Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 27

Lesnar → Brock Lesnar
The result of the debate was Keep. David Pro 15:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Brock Lesnar has never been known as just Lesnar, this is a useless redirect that serves no purpose. Lesnar is a unique last name I suppose, but it's very unlikely someone is going to create a duplicate Brock Lesnar page at this pointless redirect. RobJ1981 20:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also it should be noted, the redirect was created this year. The logs show no one has created it in the past, so obviously people know Lesnar isn't a nickname for Brock Lesnar in any shape or form. RobJ1981 11:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep, likely search term; redirects are cheap; no harm is done. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. As Reinoutr notes, redirects are cheap.  If there ever are multiple notable Lesnars, the page can always be converted to a disambiguation page.  In the meantime, this seems mildly helpful and not at all harmful.  Rossami (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rossami. It may not be particularly likely, but it's not implausible as a search term. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Redirects are cheap. David Pro 13:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

How does one edit a page/Redirect traffic from one page to another page → Redirect
The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 17:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Extremely implausible search term, self-referential, no relevant incoming links – Gurch 18:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep I've seen links to this redirect on some help pages. Unlikely search term though--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 10:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well wherever those links were, they were fixed long ago: Special:Whatlinkshere/How does one edit a page/Redirect traffic from one page to another page – Gurch 22:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This page is one of the oldest help pages we had.  While the current links may have been cleaned up, old links are all over the project's history.  (And there may well be external links to this page from before the pagemove.)  Pagemoves are generally considered useful history.  There is no possibility that a reader trying to follow this link will expect to find anything but the Wikipedia page on redirects.  Rossami (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Gurch and just note the new location in the deletion summary (e.g. "per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 27; redirected to Redirect"); that way, anyone looking for this page specifically will be forwarded to the new target. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that solution is smooth enough to meet our readers' needs. The deletion summary is not automatically presented when an anon user tries to open a deleted page.  All you get is the standard "Wikipedia does not have a page with that title" message.  That message does have a bullet that "your page might have been deleted" and a not-very obvious link to the deletion log but neither are prominently displayed.  The average reader (and probably even the above average reader) is not going to put up with that much trouble.  Rossami (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The page was moved in 2002; I don't think anyone will still have a direct link to the page. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the old history per Rossami. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

To be written → Make omissions explicit
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 17:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Self-referential, bears little relation to its target, which is a proposal that was rejected in 2005 – Gurch 18:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Strong delete Has nothing to do with its target and is cross-namespace--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 10:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This used to be used to denote articles that needed to be expanded (I assume the goal was to use "what links here" to find articles needing expansion). I've gone ahead and replaced the last few mainspace usages with the normal expansion templates. --- RockMFR 17:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Gurch and RockMFR. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Year in Review guidelines → Year in Review guidelines
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 17:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Self-referential, has no relevant incoming links, and the target page has been inactive for years – Gurch 18:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Weak keep. This redirect documents a pagemove from before the time when the pagemoves were automatically documented in the respective articles' edit histories.  I'm qualifying my opinion as "weak" because in this case, I don't think it was ever a particularly high-use page and, unlike many other old pages, don't think there's much chance that it's externally linked.  Rossami (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Gurch and just note the new location in the deletion summary (e.g. "per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 27; redirected to Year in Review guidelines"); that way, anyone looking for this page specifically will be forwarded to the new target. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Placentalia-Marsupialia or Eutheria-Metatheria? → WikiProject Tree of Life/Marsupial poll
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 17:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Self-referential and very implausible, no relevant incoming links – Gurch 18:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete as a self-referential cross-namespace redirect with no useful history. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians by number of edits → List of Wikipedians by number of edits
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 17:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC) The counting of Wikipedia contributors' contributions is not a subject suitable for encyclopedic coverage, thus there should not be references to it in article space – Gurch 18:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete as a self-referential cross-namespace redirect with no useful history. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

List of articles with Python programs → List of articles with Python programs
The result of the debate was keep. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 03:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If the list is encyclopedic, it should be an article; if not, however, there should not be article titles redirecting to it. I do not believe it is encylopedic, as it is just a collection of random computing topics that are only very loosely related – Gurch 18:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. It documents a pagemove from before the time when the pagemoves were automatically recorded in the respective articles' edit histories.  Per the "keep if" criteria above, pagemoves are generally considered useful history.  Given the exact title, I see no possibility of confusion with an encyclopedia topic.  Rossami (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

UK Wikipedians' notice board → UK Wikipedians' notice board
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 17:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC) As below, different capitalization – Gurch 18:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete as a self-referential cross-namespace redirect with no useful history. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

UK wikipedians' notice board → UK Wikipedians' notice board
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 17:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC) The UK Wikipedians' notice board is not a subject suitable for enyclopedic coverage, thus there should not be references to it in article space – Gurch 18:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete as a self-referential cross-namespace redirect with no useful history. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Irish wikipedians' notice board → Irish wikipedians' notice board
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 17:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC) The Irish Wikipedians' notice board is not a subject suitable for enyclopedic coverage, thus there should not be references to it in article space – Gurch 18:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Strong delete Cross-namespace redirect--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 10:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a self-referential cross-namespace redirect with no useful history. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Little Big Mum → Little Big Mom
The result of the debate was keep and tag with R from alternative spelling.  Ρх₥α 01:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC) The redirect was speedy-deleted inappropriately (in that it is not a completely "implausible typo"). The speedy-deletion was contested in good faith. This is a procedural nomination to seek community consensus on the redirect. I am abstaining for now. Rossami (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete It's kind of unnecessary, isn't it? Because if your going to have a redirect for the British spelling, then why not other variations of the word, like "Little Big Mother"? Generally, I think that redirects shouldn't exist for alternate spellings, because that opens the door for thousands and thousands of potential redirects (Like "Tha Simpsons") -- Scorpion0422 18:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This isn't a lexeme variation. Phoenetically, "Little Big Mother" sounds different. However, "Little Big Mum" sounds almost the same. The pronunciation isn't so much different that yes, it can be coinsidered an alternate spelling. Reginmund 20:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems an obvious redirect from an alternative spelling given the limitations of our search feature. Tag with R from alternative spelling. WjBscribe 17:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Janice Litman Goralnik née Hosenstein → List_of_significant_others_of_Friends
The result of the debate was target page deleted, thus making redirect eligible for speedy deletion; discussion unnecessary – Gurch 12:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC) No one is ever going to use "Janice Litman Goralnik née Hosenstein" as a search string. Otto4711 17:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep because it documents a pagemove of a page that has been moved several times (all apparently in good faith). Per the criteria above, pagemoves are generally considered useful history.  Rossami (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I♥... (BBC television & compilation album brand) → I♥...
The result of the debate was keep. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 02:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No one is ever going to search for "I♥... (BBC television & compilation album brand)" Otto4711 16:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. Documents a pagemove that the nominator just carried out two days ago.  In addition to being useful history and to still having a few inbound links, the redirect serves to point the original editors and readers to the new title for the article and consolidates their contributions (rather than showing them a blank page which they may feel obligated to recreate).  Rossami (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article history is preserved at I♥... and there's only one incoming link that isn't either an archive or related to this proposal. Otto4711 20:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Otto ... it took me a few seconds to figure out what this was. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The article was at its old title for nearly 18 months so there may be incoming links from outside Wikipedia using this title. Redirects are cheap. WjBscribe 17:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Brotherhood of satan → Satanism
The result of the debate was delete. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 02:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an organization for which Wikipedia does not currently have an article. It is not mentioned in the article about Satanism. Having it in place misleads readers into thinking some information about the organization may be found on the Satanism page. Removing the redirect will not leave anyone at a loss since "Satanism" is a very obvious search term in and by itself meco 12:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * If this is an organization which meets Wikipedia's inclusion standards and for which reliable, verifiable, independent sources exist, just overwrite the redirect with content about the organization. The redirect does not need to be purged from pagehistory to start an article.  On the other hand, if no such sources exist or if noone has interest yet in writing the article, the redirect seems plausible for now.  Rossami (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. All the present redirect tells the reader is that the organization is connected to Satanism - they can probably guess that. Given that this redirect is of little navigational value and that redirects can prevent the creation of new content, I think it would be better if this one were deleted. WjBscribe 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Lancaster train station → Lancaster (Amtrak station)
The result of the debate was disambig page created. Non-admin closure. GlassCobra 20:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC) I mistakenly added this redirect; it should be deleted because there is also a train station in Lancaster, California - Lancaster (Metrolink station). In addition, there is also an article titled Lancaster railway station for a station in the United Kingdom. If the redirect is kept or modified, it might be useful to change the article format to include all 3 stations and be similar to many of Wikipedia's disambiguation pages. CHIP72 04:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Bduke 08:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Create disambiguation page seems to be the most intelligent solution to this. __meco 12:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and did this. It's a plausible search term for anyone who doesn't know that there are multiple "Lancaster" stations. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Pii → Soy sauce
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 17:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC) The redirect doesn't make sense. What is "Pii" anyway? Chris! c t 21:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Retarget to Pi Pii is a misspelling of Pi, which is 3.14... and is represented as π--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 10:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect that this page was created either as vandalism or a test. The author's only contribution to Wikipedia was the creation of this redirect.  I can find no plausible reference between Pii and soy sauce.  I don't consider it a particularly plausible typo for π so I'm going to recommend a weak delete.  Rossami (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rossami. I'd have suggested retargeting to PII, but this does not seem to be necessary, per Redirects. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)