Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 April 3

April 3
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 3, 2008

2008 U.S. Presidential candidates
The result of the debate was Delete all  Keegan talk 19:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * H-rod → Hillary Rodham Clinton
 * President Huckabee → Mike Huckabee
 * 08ama → Barack Obama
 * Willard the Mitt → Mitt Romney

These are just the sort of thing that such high profile articles attract. None of them is a useful term for the candidate they refer to (President Huckabee is, I suppose, marginal. However, it is also incorrect). None is likely to become useful. None is linked from anywhere. Hence, none of them is needed. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy delete nonsense. B.Wind (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all per B.Wind -- Lenticel ( talk ) 04:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all They basically qualify as neologism-redirects. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete on the last 3, which are just nonsense. Less strong, but still solid delete on "H-rod"...that's a term I've heard before, but not so often I'd think someone would wonder what it meant.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep on all except President Huckabee, which should be deleted as it's no longer relevant. I've heard the other three phrases used before. They're not that common now, which is why I'm only advocating a weak keep, but who knows whether or not they'll take off, at which point they'd just be recreated. --Mr Beale (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all except last, H-rod gets zero relevant Google hits, president Huckabee is very POV not to mention outdated 08ama is also POV and an unlikely search item for anybody looking for the Barack Obama article (possibly the Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign article). Willard the Mitt though seems to have some hints of existence. The Dominator (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete redirects used for all non-current candidates for the White House. Abstain regarding current candidates, as my vote would say to ask how much currency usage said nicknames have. Guroadrunner (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering → Wikilawyering
The result of the debate was Kept (no consensus). This has previously been nominated twice before & deleted, but it's clear there is not really consensus for deletion this time around. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Cross-namespace redirect Stifle (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 11:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I thought this redirect would be useful. Why delete it? Nightscream (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, for the reason the nominator said, did you read the section on this page on which redirects are to be nominated? Cross-namespace redirects are one of them. The Dominator (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this would be useful for people looking for the essay. For example, going to RFC has a link to WP:RFC at the top. I'd think it would be a good place for a soft redirect, but the policy on them doesn't appear to allow it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep notwithstanding the guideline (though perhaps someone will post a link here for the benefit of others reviewing this RfD). I have, probably more than once, entered Xyz and been pleased to have been redirected to WP:Xyz. Matchups 03:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The term doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia, but I still find this cross-namespace redirect troublesome, maybe a person would be looking for an article and be redirected to a Wikipedia essay. It isn't exactly hard to stick to correct namespace redirecting and type in WP:WL which is incidentally shorter than Wikilawyering. The Dominator (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's assuming they know about WP:WL. I'm picturing a newbie seeing the term used and looking for what it means using the search box. The concern of someone looking for an article and getting an essay is exactly why I'd like to see a soft redirect. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as likely search term. If someone wants to write a great article on Wikilawyering, then we can add a soft redirect.  D a n si m a n  ( talk | Contribs ) 17:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (as already in the past) as cross name-space redirect where the possible benefits that would warrant a self reference to an essay are rather slim. Moreover, the essay even states that there are many references and meanings as well as connotations. You typically encounter this term already deep inside project space discussions. If it isn't already linked or self-with a particular meaning evident from the context, one can always searching or ask for clarification. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cross-namespace redirect. Anyone looking for it, in WP, will find it using the search page. - Nabla (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a cross-namespace redirect to an essay. While I could agree that some cross-namespace redirects to policy and process pages could be useful for editors who are not familiar with the "Wikipedia:" prefix, creating such redirects to essays, which can be written by a single editor and often reflect non-consensus views, is not necessary. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't really an example of that, though: the Wikilawyering article has been around since November 2005, and has been contributed to by many authors. Being cross-namespace may be a valid criteria for nominating the redirect, but if there are good reasons to keep it, being cross-namespace doesn't override.  D a n si m a n  ( talk | Contribs ) 01:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My rationale is not just that it's a cross-namespace redirect, but that it's a CNR to an essay. It's an old page and one with multiple contributors, but it's still an essay... It has no official status and its content does not necessarily reflect the views of a consensus of editors. Black Falcon (Talk) 03:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep, likely search term, directs people to what they look for, can't possibly create confusion. No harm has been demonstrated in keeping it, and deleting it has the drawback of breaking old versions of pages (something that can't be fixed by orphaning it). Kusma (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)