Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 August 21

Programs broadcast by ABC → List of programs broadcast by the Associated Broadcasting Company
The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 11:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC) ABC is highly ambiguous. I would have never guessed this was about Assoicated, first off would be American or Australian. 132.205.93.88 03:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * NOTE - for some reason the Associated's talk page is sitting in the wrong place. 132.205.93.88 03:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * keeep ABC is a well know Acronym for this term. --Edgelord 03:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment what about Programs broadcast by the American Broacasting Company or the Australian Broadcasting Company? I don't seem how the Philippine Associated Broadcasting Company trumps either of those. 132.205.93.88 04:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, inasmuch as there are no fewer than three major television networks to which ABC may refer (see, e.g., ABC), and in view of the relative uselessness of the redirect in any event. Joe 20:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. User:Nivrem had been on a moving spree as of late. -- Howard  the   Duck  07:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. -Zapptastic (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete gren グレン 22:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If the redirect destination is ambiguous or confusing, retarget the redirect or make it into a disambiguation page.  In the meantime, this page documents a recent pagemove of an article with significant history.  The redirect serves to point the earlier readers and editors to the correct title.  Rossami (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:PWN → Blocking policy
The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 11:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC) I'm not exactly sure about it, since someone might find it useful, but I don't feel this redirect is alright. Just in case, PWN is a leetspeak word describing someone being harshly and quickly devastated in multiplayer game, usually a deathmatch; it is derived from "own" (in sense "rape") with connotations to "pawn". And, as far as the policy is informed, we don't pwn or smash users. I get the joke, but, with pwn having humiliating connotations, someone may notice that and misinterpret with regard to common criticisms. Blocks are just a too unpleasant area to additionally spice it with black humor. I suggest we remove this redirect, since it serves little purpose, but may form a bad impression of Wikipedia. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom, not needed and not very funny. Kusma (討論) 08:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hahaha! I find it very funny! But delete it anyway per nom. Grand  master  ka  21:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, dark humor keeps things interesting. --CharlotteWebb 13:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and comment that dark humour is not a speedy keep criterion. This is an encyclopedia, not Encyclopedia Dramatica.  Big Nate 37 (T) 14:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Dark humor is fine, but not when you block someone - there are guys who don't get it. But the real concern is that I don't want another not-bother-to-read-it-critics telling that "Wikipedia is full of admins running around and blocking users, or, as they call it, pwning." A small chance and a small concern, but that redirect is useless anyway. I wanted to tag it for speedy at first, but decided to make (or refresh) a precedent for such redirect jokes. --CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 15:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to keep it. Demi T/C 16:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice humour, but unneccessary. With that in mind, delete. haz  (us e r talk) 17:00, 22 August 2006
 * Pwn, potentially puts us in disrepute. -- Cyde Weys  20:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hesitant Keep, it's funny, and I don't see how it's hurting anyone. -Zapptastic (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The question should be "How is it useful?"; about possible minor harm, see above. I'd also rather expect WP:PWN lead to WP:CSD (or as a typo to WP:OWN) - CSD are really pwn3d. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. We're above this, and it has potential to bring Wikipedia into disrepute. --kingboyk 23:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Blocking people is not and should not be treated in any official Wikipedia capacity as if it were some sort of game. We have had enough admins get desysopped for being accused of having this attitude to allow our official shortcutting to reflect that. Daniel Case 03:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cyde and the author's comments in #wikipedia agreeing with Cyde. Anomo 22:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Atif zaheer → Atif Zaheer
The nominated redirect was speedily deleted as WP:CSD. Kusma (討論) 10:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Target article has been speedied as vanity Daniel Case 02:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy delete as R1. --Edgelord 03:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Corridor M (Appalachian Development Highway System) &rarr; U.S. Route 22
The nominated redirect was Converted to stub. -- JLaTondre 11:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Corridor M is New Stanton to Harrisburg. New Stanton is not on US 22. Not all of this corridor is US 22 - some is US 119. --SPUI (T - C) 04:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you search up Corridor M on the ADHS website, it says New Stanton to Harrisburg. See .  Though the website itself is incorrect, I don't believe that Corridor M is part of 119, I think that Corridor M is US 22, to Pennsylvania Route 66, the section which is part of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.  However, US 22 and US 119 do run on the same road by Blairsville, PA. --myselfalso 05:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:ADHS September 30, 2004.png pretty clearly shows the angle of US 119. Either way, part of it is not US 22. --SPUI (T - C) 05:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Welcome, newcomer → Welcome, newcomers
The nominated redirect was deleted --kingboyk 10:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Just restored after an out-of-process speedy deletion by Cyde. The last restoration had the edit summary "Created redirect as response to #9 most wanted page." so I suggest we keep this until somebody orphans it and then we can delete it because it is not a term exclusive to Wikipedia and should not be used as a cross-space redirect. Kusma (討論) 08:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Same for Welcome, newcomers, which we should keep until it is orphaned and then move to a place where we can keep the history that goes back to 2001. Might need a history merge to the target. Kusma (討論) 12:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have performed the history merge. Many of these old CNRs need to be checked, they typically have interesting history that should not be lost. Kusma (討論) 08:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep even if orphaned. The guideline against cross-namespace redirects is not strong enough to justify the disruption created by deleting pages like this.  Rossami (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Orphan and delete. Ral315 (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I see a bot is already replacing links to this page, which is good. Orphan and delete. As for the page with a history, a history merge is very easily performed so there's no reason why that shouldn't be deleted too. --kingboyk 18:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently orphaning. --Rory096 20:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, kill with fire. --Rory096 06:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Orphan and delete: as a cross-namespace redirect. --Hetar 19:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)