Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 February 15

Nilnilunium to Hydrogen
The result of the debate was speedy deleted, final warning given to Cosmium.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. This is the first of many re-directs created by User:Cosmium that nobody will want to search for. Georgia guy 20:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. But far from the first I think...see Redirects for discussion. DMacks 02:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Scalito to Samuel Alito
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. -- JLaTondre 20:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Attack redirect. Delete. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 17:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. The term is in somewhat common use as a result of its being used in connection with Alito's confirmation hearings. Moreover, the term, the implied comparison, and why it is not necessarily an attack are all discussed in the target article. Gavia immer 18:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The result at Articles for deletion/Scalito, the fact that Dubya redirects to George W. Bush, and the fact that the Scalito epithet is discussed in full at Samuel Alito are conclusive that the redirect is appropriate.  It is a POV attack to actually use the term by calling Alito "Scalito", but this is not what redirection does.  A redirect is not a factual statement or POV assertion, but instead only the reflection of an editorial decision that the redirected term is a mere subtopic of the target article undeserving of independent treatment.  See also the discussion at Talk:Scalito.  Postdlf 18:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am convinced. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 19:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Postdlf. --- RockMFR 18:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Create article and Create an article to Help:Starting a new page
The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre 03:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC) XNR.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Strong Keep When I was reasonably new here a few months back I found it hard to create a new page as sometimes when you typed something non-existent into the search bar it didn't give you the option to create it and when you type in New Page into the search bar it is a deleted page which is protected to prevent recreation, it's only now I have I in my favourites that I find it easy. Telly   addict Editor review! 15:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. They are clearly very helpful for new users who do not know how to navigate to find what they need.  Reviewing the pages' histories, both pages seemed to be vandal-magnets before they were populated with the protected redirect.  If the choice is between a cross-namespace redirect which some people find helpful and a deletedpage template (which everyone finds frustrating), I'll take the redirect.  Rossami (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - these are among the few useful cnr's we have. If we ever decided to get rid of cnr's completely, then these should go, but not until then. --- RockMFR 06:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

SP:XT and SP:NP to Special: pages
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 03:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC) I was rather surprised to see we do redirects to SpecialPages now. Is that a good idea?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete It's of a higher chance that a user would just type in special and then follow the self references link to a list of special pages, therefore making this unncessary. Telly   addict Editor review! 15:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redirects to Special: pages don't work, and this is unlikely to change. Gavia immer 16:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikistress to wikistress
The result of the debate was Kept (no consensus). -- JLaTondre 03:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC) A cross-wiki redirect is probably even worse than a cross-namespace redirect.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * And also, ParserFunctions, List of Wikipedias
 * Delete I would have said keep if the first one was leading to another English Wikipedia article but because it's leadping right over to a cross-namespace its bad and in my opinion should be deleted. Telly   addict Editor review! 15:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all, but first move ParserFunctions and List of Wikipedias to ParserFunctions and List of Wikipedias (the Wikistress equivalent already exists). Also these all need orphaned. --- RockMFR 18:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The soft-redirect template was created for exactly this purpose.  The meta page was first created on Wikipedia.  Wikipedians who remember it need to be able to find it.  Rossami (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A soft redirect from Wikispace to meta is fine, e.g. WP:DICK. But they should be avoided in the mainspace. WjBscribe 06:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WJBscribe who said exactly what I was going to say. Eluchil404 06:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Maybe List of Wikipedias can be redirected to Wikipedia. I have added  to the "see also" section. --Pmsyyz 05:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep if someone type in wikistress to see what it means, he should be directed to the right place, no argument needed. Wooyi 18:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster (chess) → International Grandmaster
The result of the debate was delete by BigDT to allow for move. WjBscribe 03:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC) After discussion at Talk:International Grandmaster, consensus is to rename International Grandmaster to Grandmaster (chess), but before we can do that we need to delete Grandmaster (chess), which currently exists as a redirect to the former. Rocksong 02:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved. You don't need to delete redirects before moving articles, non-admins can move articles over redirects. WjBscribe 03:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmm, but Grandmaster (chess) counts as having content- maybe because of the WP:RFD tag? WjBscribe 03:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Passenger (Swedish Band) → Passenger (Swedish band)
The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre 03:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC) The redirect does not comply with WP:NAMING, it's unlikely to ever be used by anyone. It is the result of vandalism edits done by User:Dan01. Leon Sword 02:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Redirect does not conform to naming conventions.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If this was typed int the search bar, it would probably return the band mentioned as the first listing. Telly   addict Editor review! 16:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. 1) Redirects do not have to conform to the naming conventions.  In fact, one of their primary purposes is to help readers who don't yet know those conventions.  2) Redirects do far more than merely support the search engine.  This redirect was created yesterday as part of a pagemove.  The moved page had many editors who will need to find the new location of the article.  Rossami (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as R from capitalization. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

List of USAF Strategic Intelligence Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command → 544th Information Operations Group
The result of the debate was Deleted. Article histories show that no merge occurred. The list was redirected without copying any of the contents into the target. -- JLaTondre 03:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Very unlikely that anyone seeking any information on the 544th Intelligence Group or Wing would type this in Buckshot06 15:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete It's so long, wikipedia does not need this type of extreme redirect. Telly   addict Editor review! 16:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Contents appear to have been merged into the destination page.  Redirects such as this serve to preserve attribution history which is a requirement of GFDL.  Rossami (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)