Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 September 8

Microshit → Microsoft
The nominated redirect was Deleted. Not enough usage for Dubya test. Salting is used only for a limited-term protection and this doesn't fit that need. -- JLaTondre 12:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Per reason 3 - offensive; likely ambigous too. Has been speedied several times before. Perhaps redirect to alternative political spellings, but tried that already; got reverted. RN 22:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete again because it is cleary offensive. Also if it has been created multiple times protect it as well. Agree to retarget suggestion below. --My old username 16:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) --My old username 23:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Simply being offensive to some is not a criteria for deletion (for example, may I draw your attention to Penis, Breast, etc., and the discussion at Profanity).  As far I understand, the pages previously deleted with this name, were not simple redirects, but were attack pages (though it is hard to tell, what with them being deleted and all).  This is a common enough slang term for Microsoft; I see no reason that it doesn't redirect (many, many Google and Usenet links to this). Nfitz 23:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per RN. Protect against recreation may be a good idea, too; it's unlikely there will ever be a valid reason to have a page by this name. -/- Warren 01:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and protect from recreation  (See later comment near bottom) . It's one thing to redirect from an obvious nickname but this reeks of bias, giving the appearance of being Wikipedia-endorsed, and reminds me of a Google bomb. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and protect. I'm surprised it wasn't protected after the AFD in March, actually. -- Vary | Talk 03:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not hearing any reasoning in these calls to delete other than it being offensive to some people, which has long been established is not criteria for removal from Wikipedia.  It's a common enough nickname - would you suggest that we remove any similiar nicknames for companies?.  I don't see how Microshit is considered bias, yet the common nicknames for McDonald's - Mickey-D's, Mickey D's, McDick's, McDoof and many more have been around since 2004 without debate, and are equally, ir not more so, showing bias; I can only assume that there is a pro-Microsoft Bias at play here. AFAUI the March AFD was an attack page, not a redirect, and the discussion regarding it's deletion is not relevent to this discussion. I need to hear some reasoned arguments against this redirect other than "it's biased" or "it's offensive" as clearly those arguements don't stand up.Nfitz 05:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * None of these names are attacks against the company. Also I am not Pro Microsoft. I would have voted to delete a redirect for any company that was being called Shit. I personally don't think the last two redirects for Macdoanld's should be up either. Maybe someone could look into those. The first two don't appear to be any form of attack so I don't see a problem there. --My old username 05:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why shit bad and doof good? I can only guess because one is profane, but as per Profanity, that is not in itself a reason to remove.  Surely we have to go by common usage here?  [Mickeysoft]] was previously removed along with Microshit ... so comparing McDonald's to a Mickey Mouse Operation is okay, but comparing Microsoft is bad? Nfitz 05:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And harping on my Google bomb reference again: if the public gets up in arms when "failure" leads to "George Bush" on Google, why wouldn't it be a risk for outrage that Wikipedia searches of "Microshit" would take them to "Microsoft"? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't get the Google bomb relevence; that was an attempt to spoof Google. This is simply an attempt to be encylopædic - are you suggesting that we censor Wikipedia in order to avoid public controversy?  Doesn't that violate Wikipedia is not censored? Nfitz 05:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's got nothing to do with censorship. It would be the same situation if the redirect were "Micropoop". -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If "Micropoop" was in common usage I'd suggest a redirect. Not sure I get your point.  I'm concerned that a user, comes and types in Microshit, and doesn't get where one would expect.  In fact, that's how I landed here; I was looking for information on the latest version of Microsoft Word and without much thought typed in Microshit ... and was surprised there was no link - so I do what I normally do under such circumstances - I fixed it. Nfitz 06:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My argument is thus: when you type in a pejorative and end up at an article page that's not on the usage of the word, it looks like a statement of opinion made by the maintainers of the site. It's also unnecessary and on the slippery slope can lead to people sitting around all day thinking up pejorative spoofs of "Microsoft" to make redirects for. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: With apologies to the thousands of users who visit Wikipedia every day and type "Microshit" into the search box wondering what it means. Greyfedora 07:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Criticism of Microsoft. There is a valid article describing criticism of Microsoft, so let's redirect it there. The term is too popular to delete, but it won't be offensive or misleading this way. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 13:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It will still be offensive and biased - that article is supposed to be a sub article discussing serious analysis of the company. Doing this would be akin to redirecting "Apple sucks" to "criticism of apple" or whatever. Criticism does not mean all negative - it is supposed to be NPOV. Redirecting there implies agreement with one side. RN 19:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Retarget per CP/M. --Gavia immer 14:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Retarget per CP/M. -- Vary | Talk 14:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nonsensical, offensive, and as Omicronpersei8 said, overly biased. --Gray Porpoise 19:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Delete and Protect against recreation per Omicron's arguments above. Leaving this redirect in existence would display a blatant anti-Microsoft POV.  I'm no fan of the company, but WP:NPOV takes preference over my opinions, as it should over yours, Nfitz. Also, this has nothing to do with censorship, as far as I can tell. If one is looking for the article on Microsoft, one can type "Microsoft." Picaroon9288•talk 19:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. WP:NPOV should take precedence; the question is how to intrepret in it. I don't see anything in WP:NPOV that would call for these redirect to be deleted.  The nickname is commonly enough used in the real world, and on the Internet.  Surely NPOV calls for Wikipedia to not ignore that.  I argue that deleting the reference is NPOV.  Perhaps you could explain how WP:NPOV leads to deletion? Nfitz 20:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you agree it should take precedence. Now, shouldn't a neutral point of view be a view that doesn't equate a corporation with shit, as this redirect appears to? I think so. However, this is just my interpretation based on Common sense.  I'd love a section on redirects in the NPOV policy to specifically address this sort of thing, as the word redirect isn't to be found on the page whatsoever. Picaroon9288•talk 21:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional comment for Nfitz and others: WP:REDIRECT has the expectation that the target article will address the redirect in some fashion. That is to say, Criticism of Microsoft would need to mention "Microshit" as a form of criticism in an encyclopedic fashion.  Can this be done?  Are the editors voting to retain that redirect willing to contribute that content, and are they confident that it be can do so in a way that meets WP:NPOV *and* WP:RS?  Most references to "Microshit" that you'll find on the Internet point to blogs and forum postings by non-notable people. They specifically do -not- meet the Reliable Sources guidelines that we're all expected to follow. Furhter, "Microshit" is by its very nature a neologism, and we're supposed to avoid neologisms, too. -/- Warren 20:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not known enough given awareness of MS brand (most do not know about Slashdot). Pavel Vozenilek 03:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? 1ne 06:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes :). RN 22:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. 1ne 04:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Majority of users knows Word, Excel, Office and perhaps have clue what is Windows. Power users are tiny minority. Pavel Vozenilek 15:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - This is potentially offensive and is essentially a POV criticism of Microsoft. Also, I seriously doubt that anyone would search for that without knowing how to find the Microsoft article. --Cswrye 03:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Criticism of Microsoft. 1ne 06:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ANNOUNCEMENT Because of this debate I have realized that people's view of Criticism articles are FUNDAMENTALLY BROKEN. Serving as a dumping ground for every beef a person has with a subject is _not_ the purpose of these; they are meant for a discussion of serious analysis of the subject. These still have to be NPOV! They are _not_ meant to serve as a redirect for every pejoritive nickname about the subject! Likewise I have moved Criticism of Microsoft to Analysis of Microsoft, will try to place more emphasis on analysis in the article, and will propose the same for any other criticism article. RN 18:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah avoid neologisms is the first argument I've hear that makes sense here (given my argument is that this term is in pretty common usage.  So when is a neologism no long a neologism? Nfitz 19:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Usually, when it is published someplace like the New York Times a few times. Even if that were true, it is still offensive and pointless - anyone wanting to go to microsoft does not need to enter some biased slang term for it, they can simply type in "Microsoft". It doesn't aid in navigation at all. RN 19:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why offensive or pointless are issues that need to be debated here. I don't see how Microshit is any more offensive than Microstuff - it's not like shit is exactly a serious swear word any more!  And as far as pointless goes ... if it's a common nickname, then why not?  With dozens of McDonald's nicknames as redirects, no-one has raised in issue in 2 years. Nfitz 19:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "I don't see how Microshit is any more offensive than Microstuff" - well, now that I think about it I can see where you are coming from if you mean the more "underground" usage of the term "shit". The problem is that in 98% of the usage of the word it is purely derogatory. Its like justifying "MicroFuck" with saying that the Fuck means "Fucking great!" - some may agree, but most know it is purely derogatory. This one doesn't make any more sense either - the only difference is someone, at one point, used the term on slashdot :). "if it's a common nickname, then why not?" - well in this case, if it really was common, one would write a real article about the term and its history with reliable sources. "With dozens of McDonald's nicknames as redirects, no-one has raised in issue in 2 years" - very few have probably even checked.... sifting through ridirects of an article is rather tedious unrewarding work :). RN 20:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The only direction I'm coming from, is that Microshit is, as far as I can tell, a commonly used nickname. To the best of my knowledge "MicroFuck" is not commonly used - and doesn't even make sense to me.  Also while I can see many uses of Shit that are not offensive, I'm hard-pressed to think of usages of "Fuck" that are not offensive.  I'm not aware of what slashdot is ... I'm afraid I can't comment.  I just don't see how the offensive and pointless arguement work.  Neologism I might see, but most people aren't arguing that one.  There are other Microsoft redirects that seem odder, in my opinion, such as Where do you want to go today, Blibbet, User:RN/redirtest, Microsofties, and M1cR0s0ft. Nfitz 21:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for reminding me about that redirect test I did - tagged for destruction :). "a commonly used nickname" sources please? New york times or similar? Also, I am _very_ hard pressed to find a non-derogatory form of "shit" - I realize there it is used that way, but even the article here on it says "is considered an obscenity." "I just don't see how the offensive and pointless arguement work" - it says right here at the top of the page that offensive/attack redirects are usually deleted - same applies to attack articles as well.  Where do you want to go today - this was a rather widespread campaign MS did and explained in the article. Blibbet is MS's logo, also explained in the article. Microsofties - term used to describe MS employees, often by the emplyees themselves; google will nail MULTIPLE reliable sources like . M1cR0s0ft - Yeah, this one is kind of pointless; but it is not really offensive so no one is likely to nominate it... if it is, someone can just redirect to Leet. RN 22:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "I am _very_ hard pressed to find a non-derogatory form of "shit"" - well pulling out my hardcopy Oxford dictionary "n. 6 possessions, belongings; stuff." Which I might use in a sentance as "I'll be there in a minute, let me grab my shit" - I'm certainly not being derogatory about myself when I use such a common term!!  I don't think anyone in the real world has any knowledge or use of Blibbet - and from the article most people who have ever worked for Microsoft are equally unaware, as it hasn't been used for almost a quarter-century. "Where do you want to go today" can't have been used for more than a month or so in a small advertising campaign - anytime a corporation starts a new marketing campaign, do we add a redirect for the slogan of the month - it's not like is became universal like Where's the beef.  As for a "commonly used nickname" I've certainly heard it enough.  It googles well enough.  I don't have the resources at hand to check things like the New York Times (though hardly a great resource, given the odd constraints to use of language in the particular country that newspaper is based) Nfitz 22:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - my personal opinon is that nobody searches Wikipedia to get information about Microsoft using "Microshit" term (not to forget to mention that this is POV pushing) -- AdrianTM 05:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Though my whole point was that this is what I had done, and this is why I created the redirect. Am I the only one in 6 billion people who would ever type this in?  If so, delete; but in my experience, where there is one, there is more. Nfitz 14:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because this was obviously intended as an attack and violates our goal of neutral, objective editing. It does not aid in searching, linking, etc. because every user familiar with this term will also know Microsoft.  Note:  An article about this attack could be written in a neutral way if it were a notably derogatory term.  However, 1) that would have to be a stand-alone article, not a redirect and 2) I see no evidence that this particular insult is especially notable.  Rossami (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * When you write "this was obviously intended as an attack", could you clarify what you mean, as I certainly, as I've noted here, didn't mean it as an attack; it's common slang! Nfitz 16:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per the excellent arguments presented by Rossami. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It has come to my attention that this word has been in usage on the Internet for over 15 years. A whole generation has grown up with it, and I don't see why it's considered an attack any more than other similiar nicknames as discussed above. Nfitz 16:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Don't forget that Wikipedia is not censored for protection even of nations, let alone corporate images, so Microshit isn't worse in this context than, for instance, Amerikkka or Zionazi. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This has little to do with that; those are politically driven and point to appropriate articles. RN 17:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe create a corresponding section then? I just don't like the idea of constant creation-deletion war over this title - it was created six times already. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd hope that the closing admin of this would salt the earth when deleting this one. And yeah, I thought about something like Alternative pejorative spelling or something quite a bit; but then that opens the door to all kinds of redirect attacks that I'm not sure I'd be happy with or would be in wikipedia's best interest... RN 17:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Redirects for discussion/Precedents must be considered in the potential deletion of this redirect. I think this clearly defines the question down to whether it is common or not. Nfitz 20:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * On that note, I will (although a little reluctantly) change my vote to keep as per policy. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not policy, it is just an overview of some past examples... also it has yet to be proven whether this is "common" or not. RN 20:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, correction: it's not policy. It looks like pretty decent support via precedent, though, and I can definitely see how this redirect would be a common enough insult to warrant preservation of its current form. "Religious fanatic" et al, for example (as listed on that page), are just trolling, which I'm not so sure is the case here. But if we can get some precedent support on the other side of the aisle, I'm open to more flip-flopping. No point to having strong beliefs, right? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The statement in WP:RFD says that Should insulting nickname redirects be kept? ''The general rule of thumb is that if there is evidence that they are widely used, they are kept ... but failing that, they are often deleted. For me, that's good enough to be policy!  At worst, it's a Wikipedia rule of thumb. Nfitz 21:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll go with delete especially in lieu of redirecting to Criticisms of Microsoft. That would reflect definite POV and this "nickname" is unaddressed by the Criticisms article.
 * Delete. I support recreation pointing at criticism of Microsoft iff Microshit is added there, which implies that evidence is found of its widespread use.  Big Nate 37 (T) 00:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and protect from recreation -- it is certainly needless. Kamikaze 15:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NAM → No angry mastodons
The nominated redirect was Kept. -- JLaTondre 14:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC) An editor raised an objection to the use of this redirect name for what is probably my current favorite essay on Wikipedia. Originally, I stated that I thought it was "ridiculous" to remove a redirect for the article's obvious acronym, but putting aside my ego, he does have a point: "NAM" makes you think of Vietnam. The thing to debate here, I guess, is simply whether WP:NAM should be kept because it's quick, short, and easy to remember, or deleted because of the very valid point that it's extremely difficult to separate from the "warlike" meaning (Vietnam was, admittedly, the first thing I thought of when I saw the redirect name). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. An additional concern is that it is an essay, not a policy or a guideline (nor ever likely to become more than an essay).  An acronym shortcut could give it an inappropriately official appearance. Durova 14:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep many essays have links like this and as soon as someone clicks on it they would see that it was an essay. --My old username 23:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it's a good, useful essay, and this is a useful redirect. I don't think it makes the essay seem any more 'official', either: so many wikipedia essays have them that redirects to essays probably outnumber redirects to policy pages. -- Vary | Talk 03:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, maybe I'm just too young, or maybe it's because I've gotten so used to the wikipedia redirect-from-acronym convention, but I personally didn't read 'NAM' as a word, and didn't associate it with Vietnam at all. -- Vary | Talk 04:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not too young to remember Viet-Nam - but it didn't cross my mind at all either to relate WP:NAM to a country in south-east Asia; if anything it reminds me of the BASIC language command. I don't understand the logic of the complaint, anymore more than getting rid of WP:WP because it reminds me of WordPerfect. Nfitz 05:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. It could have been arguable if NAM was used as a derogatiry term for the country but it was just a way to shorten it. That means that the only reason left for deletion is the possibility of confusuion with the country and I don't think that is enough of a reason to delete the redirect. --My old username 05:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per My old username and Vary. 1ne 06:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, plus there's no WikiProject Vietnam to confuse it with. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 18:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: while the endorsement of the essay itself is flattering (I started the page and have been its principal contributor), this is not a referendum on the page itself but on one redirect. The active editors have already achieved consensus to delete the redirect if possible.  Due to editorial changes it's hard to trace the example now, but I've seen at least one instance of an edit war in which an editor cited WP:NAM among a list of policies and guidelines that the poster believed another editor had violated.  This goes against the spirit of the page, which attempts to de-escalate disputes. Durova 23:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. First of all, it's not a good idea to create shortcuts for whatever possible, especially when they may be ambiguious (although I wasn't there, I still clearly associate Nam with Vietnam). Since the main essay author doesn't want this redirect as well, let it be removed. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per above, and if we delete all similiar abbreviations, we are in deep trouble, so no point worrying about obscure abbreviations unused in the last quarter-century. Nfitz 02:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This discussion is really bewildering. The editors at the essay have all agreed the shortcut is undesirable.  I've left a user talk message to every "keep" voter, none of whom edit on the page, yet none have changed their opinion.  We aren't on a campaign to delete other acronyms or change Wikipedia.  What gives? Durova 04:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's objectionable, but not undesirable. I still think that given the absence of a Vietnam Wikiproject or something like that that this shortcut is simple and easy and shouldn't be deleted just because it uses three letters in a sequence that is incidentally reminiscent of a war. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not because of that, but because the creators themselves don't want this shortcut. I agree with them - it sounds a bit too policy-like, like forbidding something, while the essay really serves the purpose of shaking off and cooling down. We aren't denying authors the title, but rather just doing what they want. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 18:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A reason to Delete is because the original author wants it deleted. In fact, if the person who created the redirect wants it deleted, they can always tag it with db-author. Reasons to Keep include it's an acronym which is perfectly suitable in this case: No Angry Mastodons. Sure, NAM reminds us of Vietnam, but is there a place another location that WP:NAM could redirect too? It can't redirect to the article for Vietnam. If there is a Wikipedia namespace location it could redirect to, I would talk about it elsewhere, but deletion of the redirect is unnessecary. It's suitable for acronyms of the WP space to redirect. It doesn't need to be a policy or guideline for a redirect to be created (things like WP:DEATH redirecting to Deceased Wikipedians). If there was a WikiProject for Vietnam or something else like that, I would change where the redirect should go, but deletion probably wouldn't accomplish anything. — Moe Epsilon  19:47 September 12 '06
 * Plus it's the only short eponymous redirect for that page. The rest are either ambiguous ("CHILLOUT", "KEEPCOOL") or long ("MASTODON"). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point, the simplicity of the redirect makes it suitable too. — Moe Epsilon  19:57 September 12 '06
 * Lol, I just remembered, I am the original person who started that redirect. :) I'm not going to tag it for speedy deletion per db-author though, until something clear comes out of this discussion.. — Moe Epsilon  20:19 September 12 '06
 * Well, I hadn't thought about it much until a Vietnam-era Wikipedian objected. I suppose it wouldn't be the end of the world if this redirect stays, but deleting seems like a polite thing because memories of that war tend to be strong and painful. Durova 01:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This redirect has nothing to do with the war. I apologize if you or someone else has strong and painful memories of the Vietnam war, but its still no reason to delete a valuable redirect. I have painful memories of people, events and other things, but I don't want to delete everything involved with it because it strikes a memory. Do you think we delete things because it's "polite"? If that were true, we wouldn't have a Vietnam article, no 9/11 attacks article or article on the Holocaust. If you have painful memories of something, the best thing I can tell you is to avoid the thing causing it and ignore it. — Moe Epsilon  14:47 September 14 '06
 * Good points. The page does have quite a collection of redirects now (none of which I added) and since this was the only one that elicited protest, it seemed like the simplest place to trim.  I'll accept consensus whichever way this discussion goes. Durova 02:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

List of Townlands of Ireland &rarr; Category:Townlands of Ireland
The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 11:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Tagged as a speedy for being a cross-namespace redirect, but R2 only applies to redirects to userspace. Nonetheless, the redirect is potentially misleading (lists are not the same as categories) and there is no useful history. Delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete may not be speedyable, but it's still cross-namespace. -- Vary | Talk 03:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per WP:ASR. 1ne 06:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, although redirecting to the Category namespace isn't really a self-reference to avoid. -- NORTH talk 05:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Geogre's Law → Glossary
The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 11:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Cross-space redirect to a Wikipedian in-joke. It's one of my favorite rules of thumb here, but I don't think it should be in article space. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. An interesting observation, which is probably one caused by that the newbies who don't know about WP:BIO are also liable to entering the name in the search box with small letters only, leaving only the first part automatically capitalized. Anyway, this law is too limited in scope to justify a cross-namespace redirect here. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sjakkalle. 1ne 04:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, definitely does not belong in article space. Besides being self-referential (a big no-no), it's not notable enough.  -- Cyde Weys  18:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've created Geogre's Law so the word can be looked up. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Could we maybe make that a soft redirect so people can go directly to the Gs after an extra click or is that discouraged/not preferred? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)