Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 June 27

Grand theft auto: san andreas stories → Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
The result of the debate was Deleted. While this is a potential search term, there is not content at the target regarding this possible, future game. Anyone searching for this term is more than likely specifically looking for this & is already aware of the current game. -- JLaTondre 15:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Delete, pointless, San Andreas stories isn't mentioned ANYWHERE in the article. TheBlazikenMaster 22:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Not mentioned in target. Originally created based on speculative information. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Stories. --- RockMFR 00:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, 1. likely search term, 2. prevents easy recreation of the article, 3. redirects are cheap, 4.no harm is done. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but it can be salted. TheBlazikenMaster 17:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I just noticed this wasn't tagged for deletion. Might want to keep this open a few more days. --- RockMFR 02:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:-( → Vandalism & WP:( → Vandalism
The result of the debate was keep (early close per WP:SNOW). There is an overwhelming consensus forming that we should keep these redirects - the result is a foregone conclusion. No need to keep these high profile shortcuts broken any longer than necessary. WjBscribe 02:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Not really a likely or needed search term. I can't really imagine someone typing in WP:-( expecting to be directed to Vandalism. -- AAA!  ( AAAA ) 05:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC) The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
 * speedy keep. AAA!, please don't take this the wrong way.  When you nominate a redirect to a high-profile page such as Vandalism, you should check "What links here" to see if the redirects are being used.  Since they have been used extensively, they need to be kept. Shalom Hello 16:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your speedy close and moved your close statement to an opinion. High usage because of a template is not a valid reason for a speedy close. If the consensus is to delete, links can be easily fixed by a bot. This was a valid nomination. -- JLaTondre 22:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I apologize for the mistake.  I am still concerned, though, that if the redirect is deleted, someone will have to redesign the redirects or program a bot to do it, and I don't think it's worth the bother.  If it makes a difference, I also don't see a substantive reason to delete: I think there's a logical connection between ":(" and vandalism. Shalom Hello 02:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not about accidentally getting to the page. If this were a mainspace redirect, I would obviously agree with you, but it's not. If a large number of people like using this redirect when referring to the policy, I see no reason to force them to use other redirects instead. If you had evidence that silly redirects to Wikipedia pages was a menacing and growing problem that was harming the project, then I would also agree. But so far, all I see is one harmless cutesy redirect. nadav (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Highly used shortcut. It's not intended to be a search term. --- RockMFR 00:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Extensively used redirect. No gain in deleting. ~ João Do Rio 06:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As RockMFR said, it's supposed to be a shortcut rather than a search term. hmwith  talk  22:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Got nothing to add what has already been said. TheBlazikenMaster 16:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I am actually glad to hear about the shortcut and will use it in the future. Dayleyj 16:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)