Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ASTAR

Closing instructions 
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the discussion was Delete. Cross-namespace redirect. Ruslik_ Zero 18:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

ASTAR
Users don't need shortcuts. Damiens .rf 13:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not? What's it hurting? (Please note that Damiens.rf and AllStarEcho have a bit of an ongoing feud, and I'm not sure this nomination is made in good faith.) – Quadell (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * delete with fire before it catches on. A ridiculous waste of space. Viridae Talk 13:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleting it will increase the database size. Wikis are not filesystems. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - (repeating what I said on the other MfD) What kind of harm is it doing to the project? User shortcuts have been nominated before...and kept. In regards to a good faith nomination, I agree with Quadell's assessment.  APK  (If You Wanna)  13:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See NOHARM. --Damiens .rf 13:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See this.  APK  (If You Wanna)  13:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERCRAP. --Damiens .rf 14:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - (again, repeating what I said on the other MfD) Considering the nom's attitude (above) and the disruptive editing mentioned here, this MfD was obviously made in bad faith.  APK  (If You Wanna)  14:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Mostly per Viridae. Is it likely that many editors will be searching for AllStarEcho in Wikipedia space under the name ASTAR? No. AniMate   draw  15:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Virdae. Adds no value to the project.  It's also a cross-namespace redirect. Resolute 16:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The oft-stated reasons for deletion of cross-namespace redirects only apply to redirects out of the encyclopaedia proper into the non-encyclopaedia parts of the project. They don't apply to redirects from non-encyclopaedic areas (such as the project namespace, as in this case) to other locations.  Mirrors, forks, and readers of the encyclopaedia proper, are entirely unaffected by the existence of this redirect. Uncle G (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Bad faith nom, but it's still a cross space redirect. Garion96 (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nominator's motivation is suspect, but this is vanity garbage, really. I wouldn't mind seeing the past junk come up for another MfD as well, see how they fare.  (Note: seems unlikely, but if this closes as a keep, I'm creating Tarc. :) Tarc (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - serves no obvious purpose, other than being a vanity redirect. Andrei Rublev (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Close per this past discussion and if you delete this, you should delete the following too:
 * GURCH → User talk:Gurch
 * EVULA → User:EVula/opining/I am always right
 * ZN → User Talk:Bishonen
 * And I'm sure there are others floating around.
 * I'll also note that the nom is someone who's had a negative editing history with me for a while now so this is no doubt in bad faith. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 18:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it does appear that he has a negative attitude towards you, but the character of the nominator should have little to do with the nomination itself; it should be evaluated on its own merits, regardless of how we got here. Also, WP:OTHERCRAP is not much of a valid argument to make, as I'd prefer to get rid of those 3, and any others, anyways. Tarc (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, Users don't get redirects to their User space. It's disruptive.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BEEFSTEW and WP:RAUL beg to differ. Uncle G (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per rationale at WP:ASE. MickMacNee (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for pretty much all the reasons listed above. Nom may be bad-faith, but it does bring up a good point. The meta namespace is for info/discussion about meta issues, not for redirects to user pages. If this closes as keep (thus upholding the current precedent), I can already see a Land rush happening. ^demon[omg plz] 19:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. I may be first in line.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've filed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ZN. MickMacNee (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete regardless of nom's motives. Cross space redirect with no reason to keep then other people have one.  I also see from the previous MFD discussion that 2 of the 3 users involved would have been fine with deletion.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Certainly a bad faith nom but cross-space redirects are a bad idea however they come about. There are exceptions when a policy or guideline starts and them moves from one to another but this doesn't seem to be the case here. -- Banj e  b oi   02:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone can come up with a policy reason to keep. If there was an important essay behind it or an historical reason, then we could keep, however this one has a history of about 1 day.  I could speedy delete this as a cross namespace redirect, but at this point let the debate continue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, I believe all cross namespace redirects should be deleted. (barring some extraordinary reason) Prodego  talk  04:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you should read and think about what the problems with cross-namespace redirects actually are, and more importantly, are not for redirects that lie entirely outside of the encyclopaedia content proper. I suggest reading Wikipedia talk:Cross-namespace redirects, for starters. Uncle G (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per delete comments above. Sarah 12:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This "vanity" cross-namespace redirect does nothing to help build the encyclopedia. Anomie⚔ 12:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There's no reason for individual users to be creating shortcuts to themselves with a WP prefix. Alansohn (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete regardless of nom's or creator's motives. I would not go so far as to call it a "vanity" redirect, but this cross-namespace redirect is definitely not necessary. In addition, it sets a poor precedent for creation of similar shorcuts for other users. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 05:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As I've stated elsewhere, I think "vanity" redirects that just go to someone's user page should be deleted, as it's hardly a shortcut, but redirects to subpages that happen to bear a user's name shouldn't. Take that position with a grain of salt, given the existence of WP:EVULA, but I do think there's a difference here. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no, just no.--Otterathome (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.