Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 22

Wikipedia, the Greatest Source on Knowledge in this universe → Wikipedia
The result of the debate was speedy delete and save everyone some time. Миша 13 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Pretty obvious isn't it?

1.POV

2.Who will search for it? -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 17:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete as totally unreasonable redirect. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No one will search for that, they'll type in "Wikipedia". Unnecessary redirect. ~   Wi ki  her mit  18:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

EFD templates
The result of the debate was speedy delete, does not further the project of creating a free encyclopedia. Миша 13 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Pointless template redirect to the userspace. Delete. ~  Wi ki  her mit  00:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Template:Efd-notice → User:R/EFD/Nomination
 * Template:Efd-top → User:R/EFD/efd-top
 * Template:Efd-bottom → User:R/EFD/efd-bottom
 * Delete - Userspace template is just fine. Giggy  Talk 01:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -Cross-namespace redirect. I would speedy it but I didn't even create it. -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. What's wrong with it? It's not a cross-namespace redirect from article space, so the usual arguments for deletion don't apply. This template is a lot easier to use and to remember than the user template.  Melsaran  (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The userspace ones are fine. --Deskana (banana) 11:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm, yes, but what's wrong with the templatespace redirects?  Melsaran  (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Template namespace typically contains templates that relate directly to Wikipedia. That's why most userboxes not relating directly to Wikipedia were moved out of the Template namespace (WP:GUS), because they're totally acceptable in userspace, but not in template space. This is the same principle. These templates don't relate directly to Wikipedia, they relate indirectly. Therefore, there is no need for them when an alternative exists within userspace. --Deskana (banana) 12:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. These templates don't belong in template space, so the redirects from template space don't belong either. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both the redirects and the templates they refer to. They all relate to this policy satire which is mildly funny and is properly tagged as a humor page.  The satire piece is okay, especially since it's clearly in the userspace.  All the supporting paraphenalia is a bit too much, though.  Time to let the joke die.  Rossami (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the EFD page was nominated for deletion, but was snowball closed as Keep. R is free to do pretty much whatever in userspace, and even so, RfD isn't the place to discuss deleting the templates in userspace. --Deskana (banana) 14:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. User templates must meet a (very low) threshold of usefulness to warrant moving to, having in, or redirecting from project space. These are part of an in-joke and serve no purpose for the project.  Big Nate 37 (T) 14:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Efd-talknotice → User:R/EFD/Talk Notice
The result of the debate was speedy delete, does not further the project of creating a free encyclopedia. Миша 13 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC) The result of the debate was Speedy deleted on user request. Pascal.Tesson 03:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Note:This was recreated by Melsaran after speedy deletion, so I have reopened the debate. See below for my opinion. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, pointless template redirect to the user space. Delete. ~  Wi ki  her mit  00:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - Userspace template is just fine. Giggy Talk 01:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete-This one I did create so I can speedy it. -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The target doesn't belong in template space, so the redirect from template space doesn't belong either. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My Dad → Father
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC) This is silly and misleading. The article has plenty of info about fathers and fatherhood but precious little content on my dad. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep - Seems like a logical connection - your dad is your father. I know know much about rd policy, but it seems logical to me.  Giggy  Talk 01:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah but the article isn't specifically about "my" father or "your" father (it would be more interesting if it actually were, but it would probably get speedily deleted). Dad → Father I can understand, but not this.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only inbound links refer not to fatherhood but to a specific song by that title.  The edit history of the page shows that this page was originally created as vandalism.  Deletion will return the song-links to redlink status and make it more obvious to readers that we need proper content about the song at this title.  (Note:  I have no objection if someone simply overwrites the current redirect with actual content before this debate is over.  The problem is not so bad that we must purge the page-history.  I just can't find sources so I don't have anything to say about the song.)  Rossami (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rossami. Nice work digging up the song references. Also, any time Rossami moves for deletion the redirect should probably go ;)  Big Nate 37 (T) 20:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per Rossami, and YOUR dad is not the same as EVERYONE'S father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisDHDR (talk • contribs)
 * For reasons that should be obvious, I would support My Dad redirecting to User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. But since cross-namespace redirects aren't allowed, I say Delete. Mike R 01:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:License-bollocks → Template:Pui
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Template redirect without any conceivable use. --MZMcBride 01:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - unsuitable name and and "bollocks"(fake) could relate to anything with a disputed copyright status -- ChrisDHDR (&#xE503; • contrib's) 16:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Lending library → Public library
The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator, replaced by a stub article.  Big Nate 37 (T) 15:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A lending library is not necessarily a public library. It's simply one which loans material to its user base. This might include academic libraries, health care libraries, law libraries, and so on and so forth. To redirect to one specific sector is misleading. ColdmachineTalk 17:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Then overwrite the redirect with actual content that explains the difference in an encyclopedic manner. Deletion of the page-history seems unnecessary here.  In the meantime, the inbound links seem to indicate that public library is pretty close to the intended meaning and, in this case, better than a redlink.  Rossami (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)