Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 September 27

Planting and seating → Land grant
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 12:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Toddstreat1 17:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Planting and seating is not synonymous with a Land grant, rather it was sometimes a condition of a grant.

In addition, there appear to be different uses of the term Planting and seeding. See the irrelevant material recently deleted from the Land grant page, now on Talk:Land grant: Please note that planting and seating in an English garden also means a particular type of landscaping used in formal gardens and streetscape parks. See, e.g., CABE case studies of Urban design, City of London urban design web pages, andCross River Partnership web site

This is somewhere between causing confusion and making no sense - perhaps both. Toddstreat1 15:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Sam Hooke → Satan
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Page already deleted by: User:Papa November. The reason given was: CSD G7: Author requested deletion. Non-admin closure. Mtmelendez (Talk 15:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Personal joke that's otherwise irrelevant RobPrewer 14:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC) The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
 * This can be speedily deleted as db-author. Not to mention db-attack. Please do not add personal attacks to Wikipedia. - ∅  ( ∅ ), 14:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Dark arts(disambiguation) → Dark Arts (disambiguation)
The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 12:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Do we need this? Note absence of space between 's' and '('. - ∅  ( ∅ ), 14:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC) The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination.  Please do not modify it.
 * Keep only because it documents the pagemove. And while part of the pagemove is documented in the target's history, not all of it is.  This page was moved several times before it finally found the correct title.  Leaving the redirect alone costs less than deleting it.  Rossami (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not harmful, and it's a very plausible typo.  --UsaSatsui 07:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep from page move. hmwith  talk  17:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Redirects are cheap. David Pro 18:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A servicable redir. Double redir now straightened; no need to delete. --Watsimous 16:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

New Economics → New Classical Macroeconomics
The result of the debate was Disambig. Changed to disambig between New Classical Macroeconomics and New Keynesian economics. An editor, apparently out of confusion, created a page called 'New Economics' in the place of a topic properly called 'New classical economics' or better yet 'New classical macroeconomics'. Since then, the page has been correctly posted under 'New classical macroeconomics'. However, the 'New Economics' page (with capital E, not lower case) still exists, as a redirect. I would strongly urge deleting the 'New Economics' page, because otherwise some users will falsely conclude that 'New Economics' is a synonym for 'New classical macroeconomics'. As far as I know, 'New Economics' is a nonexistent term. I posted a discussion about this several days ago on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics, and so far no one has disagreed with me, though I was reprimanded for following the wrong deletion procedure. So I am now requesting deletion, following the instructions left on my talk page. --Rinconsoleao 07:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A redirect is not an endorsement of a term or title.  In fact, a redirect is a clear statement that it is not the preferred title.  Redirects serve administrative purposes.  In this particular case, the redirect documents a very recent pagemove.  This page was edited a fair amount before being moved to the correct title.  The redirect ensures that all the original editors will be able to find the correct place for their contributions and prevents the accidental recreation of content at the old title.  It also ensures that any links to the old title (whether inside Wikipedia or made on external websites) will still direct to the correct location.  Rossami (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's 'not the preferred title'. I'm saying that 'New economics' is a term completely unrelated to 'New classical macroeconomics'. And some nonspecialist who follows the current link might come to believe, erroneously, that the two are synonyms. --Rinconsoleao 15:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment' It should be noted that the page was originally at New classical economics and moved to New Economics at 02:03, 21 August 2007 Motaros (Talk | contribs) m (moved New classical economics to New Economics: effecting title of other.) So there really isn't much of a history of the page existing at New Economics. To me it appears as though the page existed at new classical economics since creation in 2004, until the page move in August. (though I might be wrong in what I see in the revision history) 132.205.44.5 21:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Enrique Iglesias Discography → Enrique Iglesias discography
The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 00:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Speedy-delete. This redirect page has no reason to exist. Like other discography articles, the word "discography" is supposed to be un-capitalised. Gh87 00:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. Plausible and useful search term. It's a redirect whose title contains mixed-capitalisation words (not all initial caps, or not all lower case except the first word) and therefore are found only via an exact case match. It aids searches when a person incorrectly capitalizes the word discography, which is plausible. Actually, WP:RFD (aid accidental linking), WP:RFD (aid searches on certain terms) and WP:RFD (useful) apply. - Mtmelendez (Talk 10:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unneccesary. David Pro 21:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to the reasons documented by Mtmelendez, it documents the recent pagemove.  Rossami (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep...this is actually a prime example why we have redirects in the first place. --UsaSatsui 07:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as it's from a page move. hmwith  talk  17:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Ioeth/Archive1 → User talk:Ioeth/Archive 1
The result of the debate was speedily deleted by MZMcBride, per WP:CSD. Non-admin closure. -- Ag ü  eybaná  22:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Moved to User talk:Ioeth/Archive 1. Thanks!
 * Speedy Delete: I didn't realize I forgot to put the space in when I did the move, so now there's this little orphan page out there. --Ioeth 19:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * You don't need to bring it here, just tag as db-userreq. - Mtmelendez (Talk 19:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)