Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 16, 2009

WP:X[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. Lenticel (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget Single letter redirects imply a core principle/feature/policy of the Wikipedia project (Eg, WP:V, WP:N) and this Wikiproject does not fit that, giving it undue importance. Im thinking External Links. Arma virumque cano (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since when? Since when have they implied that? Since when has the number of letters been a measure of importance? WP:J and WP:BLP are both begging to differ with you. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep 1. User proposes a retarget but doesn't offer any logical ideas of where to retarget to. 2) What the nominator "implies" has been proven false, per Uncle G. Tavix |  Talk  14:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nom proposed WP:External links as a retarget. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 17:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP the reason that some one letter redirects go to policy pages is that some policy pages are one word enteries with the a redirect using the first letter on the world linking to it. For example WP:V links to WIkiedpa:Verfiablity. It is not due to a rule stating that one letter redirects need to redirect to policy pages. It should also be noted that on top of BLP there are no one letter redirects to what Wikipedia is not page or the original research page. Finallly, since there is also no ploicy page that WP:X could logically redirect to it should stay here. If there is in the future it would be worth disucssion but for now there does not appear to be anything we need to do here.--76.65.140.56 (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not sure where or how the implication in the nom was arrived at - nor do I find it anywhere else. Without a target for the "retarget", I'm not sure of the purpose of this nom. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 00:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is also a likely shortcut for the paranormal wikiproject... 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Single-letter redirects suggest nothing about the significance of the target of the redirect, so the only reason to retarget would be if there is a more useful target for the redirect. While Wikipedia:External links could be an alternate target, it already has the WP:EL shortcut; in the absence of a convincing argument about why the redirect would be more useful pointing somewhere else, I say keep as is. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a relevant redirect given that the Greek letter Chi, which looks like an X, has been an abbreviation for Christianity and Christ for centuries. Unless there's a major policy that this would be better suited to I don't see why we can't keep it for now. ThemFromSpace 17:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Speedy delete[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to WP:Speedy delete, and cross-namespace. OlEnglish (Talk) 14:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete (lol!) Per WP:R2; redirect to meta content Arma virumque cano (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an R2. Amalthea 11:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually Wikipedia space is specifiacally exempt from speedy deletion under that criteria.--76.65.140.56 (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:XNR: "If someone searches for "articles for deletion", it's only logical that he is looking for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and not for any encyclopaedia article.".
    And while I still oppose most XNRs, this is one of the very few I find more helpful than not. Amalthea 11:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC
  • Delete as a cross-namespace redirect from the mainspace with no significant page history. 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) 19:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

LV's & Autotune[edit]

The result of the discussion was deleted per original proposed deletion. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected these to Kanye West discography because I thought they were official mix tapes, but apparently they are not. Thus there is no point in them redirecting to a page where they aren't mentioned. ThaddeusB (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of fictional gardeners[edit]

The result of the discussion was Re-targeted to List of professional gardeners#Fictional gardeners. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - misleading redirect. There is no list of fictional gardeners in the gardening article. There does not appear to have ever been a list, either within the gardening article or as a standalone list. Otto4711 (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given how common gardening is as a hobby any such list is going to be enormous and trivial. The people on the list do not appear to be notable as gardeners or even know as being gardeners. There are also definitional issues, given that the first two names on the list are fictional characters called "gardeners" because they talk to "soul trees" and plants. Otto4711 (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to limit it to people known as gardeners by occupation, not as a hobby. The list can be far better than the deleted bare list (or a category) by giving context and explanation for each of the individuals or groups listed. If those two are called gardeners in their source doc, then they can go on the page with an explanation. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no list of fictional gardeners in the target article. If Otto's idea becomes reality, then it can be retargeted to an appropriate subsection of that list. Tavix |  Talk  17:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete List of fictional gardeners shouldn't exist in the parent anyway. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of gardeners/List of professional gardeners (wherever the list eventually settles). - Eureka Lott 02:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Never mind. It's already been done. Keep. - Eureka Lott 02:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of professional gardeners for the moment. I think a separate list of fictional gardeners would be quite sustainable; don't be discouraged off by the opposition here. DGG (talk) 02:36, 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_16&oldid=1138576902"