tool, and with CNR potentially neutralized by IAR, why the forceful push for deleting this redirect? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 18:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • My reason for continuing to support deletion ultimately comes from the fact that I consider the disadvantages of having the redirect—one CNR by itself is not an issue, but the precedent it sets can be—to outweigh the advantages, though I certainly won't lose any sleep if the redirect is kept. I do not doubt that the redirect is a tool and has a use, but it's a question of precisely how useful we think it is (not very, in my opinion) and whether that utility justifies the real or perceived (it depends, I suppose, on one's general stance on cross-namespace redirects) drawbacks of the redirect's continued existence. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 22:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Perhaps a precedent for useful, non-flagrantly destructive cross-name redirects is a good thing. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 04:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for closing admin, could this page be protected against recreation when it is deleted? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Sleepy's[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted and Sleepys moved into it's place. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is too vague to be useful, and is technically inaccurate. Sleepy's is also a well-known mattress retailer (with no article currently), whereas the Sleepy's here is a talker called Sleepy's Multiple Worlds which has very little information on it aside from its name in the relevant article. MSJapan (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, ambiguous. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This should really be an article - on the mattress retailer. The redirect makes zero sense whatsoever. Rebecca (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've repointed the redirect to Sleepy's multiple worlds, which was the intended target. No objection to an article on the mattress retailer if someone writes one, though. Zetawoof(ζ) 11:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only partially solves the problem, I think; the reason I found this was because of an article ref, and the bluelinked "Sleepy's" (which was clearly referring to the retailer) went to the talker. Frankly, I think the retailer is more well-known than the program (which I had never heard of myself prior to this), so I'd rather it was redlinked pending an article than bluelinked to redir someplace that most people are not going to expect it to go. MSJapan (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and turn it into a proper disambig page. I would agree that the Sleepy's mattress store chain is definitely notable (If you do a Google search on the term "Sleepy's" the entire first page is devoted to it)... and probably far more notable than the current re-direct. Blueboar (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect There is now a Sleepy's wiki page that this term can redirect to. The page was published under "sleepys" since that is the more common search term and the website url. 9:42 21 May 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SleepysInc (talk • contribs)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Tji[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted as G3 Vandalism. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete remnants of a Move Vandalism. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 21:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • hmmmm... seems its Speedy material... o-well, its my first nominated Redir. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 22:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Zygmunt Chajzer[edit]

The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Article] is a person and I think it shouldn't be redirected to a TV show article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.205.186.127 (talk • contribs)

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

WP:ISOL[edit]

The result of the discussion was Kept. No consensus for deletion. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cross namespace redirects. Per Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects, redirects such as these should be deleted upon creation. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, although if/when this project moves into mainspace, the redirects should be recreated. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This comment seems to be a misunderstanding. The redirects are at "Wikipedia:ISOL" not "WP:ISOL" (fixed), and the "mainspace" is not the place for Wikiprojects or administration. —Centrx→talk • 21:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suspect he meant Wikipedia space. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects touches hardly at all on redirects from namespaces other than the main article namespace, and all of the reasons for deleting cross-namespace redirects (such as their effects on mirrors and on readers) do not apply to other namespaces. Most discussions of cross-namespace redirects have focussed solely upon the article namespace, and the arguments brought to bear do not stand up other namespaces, partly because other namespaces are not problematic in this regard.

    These redirects under consideration here are not in the main article namespace. They are in the project and the project talk namespaces. All four of the bulleted arguments at Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects#Arguments for deleting CNRs do not justify their deletion. Indeed, those arguments explain quite clearly how these redirects are not harmful in the way that redirects out of article namespace are. "Some mirrors duplicate the main article namespace but not the project namespace." says bullet point four, for example. Thus these two redirects are not duplicated on mirrors, and do not cause the problems for mirrors that cross-namespace redirects in the aricle namespace would.

    You'll need a better justification than simply "per Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects" for deleting cross-namespace redirects that exist in the project namespace, because that essay doesn't deal in such redirects; nor do most of the discussions on its talk page. The few discussions on its talk page that do deal in such redirects, such as this, even say explicitly that we do not delete redirects from project space to user space as a matter of course. Uncle G (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The second and third bullet point seem relevant to me. The second bullet point delves off in to issues of encyclopedia content, but namespaces were added as a way to organize content. Having a redirect from one namespace to another defeats this organization. CNRs also seem to impact search results (again, WP:CNR discusses the issue as it impacts article searches, but for people trying to search project space I imagine the problems are similar). And again, the lead of that article states "the general consensus seems to be that newly created cross-namespace redirects should be deleted". —Locke Cole • t • c 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • … when that consensus has been people talking almost solely about redirects from the article namespace. As I said, and I repeat: Most discussions of cross-namespace redirects have focussed solely upon the article namespace; that essay doesn't deal in other sorts of cross-namespace redirects; nor do most of the discussions on its talk page.

        You are misreading the second bullet point, missing out the all-important word "encyclopaedic". Neither the project nor the user namespace are parts of the encyclopaedia proper, and the argument is thus totally irrelevant. As I said, and I repeat: All four of the bulleted arguments do not justify deletion.

        You're using literalist readings and ignoring the underlying discussion that was had, and thereby missing the fact that the CNR discussions have never actually focussed on this aspect of cross-namespace redirects, and when they have touched upon it (as they did in the talk page section linked to above), the discussion has been quite different to the case of redirects from the article namespace. That the people who wrote the essay wrote it in an overgeneral form, because they simply didn't consider this aspect of the issue, is not a justification for falsely extending it to cover this case.

        You've still to show that better justification. Uncle G (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cross-namespace redirects are and always have been a problem only when in the main, article, namespace where encyclopedia articles are found. For example, it is regular practice to redirect from Wikipedia: to Help:. Furthermore, the content of the page in question is suitable for the Wikipedia: namespace; for example, it is not a redirect from Template: to a divisive userbox in User:. Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects, contains reasons against, and pertains only to, redirects from the encyclopedia space to the ancillary "pipeworks". An out-of-context quote from Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects does not render it inappropriate to create redirects from a secondary namespace (here, Wikipedia:) to the primary namespace (here, User: in User:Tony1), that do not interfere with the encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 21:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's an organizational issue: why should we have WP redirects pointing to userspace? It may also be misleading if the shortcut is included in discussion. Also, unless WP:CNR is incorrect, it can affect those attempting to search the Wikipedia namespace (because they will now get results from User space). I never, ever, said it was affecting the encyclopedia, please don't prop up strawmen. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The content is appropriate for Wikipedia space. It is a suitable search result for Wikipedia space. Affecting the encyclopedia is the only prevailing reason why ordinary cross-namespace redirects are deleted, and redirecting from the encyclopedia space is the subject of Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. If organization is the issue, the relevant remedy is to have the page moved or copied from User space to Wikipedia space. —Centrx→talk • 04:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Parodies of Sarah Palin[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. Lenticel (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used. Bonewah (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it is not being used? See Wikipedia:REDIRECT#Suppressing redirects. The talk page content needs to stay. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know its not being used because i checked the "what links here" tool on the redirect page. Having said that, ive never seen the suppressing redirects link you provided so i didnt know that leaving them around was preferable. Bonewah (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Linking from other articles isn't what redirects are used for. In fact, linking to/through redirects should be avoided. It might be helpful to read all of Wikipedia:REDIRECT, and especially Wikipedia:REDIRECT#Avoiding broken links on merges. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strikes me as clutter, personally, but who am i to argue with the rules? Thanks! Bonewah (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see now, its so you can actually get to the previous page (history and talk). Ok got it. Bonewah (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as a redirect from an article whose AfD verdict was that it should be moved to the target page. Pages outside en:WP may point to this redirect page. My note to Bonewah about this RfD nomination and related edits may also be of some interest. -- Hoary (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hoary. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a result of the AfD. DGG (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Elizabeth de la vega[edit]

The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else uses this redirect. Ive never nominated a redirect for deletion, if this is not a valid reason, please leave a note on my talk page. Thanks! Bonewah (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a probable search term. Someone who types "elizabeth de la vega" in the Wikipedia search box will not arrive at Elizabeth de la Vega without this redirect. —Wrathchild (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for reasons given by Wrathchild. PaulJones (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete because the redirect Elizabeth De la Vega exists. Explorer09 (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:All your article are belong to us (AYB)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion. I can't think of any reason to have this cross-namespace redirect. csd-r2 applies to redirects in the other direction, but doesn't appear to mention redirects from WP to article space. Onorem♠Dil 11:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I saw this earlier and thought the exact same thing. It seems pointless and can't see any reason why it's needed. While I can kinda imagine someone thinking a WP-space page might exist of it, I see no need to redirect it to the article for this. Very bizarre, really. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. —Wrathchild (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a cross-namespace redirect, created to insert a joke into a policy page (diff), that serves no useful function. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_14&oldid=1037921995"