Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 August 7

Phoenician Nationalism → Lebanese nationalism
The nominated redirect was speedy deleted as CSD R1, redirect to non-existent page. BigNate37T·C 20:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Redirects to a prodded and deleted page, like Lebanese Nationalism did. --ColourBurst 18:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Phoenician nationalism → Lebanese nationalism
The nominated redirect was speedy deleted as CSD R1, redirect to non-existent page. BigNate37T·C 20:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Redirects to a prodded and deleted page, like Lebanese Nationalism did. --ColourBurst 18:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Wikipedia talk:Community Portal/Things to do → Wikipedia talk:Community Portal/Redesign/Things to do
The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 13:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Broken redirect. Lcarsdata (Talk) 10:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Sand monkey → Muslim
The nominated redirect was speedily deleted - implausible redirect. - Mike Rosoft 09:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Presumably pejorative slang term that's not discussed anywhere in the target page, nor anywhere else in Wikipedia, nor (as far as I can tell) in any other reputable source. Would seem to be a neologism at best, and thus it would be inappropriate to change its target to some other page, or try to make an article out of it. --bainer (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

&quot;Hate Me&quot; → Hate Me
The nominated redirect was speedy deleted as CSD G6, housekeeping. BigNate37T·C 20:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Song articles generally do not contain quotes. I moved the page to it's target. UnhandledException 09:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy delete, housekeeping --Zoz (t) 17:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Good articles → Good articles
The nominated redirect was deleted. — freak([ talk]) 16:35, Aug. 13, 2006 (UTC) Cross-namespace redirect. — Mi ra  05:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, might have off-wikipedia uses and has been orphaned (thanks!). Kusma (討論) 11:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cross-namespace. Rbraunwa
 * Delete as cross-namespace redirect. Viridae Talk 11:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Harmless redirect which creates no possibility of confusion with an article.  The fact that someone took the time to create it in good faith indicates to me that this meets bullet 5 of Avoid deleting redirects if:.  The fact that it had to be orphaned reinforces that opinion.  Rossami (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: This title could be used to refer to an enyclopedic article. The article namespace exists for a reason. --Hetar 04:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep As per Rossami. Also can anyone possibly think non-wikipedia uses? I know the 'I haven't heard of it so it doesn't exist argument' isnt very conclusive, but an extensive search revealed nothing apart from the fact that 'good article' is only used to refer to good articles, and wikipedia's use is one of the most important. I think that deleting this is a use of the rules without thought for the consequences, and weakens the project. When people (such as myself) type(d) in 'good article' we dont know WP:GA, but have a clear objective in mind. If it came down to it though, I'd rather this became a disambiguation page than was deleted.Tell me to get back to work! 23:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment the most prominant use of article outside of the written article is the clothing article. I don't suspect this is true in all dialects, but I've heard the word article refer to clothing often.  Big Nate 37 (T) 18:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful redirect, given that "good articles" are not as easy to access as featured articles. Bob 16:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment it would be a much better solution if good articles were accessable through proper channels rather than through a self reference. Of course, the Wikipedia search function is sub-par; frankly I feel that the Wikipedia Google search that appears when the Wikipedia search is down would be a much better full-time replacement, on the condition that typing in the name of an article in the search bar still forward straight to the article. Enough of that; I concede there are good points for the keep side but I don't feel that they warrant self references throughout article namespace.  Big Nate 37 (T) 18:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Good article → Good articles
The nominated redirect was deleted. — freak([ talk]) 16:36, Aug. 13, 2006 (UTC) Cross-namespace redirect. — Mi ra  05:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, might have off-wikipedia uses and has been orphaned (thanks!). Kusma (討論) 11:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cross-namespace. Rbraunwa 02:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as cross-namespace redirect. Viridae Talk 11:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same reason as the pluralized version above. Rossami (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same reason above, plus I just used it to get to Good articles without knowing the name.  &rArr;   Bayerischermann   [[Image:Flag_of_Poland.svg|18px|]]  Contributions  02:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: This title could be used to refer to an enyclopedic article. The article namespace exists for a reason. Also, its much easier to get to Good articles by typing WP:GA. --Hetar 04:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. Tell me to get back to work! 23:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, another useful redirect per my comments for "good articles". Bob 16:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)