Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Precedents/Deleted

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following are archived discussions for redirects that were deleted. (Discussions for redirects that are kept are on the Talk: page of the redirect.) The vast majority of redirect discussions are not archived; these particular ones have been kept because they were lengthy and/or they illustrate a precedent.

These discussions are no longer active; please do not edit them.

Espewranto

[edit]
  • Espewranto
    • Eclecticology July 3, 2002, because : This mis-spelling is likely the result of a typo from hitting e and w at same time on keyboard; not every unsuccesful search merits an entry.
      • Toby Bartels, Wednesday, July 3, 2002 : I'm not sure that I agree. If a typo occurs once, then that strikes me as evidence that it will probably occur again. If storage capacity is not an issue to Wikipedia (and I don't know about that one way or another), then I would argue that every typo encountered in nature does merit a redirect.
    • Eclecticology July 6, 2002 : This is really a question of how much hand holding we can do. At some point the searcher has to accept responsibility for his own errors. I would make this distinction: In a spelling mistake the person simply does not know the correct spelling of a word, and, at least with some of the more predictable misspellings or illiterate usages such as irrevalent the user can probably benefit from a little help. In a typo the user likely knows the right spelling, but simply hit a wrong key on his keyboard. We all do that. We probably all soon recognize this error when it gives no results. "Espewranto" gave me a single hit on Google, and that was from a long portuguese language list of books for sale from a spiritist shop in Curitiba, Brazil where it could very well also have been a typo. In a bigger picture, by setting this kind of article that can be found with an internet search engine, we are giving these typos a presence and a life that they would otherwise never have had.
      • Toby Bartels, Saturday, July 6, 2002 : That's a reasonable point.

SurJection

[edit]
  • SurJection, nothing links to it. Redirects to surjection. Looks like its only reason for being is that someone might accidentally type the word with a capital `J' in the middle of it in the searchbox. Which I think is highly unlikely -- hawthorn
  • BiJection, the same. -- hawthorn
    • CamelCase artifact. It's useless in my view. Just clutter up search results and quite distracting at that. I realize that there are CamelCase Wikilinks actually wikilinked out there, but those 2 apparently aren't. I recommend deletion, although it's not urgent. --Menchi 04:53 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Looking at the page histories, both the above are remnants of the CamelCase days. What's the policy on those? —Paul A 04:49 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I used to favour keeping these redirects, but apathy has struck, so I can't be bothered to oppose their deletion any more. Apathy - the great enabler :) Martin 16:10 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Google confirms that there are no links to these URLs anywhere on the visible web. Delete. The Anome 08:16 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

George Woshingtin

[edit]

First RFD listing

[edit]
  • George Woshingtin → George Washington. Nonsense misspelling. RickK 19:56, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Quite. In fact, I gave this exact example earlier on this page trying to get Helmuth von Molke deleted. I didn't think anyone would actually take the idea seriously...Mackensen 21:05, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's entirely useful for those who can't spell very well. Also, Mackensen, don't suggest a redirect if you plan to later vote to delete it. — Mr. Grinch 33451 (Talk) 14:50, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • That comment above was quite obviously not a suggestion, but an example of something absurd. RickK 19:19, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • Rare typo (Google finds no hits), delete. Noel 09:41, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Too rare. - User:Docu

Second RFD listing

[edit]
  • George Woshingtin has been created again. As there seems to be some confusion about the matter, allow me to make several points. Woshingtin first appeared in the pages of wikipedia when I offered it as an example of an absurd redirect when trying to have Helmuth von Molke deleted. Later, User:33451, who has been under suspicion in the past of trolling, created it as a redirect. When I and several other users objected, he cited my post as the justification (see here for the discussion). For about the last eight days this redirect has passed from creation to deletion and back again - I'm not even sure how many times. Google reports four hits for "Woshingtin" - three of which come from discussions over this redirect. This is not a useful mispelling and, given the discussion above, I do not believe it was created in good faith. Could we please end the madness? Mackensen 19:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • See Vandalism in progress (cf Silver Proxy) for more activity related to this redirect. Mackensen 19:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • So just keep it. That'll end the madness. anthony (see warning) 00:29, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree on this one: (1) redirects are cheap; (2) don't feed the trolls. • Benc • 22:19, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I fail to see why we should either i) put up with trolls, or ii) encourage incorrect spellings. Nuke it. Noel 21:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • I fail to see how keeping a redirect encourages incorrect spellings. anthony (see warning) 03:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • A redirect based on an incorrect spelling? You don't see? Bearcat 07:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • No. I don't see. How is having a redirect based on an incorrect spelling going to encourage incorrect spellings? anthony (see warning) 20:01, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
            • That's what Anthony is asking—how does a redirect encourage bad spelling? By this logic, we also need to get rid of Hillary Duff so we don't encourage people to spell it with 2 L's. El Chico! Talk 17:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Support deletion. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's cheap. It's harmless. Further, why has it been deleted before the decision was made here? — Stevietheman 15:20, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • A decision was made. Then somebody who didn't like the decision decided that the discussion was insufficient, and recreated it. Then it was deleted again, after more discussion. Bearcat 07:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Just to end this madness once and for all. The only problem is, Bearcat seems to delete things like this without even looking at the discussion. He even deleted Queen/Band, which had an edit history, and when asked about it, refused to undelete. — i386 | Talk 18:45, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I did this ONCE. Don't even try making it sound like I make a habit of inappropriate deletions. Bearcat 07:14, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, but you deleted a redirect with an edit history—Queen/Band—and when User:33451 pointed this out to you, you failed to undelete it. — El Chico! Talk 17:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I fail to understand the reasoning going on here. People say "keep", because we aren't supposed to feed the trolls. Its creation (as I've noted repeatedly) was itself a trollish activity. To retain such a useless redirect, created in bad faith, is itself encouragement. Once we allow this one, there shall be precedent for keeping any odd redirect. We'll have crap like James Munroah and Coffee Annan. Realize that the links made in Wikipedia propagate throughout web because of mirror sites and Google. We have a responsibility to NOT pollute the pool, as it were. Mackensen 19:48, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • If its creation was a “trollish activity”, only you are to blame, as you suggested it in the first place. You are calling your own actions trolling. Of course, that assumes it was created in bad faith, but I don't see how a useful redirect is bad faith or trolling. — i386 | Talk 18:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • You've got a real problem reading for context if you think Mackensen was suggesting it as something that should be in the Wikipedia -- he was quite clearly suggesting it as something that shouldn't be here. Bearcat 07:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Why argue this entire thing out? There's no reason to keep fighting this. A determined user, SilverProxy, attempted to move pages in such a way that George Woshingtin would have to be kept becuase it had the edit history of the real article. Judging from how strong the support is here, I'm creating it and keeping it. — —WikiWatch (Talk) [[]] 19:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I've just a tiny suspicion that there's more than a little sock-puppetry going on in this debate. Delete under speedy deletion provisions. -- The Anome 19:40, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not a sock puppet. Look at my history. -- Stevietheman 05:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • This whole discussion is absurd. There's absolutely no valid reason for this redirect to exist, and even less for it to have been recreated and deleted and recreated again multiple times. Bearcat 07:11, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a harmless redirect. Guanaco 21:02, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion

[edit]

A redirect deleted by User:Bearcat, who completely ignored the fact that it had a discussion underway at RfD. — i386 | Talk 13:50, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • You'll be happy to know I accidentally re-created it and immediately put it for up deletion again. For the record, I regard both it and Helmuth von Molke to be absurd and unnecessary. Mackensen 21:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Huh? I believe that it was you who suggested this, while voting on Helmuth von Molke. You said that we should also have a redirect at George Woshingtin. — i386 | Talk 13:57, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • The context of his comment quite clearly marked that as something that shouldn't be done, not something he was suggesting as a good or useful idea. Bearcat 15:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The original discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion was good enough justification for it to be deleted. There's no need to have it again. Keep deleted. — Michael Snow 21:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Ah, not so much. At the time it was deleted there was only one vote to keep and one vote to delete. The other delete vote was made after the link had gone red. — i386 | Talk 13:57, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Not so much "ignored" as "failed to notice", as I pointed out. The redirect is also utterly unnecessary, as I also pointed out, unless you're offering to create redirects for every conceivable misspelling of every single article on Wikipedia. Bearcat 00:08, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • When you saw that the page had an {{rfd}} tag on it, why didn't you go to the Redirects for deletion page and look at the discussion? Sounds irresponsible to me. — i386 | Talk 13:57, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Sounds more like "when something's that obviously stupid, I don't really care" to me. Also sounds like you're the only person who cares, just FYI. Bearcat 15:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Considering the number of times this has been deleted, apparently a lot of people care. anthony (see warning) 14:03, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • Yes, a number of us care that it not exist. Mackensen 14:48, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • You can't just use your opinion to override RfD decisions. Because you think it's stupid, doesn't mean that the community does. — i386 | Talk 12:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • There was no opposing RfD decision to be overridden. Everybody except you voted to delete. Bearcat 00:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Worthless. Keep deleted. Postdlf 22:28, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • If we don't undelete this and allow it to stay, it's just going to keep being created by anonymous IPs. This only causes pain for administrators to delete the page, and Mackensen is obviously a hippocrite, since it was her who originally suggested this page. — i386 | Talk 12:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep undeleted deleted this and ALL of the stoopid misspellings that have been created by trolls over the past week. And although I don't claim that i386 is the troll who has been making all of the other stupid misspellings, he is clearly trolling on this issue, as has been discussed on the RfD page. The only people who are recreating it are trolls. RickK 23:25, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • I've change my mind. It's clear from other nonsense posted by i386 (his "WikiWatch Foundation" garbage for starters) that he IS the troll who keeps recreating this. i386 has used many, many, MANY sock puppet names in the past, and it's pretty obvious that this nonsense is more of the same. RickK 19:17, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Please note that the ONLY Google hits for this spelling are from Wikipedia and its mirrors. This is a majorly bad advertisement for Wikipedia. RickK 23:27, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • RickK, I assume you meant "keep deleted" rather than "keep undeleted". Andris 23:36, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • Sigh. Yes, I meant deleted. RickK 04:56, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - Agree with Rick - Tεxτurε 23:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. If this misspelling is not present anywhere, except Wikipedia, we don't need it. Andris 23:36, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Agree with Andris. --Edcolins 21:28, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted and block 33451's sockpuppets/IPs when he tries to recreate it. (Yes, they are the only ones who have made and remade this nonsensical redirect.) —No-One Jones (m) 21:34, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Guanaco 00:57, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Useless. Jayjg 06:00, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Third RFD listing

[edit]
  • George Woshingtin -> George Washington.
    • Once more unto the breach, dear friends. I've prepared a summary of the tortuous history of this redirect. I originally suggested it as an example of an absurd redirect during the RfD debate over Helmuth von Molke (this was back on August 12, I think). It was created by 33451 The original RfD was on August 30 (see diff here), and the vote was 4-1 to delete, with the only vote in favor of keeping from 33451. It seemed clear to me, and others later, that this creation was not in good faith. It was re-created on September 7, after the consensus to delete, and was speedy deleted (I believe by Bearcat). The article came back that same day, because I accidentally re-created it by putting a delete tag on it (I did not realize it had been speedy deleted–freak accident, really) (see diff here). My listing was noted and quickly processed by Michael Snow, who noted that it had already gone through the process and been deleted (diff here). The redirect was created again on September 9, where the current RfD discussion now resides. The vote there was, admittedly, inconclusive, but many of the votes in favor came either from people reported for vandalism (SilverProxy), or people using sockpuppets (33451, WikiWatch). To cap the matter, the discussion on Votes for undeletion, which, given the successful deletion process back in August, strikes me as the most logical place to hold debate, was very much in favor of keeping it deleted. The redirect was undeleted in good faith by Guanaco, who was unaware of the strange history of the matter. Thus, at his suggestion, this has been listed a final time so as to put a rest to the matter. And yes, for the context-impaired, I vote to delete. Mackensen 01:50, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Who's George Washington? I always spelt it Gorge Woshingten.... delete ugen64 03:23, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm still all about the delete on this one. I also swore like a banshee when I saw that this was back for yet another kick at the can. Like, we've got to eventually let this stupidity rest. Bearcat 03:48, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, once and for all. I voted keep in one of the early RfDs, but the consensus to delete was clear and the recreation/undeletion escapades have been a supreme waste of time for all involved. Bury this troll and be done. • Benc • 08:55, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Matrixism

[edit]
  • Matrixism → The Matrix or New religious movement --As per RfC, references to the alleged New religious movement "Matrixism" have been deemed non-encyclopedic and removed from The Matrix (see: Talk:The Matrix#RfC). Original VfD. Most "Matrixism" references in Wikipedia were originally, and repeatedly, added by linkspamming vandals. Keeping Matrixism as a redirect invites the attention of said vandals. Non-encyclopedic, probable hoax. One person setting up a website does not warrant recognition in Wikipedia. Obscure. Philwelch 06:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep as a redirect to New religious movement or New religious movement#Fiction-based NRMs, include appropriate reference to Matrixism there. The Matrixism faith currently claims over 500 followers according to their FAQ. May not be sufficiently significant to warrant its own article, nor an appropriate addition to the Matrix article, but it's a useful example of a Fiction-based New Religious Movement (especially one in its early development). Although it could be a hoax, there's currently insufficient evidence either way, therefore removing references to it on that basis constitutes religious discrimination and a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV. (This vote originally posted Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matrixism (2nd nomination), see for further discussion.) KickAir8P~ 01:16, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
      • If there's "insufficient evidence either way" about whether a purported religion even exists or not, the purported religion is not notable enough to warrant mention in Wikipedia--it is unencyclopedic. Philwelch 06:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • There is not "insufficient evidence" of the existence of Matrixism - the observable fact of at least one declared adherant shows it exists. There's insufficient evidence as to whether or not it's a hoax, and all of that's negative data (specifically, that there's nothing indicating its existence but the website and a number of posts on various boards from a few IP addresses) - I haven't seen one piece of affirmative information indicating it's a hoax (and I've looked), not even from any of those voting for deletion on that basis. Without affirmative data, any hoax assertion against a religion (even if it's a NRM) is POV. KickAir8P~ 15:45, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
          • It it's a hoax, then it's a nonexistent religion masquerading as an actual religion. This is what I meant. Obviously, it exists as either a hoax or a religion, but there's insufficient evidence that it exists as a religion. Philwelch 17:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • The only evidence for the existence of any religion is people who stand up and say "This I believe" - everything else that can be considered evidence derives from that. The people who believe in Matrixism have done this on a website that's available for any Wikipedian to verify. That they've done so anonymously is no bar to the expression of their faith. Although this may be a hoax perpetrated by one person who's lying about his belief in Matrixism and is falsely claiming 500+ converts, without affirmative evidence of that the assertion that Matrixism is a hoax is POV. To say something like "Critics claim Matrixism is a hoax because _____" is NPOV, but that means including a reference to Matrixism in an appropriate article like New religious movement, which means this should be redirected there instead of deleted. KickAir8P~ 20:15, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
              • Actually, if there are some 500 "Matrixists", you would expect far, far more widespread evidence of its existence from blogs, forum postings, etc. All the evidence that *does* exist could have easily been created by one or two people. Wicca is mentioned on thousands if not millions of independent websites by different practitioners, the Branch Davidians lived in an independently observable compound, and LeVeyan Satanism has a body of published literature. Matrixism has...one Geocities website, a series of forum postings, and a Wikipedia linkspamming campaign perpetuated by remarkably one and the same range of dialup IP addresses. Philwelch 20:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                • That's all true. It's also all negative evidence. Does anybody have affirmative evidence? If not, the assertion that Matrixism is a hoax is POV. If so, then this redirect should point at Hoax, a reference to Matrixism should be added to one of the sections, a brief blurb on the reason should be included in the edit summary, details of the evidence should be included on the talk page, and this redirect still shouldn't be deleted. KickAir8P~ 01:16, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
                  • Matrixism isn't a notable hoax, it isn't a notable religion, and it isn't a notable anything. — Phil Welch 08:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Also, "unencyclopedic" is not an absolute - a fiction-based New Religious Movement with between one and a bit over five hundred adherents may not warrent it's own article, but a reference to it can be encyclopedic in the proper context, such as an example in New religious movement#Fiction-based NRMs. KickAir8P~ 15:45, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
          • Except such a reference, in order to be NPOV and factual, would have to have qualifiers indicating that there's no evidence whether or not it's a real religion or not, which would make it sort of a useless example. Philwelch 17:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • The [website] is evidence of it's existence, the lack of other evidence can be presented to maintain NPOV. This doesn't hurt it as an example of a New religious movement, that's a common criticism of NRM's. KickAir8P~ 20:15, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
              • Until we can be reasonably certain that it's an actual religion, it's useless. Any point you may want to make about Matrixism showing a trend of fiction-inspired new religious movements falls apart if we aren't certain whether it actually is a religious movement. Philwelch 20:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                • You're setting the bar unreasonably high for a NRM - adherants of minority non-traditional religions have a vested interest in hiding their identities to avoid persecution and ridicule, making verification difficult - and that lack of high-level verification can be noted to maintain NPOV. And I wasn't trying to establish a trend, I don't think there is one. In New religious movement#Fiction-based NRMs I indicated three unrelated examples of a rare-but-notable (IMHO) subset of New religious movements. KickAir8P~ 01:16, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
                  • Nonsense. There are plenty of new religious represented on Wikipedia. Of course, these are only the new religious movements we know to exist. — Phil Welch 01:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete per vfd (which really was the proper place to bring it back to after the merge was rejected). —Korath (Talk) 12:03, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • I wasn't sure - there are two "Delete and Redirect" votes there, both of which qualify as "Keep" since the article now is a redirect. Moving it here seemed to be the wiki-appropriate way to clear up the confusion. KickAir8P~ 15:45, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nonsense, not a real religion, not notable. RickK 04:14, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • This makes three votes for "delete", counting the original listing as a vote, opposed to one "keep" vote. — Phil Welch 05:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep - no harm. If someone looks up "Matrixism", they'll wind up at "The Matrix". Makes sense to me. - Pioneer-12 06:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • If you've checked the edit histories of The Matrix, List of religions, and New religious movement, you'd see that it invites linkspamming vandals. They use the redirect as rationale for linkspamming these articles. In the interest of stopping vandalism, deletion is the best option--"Matrixism" doesn't refer to anything notable and reported in the Wikipedia. — Phil Welch 06:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep some people might find it interesting, especially if they are writing a paper on pop-culture, cults, new age religion, or obscure religions. WikiPedia should be a place were theys types of things can be found, with factual and unbiased info. --Mista-X 04:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • . You are right in your premises. But there is no "factual and unbiased info" exist about "matrixism", which was the main reason of the deletion of the article. Mikkalai 21:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Nonsense, not a real religion, not notable, not going to happen, there is no spoon. - UtherSRG 19:58, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. If all it takes to prove a religion's existence is a website, I'll be right back after I create kbdankism.com. You're all welcome to join, of course. We have plenty of spoons. --Kbdank71 20:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This appears to be nothing more than a single website pretending to be a movement, helped along by a very energetic person who insists on re-adding references to it over and over despite the objections of other editors. We are trying to find verifiable info about this groups, but there apparently isn't any. -Willmcw 20:11, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete this nonsense. violet/riga (t) 20:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. nonnotable. Mikkalai 20:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. As per my original vote, not notable. -- Mwanner 21:20, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Failed to establish its notability, or even its existence. -- Curps 21:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. nonsensical. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:32, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not notable AND nonsensical. --TheGrza 06:01, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. No proof of (notable) existence and there are many others like this one around. Levthanatos 13:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. There is evidence of its existence and though peole may not agree with it Matrixism is not nonsensical. To say there in absolutely no evidence and that the religion is non-sense shows an entrenched and biased point of view. If it is good enough for religious scholars it is good enough for me. ~Anonymous (66.81.143.238 19:33, 4 May 2005)
    • Delete - Delete this fan fiction wannabe - Tεxτurε 15:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirects

[edit]
[edit]
  • Redlink -> Wikipedia:Redlink. Self-reference, shouldn't be in the article space. RickK 21:46, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • What about Admin, which redirects to Wikipedia:Administrators? Not to mention RfD, which redirect here! Noel (talk) 19:50, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • PS: Not that I have any great attachment to this redirect (I'd be happy to see it go away), but I don't understand what the dividing line is between x-space redirs to Wikipedia: that we keep, and those we ditch - is it only the most notable ones, or what? Noel (talk) 12:37, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, obviously. jni 15:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Checking the page history, I see that this is the result of a (justified) page move. On another note, Admin should also probably go. — Itai (f&t) 15:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Admin

[edit]

Stubs

[edit]

Confessed Wikipediholics

[edit]

Fangush

[edit]

Deletionism

[edit]
  • Deletionism ---> m:Deletionism. It doesn't work, and a redirect about a WP term shouldn't appear in the main namespace. Meelar (talk) 00:55, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. It works. It just doesn't automatically work. All redirect links to meta currently have the same problem. This should be fixed in the next software update. And I don't see why we shouldn't mention wiki terms in the main namespace. This is done all the time. See stub for example. If we didn't include links to wiki terms in the main namespace then if would be pretty hard to find out the maining of any wiki terms! This is currently a redirect, but could always be turned into a disambiguation page if another usage of "Deletionism" exists. - Pioneer-12 01:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Re. "This should be fixed in the next software update", I don't believe this is the case. Interwiki redirects were purposely disabled by the developers as an anti-vandalsim measure. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 16:31, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, stub was listed above for deletion, and would be gone by now except that not all references to it had been fixed (last I checked - need to check again). Noel (talk) 13:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nonsense and un-encyclopedic. --Zappaz 03:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, we shouldn't have redirects to meta in the article space to begin with, and this particular article fosters factionalism. RickK 04:14, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Cross-namespace redirects are unpleasant enough. Cross-wiki redirects are just utterly unspeakable. Even when they're enabled, they don't work properly -- they don't leave behind the "redirected from" thingy under the article title, so you can't get at the original redirect unless you know enough to use the &redirect=no syntax. Not to mention the Inherent Badness of sneakily redirecting people off-site -- not an issue for m:, but some of the places on the Interwiki map are pretty iffy. —Korath (Talk) 07:40, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. I don't understand the attitude against trans-wiki redirects. By deleting this you are just making it harder to find this information. Ask yourself... by deleting this, what do you accomplish? All it seems to accomplish is making things harder to find, thus increasing ignorance and confusion. - Pioneer-12 14:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. I don't see a problem with Wikipedia:Deletionism redirecting to m:Deletionism (if interwiki redirects are ever re-enabled), but an article in the main article space should not redirect to meta. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 16:31, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. I second what Taco said, but I doubt that they will enable interwiki redirects. Jeltz talk 17:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete - Tεxτurε 15:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sofixit

[edit]

Kill the socks

[edit]

BEEFSTEW

[edit]

User:JimRaynor

[edit]

Bush nicknames

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Precedents/Deleted&oldid=1136447939"