Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 3

nonsensal → nonsense (2nd nomination)
The result of the debate was speedy keep, was kept less than a week ago (see here).  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 22:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC) I fail to understand how it survived the last nomination. Delete it. It returns less than hundred Google results. TheBlazikenMaster 10:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy close. You can't renominate things that were just kept. This was kept less than a week ago in a 24 July 2007 RfD.  Big Nate 37 (T) 13:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not? TheBlazikenMaster 13:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus doesn't change that fast. Slightly paraphrasing from Consensus, it is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works to ask again and hope that a different and more pro-deletionist group of people will discuss the issue. In practice, the issue (your reason for deletion) hasn't changed. There hasn't been enough time for the community's idea of what is not an acceptable redirect to have changed. Therefore, this shouldn't be here again. How would you feel if it got deleted and I kept taking it to deletion review until one of the discussions favoured restoring it?  Big Nate 37 (T) 14:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry for nominating it so soon, I admit it was very dumb of me. I think it's time to close this now, since I re-nominated it too early. TheBlazikenMaster 14:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have placed the rfd tag on nonsensal to finish the incomplete nomination.  Big Nate 37 (T) 14:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - was it ment to write "Non-sensical" not Nonsensal? Onnaghar (speak.work) 16:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I made a typo when I made that redirect in the first place. Since someone said "Speedy Close" I'm actually surprised this discussion is still going. TheBlazikenMaster 19:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So am I. Closed.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 22:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The one who pushed Leslie into the river → Greg
The result of the debate was speedy delete as CSD G1 by.  Big Nate 37 (T) 13:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Nonsensical redirect. --Uthbrian (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy delete per nom, I tagged it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlazikenMaster (talk • contribs) 12:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Eric Olefson's brain → Image:Leucotomy.jpg
The result of the debate was already speedy deleted by Angusmclellan. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsensical redirect. --Uthbrian (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy delete per nom, I tagged it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlazikenMaster (talk • contribs) 12:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Francis Siguenza → 1956 Tour de France
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 02:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC) This is a redirect that could make sense if Siguenza had never competed anywhere else than in the 1956 Tour de France; however, given that he participated in several editions of the Tour de France, it does not make any sense. Schutz 07:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - per nom. Onnaghar (speak.work) 16:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as misleading.  Mel sa  ran  13:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"he bite me in my vagina!" → Meme
The result of the debate was delete (executed by Kurykh as Patent Nonsense) --Aarktica 01:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Need I say anything ? I hesitated with CSD G1. Schutz 19:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy delete per G1, like nom said. Doesn't seem to be an actual meme either.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 22:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No original research → Original research
The result of the debate was delete. --Core desat 08:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Implausible redirect; this previously redirected to No original research, but as CNRs aren't permitted nowadays (except pseudo-namespace redirects), it was redirected to original research by Black Falcon. However, "no original research" is a very unlikely search term, and if someone would search for it, he/she would most certainly be looking for No original research, not this. It's like redirecting no pizzas to pizza. Delete  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 22:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment There are actually some redirects from the opposite in existence. Take a good look at where nonexistence redirects to. Anyway, I leave no vote, just a comment. TheBlazikenMaster 22:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Nonexistence" is a very common term. "No original research" isn't, except in Wikijargon. Please also note that RfD is not a vote.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 23:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree that anyone searching for no original research will not find what they're looking for at original research. Keeping this redirect as-is would be confusing, and I can't think of a better target (though secondary source briefly crossed my mind).  Big Nate 37 (T) 04:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Come to think of it you're right. No original research is more than just the opposite, it can also be a guideline, which most people would be looking for. TheBlazikenMaster 11:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I redirected the page to original research since that page has a disambiguation link to No original research at the top. I don't really have an opinion on whether it should be kept or deleted. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. In my opinion, one of the best solutions to XNRs is to direct them at an article which has a disambiguation hatnote going to the project page that the reader is probably looking for; that way, someone who's only using Wikipedia as an encyclopedia (which is what it's for, after all) doesn't end up on a project page by mistake, but new users looking for the relevant project page will still find it. In contrast to BigNate37's comment, I feel that with the status quo anyone searching for 'no original research' will find what they're looking for, whether it's the project page or a definition of original research. --ais523 16:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Retarget to No original research and remove the self-referential hatnote at Original research. Or keep, as this is (or used to be) a very commonly linked to term on talk pages (always in the WP:NOR meaning). Kusma (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We should avoid CNRs and this one is not really necessary, so we'd better not retarget this. And self-referential hatnotes are fine as long as they're placed inbetween selfref tags. And this nomination is about the mainspace redirect "no original research" (which currently redirects to the mainspace article "original research"), because it is unlikely to be searched for (except by people who are looking for No original research), so the "talk pages" argument doesn't really apply. It is a redirect in the encyclopaedia, not in the project namespace.  Mel sa  ran  13:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN → Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense
The result of the debate was delete.  Singu larity  07:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC) When I look at the history of this redirect, it seems that it was kept, deleted, salted, restored etc numerous times. Nowadays (about one year after the last nomination), the consensus seems to be that CNRs like this one shouldn't exist (WP:BJAODN exists already), so I hope we can delete (and salt) this one once and for all.  Mel sa  ran  01:00, 4 August 2007 (CEST) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete Unless it's very necessary (which in this case it isn't) crossname redirects shouldn't exists, WP:BJAODN is fine. TheBlazikenMaster 23:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think that someone who is aware of BJAODN will also be aware of at least some of the different namspaces. WP:BJAODN is enough. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Only likely to be typed in by somebody who is looking for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajuk (talk • contribs)
 * Yeah, but there is a low chance that the one looking for it doesn't know anything about WP, most people looking for it would type WP:BJAODN. TheBlazikenMaster 11:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, avoid XNRs.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Cross-namespace redirect.  Cheers, Lig  hts  18:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I disagree that the consensus is for all CNRs to be deleted (we just had one close as a unanimous keep a few days ago, I believe). This has a ton of incoming links, showing that it is used quite a bit. Of all the CNRs currently in existence, I'd say this is the last one we should delete. --- RockMFR 01:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's linked to from 421 pages; I'm correcting the links with AWB now.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 03:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: while RockMFR is correct that not all CNRs are deleted, in general most are, and I don't see anything particularly special about this one. This is not something helpful to newbies, which is the main argument I've seen raised at past CNR keep decisions.  This is something mainly known about and used by insiders, who are very unlikely to be confused about the need for the "WP:" prefix.  Xtifr tälk 23:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, can't think of anything else people might look for under this name. General anti-CNR arguments are not convincing for Wikipedia-only use acronyms. Kusma (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't even think of WP:BJAODN? More people would look for that, seriously. TheBlazikenMaster 16:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not that Kusma can't think of any other name people would use to look for BJAODN, it's that he can't think of anything else BJAODN could refer to besides Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense.  Big Nate 37 (T) 16:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't stop it from being very unlikely. TheBlazikenMaster 16:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The usual argument for keeping these (that its useful for newbies to navigate) doesn't apply here - its really only Wiki regulars who will know this by its abbreviation. Such people can use WP:BJAODN. Laziness doesn't excuse XNRs. WjBscribe 02:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)