Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 November 18

East shore estuary → San Francisco Bay
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC) No references indicate that the name "East shore estuary" is related to San Francisco Bay Chris!  c t 06:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete Original target was deleted as OR (Articles for deletion/Eastshore Estuary). Toohool (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the AFD discussion. Rossami (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the AFD discussion. No proof that this term is used.SkierRMH (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Macromanagement (computer gaming) → Micromanagement (computer gaming)
The result of the debate was kept. John Reaves 07:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC) There is no mention of the word or concept of "macromanagement" in the page this redirects to, "Micromanagement." Zhandao (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. The meaning is clear by counter-example even though it is no longer spelled out in the article.  If micromanagement means "losing sight of the big picture by paying excessive attention to details", then macromanagment is either "getting it right" or "staying so focused on the big picture that you ignore the details".  And the version of Dec 2005 said as much.  That version was subject to an AFD discussion which ended in no consensus.  Personally, I don't see enough in the original article to justify a stand-alone article so the merge-and-redirect decision makes sense to me.  Rossami (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The redirect made sense back then because the user who redirected it added a "Macromanagement" subsection under the Micromanagement page: 28 Dec 2005. That subsection is no longer there so it should either be added back to Micromanagement or back to Macromanagement with the redirect deleted. Zhandao (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The subsection is in the pagehistory. If it is ever restored, the redirect is part of the process we use to preserve the attribution history (a requirement of GFDL).  That does not, however, mean that it must be restored.  Frankly, I think the current article is better without that section since it was a) self-evident when in this context and b) unsourced.  But that's only my opinion.  If you think the article was better with that section, be bold and add it back.  Deleting the redirect, on the other hand, seems the worst of the available options.  Rossami (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rossami. Redirect is need to comply with GFDL while the merged content exists in the history of the target page, as that content might be restored to the article. Doesn't appear that this redirect causes any harm. WjBscribe 23:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)