Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 April 12

Why Wikipedia is so great → Why Wikipedia is so great
The result of the debate was Re-targeted to Wikipedia. Main space is for article content. People searching for this in the main space should be provided encyclopedic content regarding the pros and cons of Wikipedia which they can get at the Wikipedia article. If they want to hear the party line, they can get to the Wikipedia namespace from a multitude of other ways. In the article space, we should remain neutral even about ourselves. -- JLaTondre 15:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC) I thought I'd already got rid of this one. Turns out I had, except it was created again. And then moved. And then deleted again. And then created again. [ Have a look]. Can we settle this? – Gurch 17:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. This is one of our oldest pages and long pre-dates the creation of the separate Wikipedia-space.  As a process page about Wikipedia (and a particularly popular one when we first started), this page was and is linked to by outsiders.  The redirect points those readers to the new location of the page.  There is no possibility of confusion or overlap with an encyclopedia topic.  Rossami (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep having "Wikipedia" in the title ensures no confusion. &mdash;Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-13 00:46Z 
 * Delete; not only this is a cross-space redirect, it is even a redirect to a personal essay. Tizio 11:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Essay, yes. "Personal" essay, no.  Read the page's history.  It's one of the oldest pages we have and has been heavily edited and used by the population.  Rossami (talk)
 * Right, it's a collective essay; still, it never seem to had any form of official endorsement. Tizio 12:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Although it is a cross-space redirect, it still gives the reader the context they're looking for. The only reason that the redirect is a project page, and not the redirect as the title, is because it would be in violation of WP:NPOV.  Cool Blue  Light my Fire! 23:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This sets a bad precedent for other essays (e.g. about "Why Wikipedia is so bad") being created from similar mainspace redirects. Given that we are not going to allow redirects to other essays as a way round NPOV, we shouldn't do so here. Bad case to use for making a policy exception. Cross-namespace redirects such as this one do not belong- they are self-referential and self-trumpeting. Serious WP:SELF and WP:NPOV problems. WjBscribe 23:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Wikipedia. No need for an XNR if we have an actual article on, you know, that wacky internet 'pedia.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: while this particular redirect is somewhat reasonable, especially considering its pre-WP-namespace history, cross-namespace redirects really need to be avoided wherever possible. Anyone looking for this essay should still be able to find it easily. Krimpet (talk/review) 04:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

PESWiki → Free energy
The result of the debate was delete (as in retrospect I think was the consensus the last time). WjBscribe 16:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Redirect survived RfD on 27 March. After being speedy deleted nevertheless, it (barely) was reinstated at DRV. Opponents argued that the redirect is not (and could not reasonably be) mentioned in the target article. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete and add white powder protection per AfDs 1, 2, and the nonsense rationales for keeping the redirect given in the last RfD don't help. &mdash;Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-12 16:47Z 
 * While a speedy-deletion was inappropriate, I see no argument or evidence that this is a useful redirect. Delete (regularly).   Rossami (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and add a mention of it on the main free energy article. WooyiTalk, Editor review 03:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What... possible... reason would we have to do that? &mdash;Cryptic 03:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Or, to put it another way, you're welcome to try, but I suspect it'll be reverted just as quickly as it was the last several times that was tried. Xtifr tälk 11:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, absolutely implausible search term. Guy's comments at the deletion review, while somewhat off-topic at review, are absolutely on-target here: "The fact that the PESwiki people have spammed their name all over the place does not justify maintaining a redirect to an article which does not mention PESwiki."  Frankly, I think the last RfD should have been closed as Delete, since neither of the arguments to keep made any sense.  It looks like the closer was nose-counting, rather than weighing arguments.  Xtifr tälk 11:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Xtifr. That's basically what it comes down to. - Mtmelendez (Talk 21:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for abortion → Requests for arbitration
The result of the debate was Delete speedy. Requires no discussion only common sense. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Insulting redirect. &mdash;Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-12 07:17Z  'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Thomas Steele (politician) → Tom Steele
The result of the debate was converted to stub and entry added to Thomas Steele (disambiguation). The title seems appropriate as Paymaster of the Forces was I believe a political office. WjBscribe 15:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Not the same person. The first is one appears to be contemporary with George Canning. Tizio 11:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Tom is about a hundred years too late to fit Thomas' description, judging from links to Thomas in succession boxes. &mdash;Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-12 13:55Z 
 * While the current context of inbound links to Thomas Steele (politician) do appear to solely apply to the elder, both men are politicians and share the same name. Perhap a redirect to a disambiguation page would be better (until a proper article can be written on the elder)?  Rossami (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd rather see a disambiguation page at Thomas Steele (disambiguation); there is also a Thomas Steele and a Tom Steele (stuntman). Alwo worth of mention is that I don't actually know whether Thomas Steele (politician) was really a politician. Tizio 11:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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