Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 December 21

December 21
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 21, 2008

Lake George, New South Wales → Lake George (New South Wales)
 The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Redirect from the Wikipedia namespace to an article, unlikely to be useful as a link or search term. — Snigbrook 23:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

STREET → User:Grutness/One street per 50,000 people
The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Crosses namespace, giving the impression that this user's page might be official policy/guideline and is so being used in current AFDs Colonel Warden (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - on the basis that nothing has changed since it was kept at rfd this time last year, with the exception of the fact that more people are using the essay to make their personal opinions on AfD nominations known. Certainly the page itself makes it abundantly clear that it is not an official policy or guideline. Many essays have cross-namespace redirects if those essays are in common use.


 * There is certainly nothing in Wikipedia's policies against such redirects, since neither the redirect nor the essay is in articlespace, and in fact deletion of such redirects is generally incompatible with normal Wikipedia practice which is to delete (to quote WP:Redirects) if "it is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space" (my emphasis). This isn't - it has nothing to do with article space at all. It also makes it clear that redirects shouldn't be deleted if "someone finds them useful." Given that the redirect was created by someone other than the writer of the essay, and given that it has been used more than once in the last couple of months (and not by me, either), I'd venture that someone does find it useful.


 * Last time this was nominated for deletion, it was kept, as were the other similar redirects to it - even though with this particular redirect I at the time said I had no problems with its deletion (I wrote the essay, but did not create the redirect, so it wasn't a speediable deletion). Reading the rfd discussion from last time at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_29 - both for this redirect and the discussion above it, which was for another redirect to the same essay - should be informative to this current discussion. Grutness...wha?  23:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is not a CNR from articlespace (and CSD R2 does not apply to redirects in project space, as a side note). Wikipeda essays often get moved between user space and project space... in both directions. This is one case where the redirect does no harm (and, in fact, was created to fix a double redirect) and is a useful short cut to an essay. On the other hand, should someone wish to retarget it to WikiProject Streetcars, I would not object,either. B.Wind (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete It already gets cited as policy, even though it isn't -- we generally have two or three times as many for cities where there is much interest here--and keeping it as a redirect encourages this. DGG (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I don't recall ever having seen it cited as policy - can you point out some cases? Grutness...wha?  07:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * first one at hand is the very latest article i worked on, Articles for deletion/Clyde Road -- where this policy is given -- and given by you yourself -- as the sole reason for deletion
 * and then it's being given as the deletion rationale by an editor at Articles for deletion/Britain Quay (Dublin), to which discussion you contributed, and by the same editor at numerous other articles at AfD presently,  DGG (talk) 13:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I am simply using my opinion (the essay) to express my opinion (in the deletion debate) - I'm certainly not citing it as policy. I'm no more using it as policy than the various people commenting at RfA over the years use their own standards to decide whether someone is up to being an admin. And I can see no indication that anyone else is doing so either - they all seem to be using it to express an opinion that it does not measure up to a standard which seems reasonable to them. In any case, if something fails according to the personal standards I've laid down in this essay they would fail according to WP:N as well, since the essay is founded on principles embedded within WP:N - in fact it allows more leeway than WP:N does, since WP:N expects inherent notability in a street - my essay says that inherent notability is enough for an article, but there are cases where a street which is not notable in its own right may also be notable simply by its relative local importance. As such, any street which fails the standards in that essay automatically will not pass WP:N, and some that fail WP: N would still pass according to my essay. To suggest that people are in a hurry to !vote delete on an article because it fails this essay and would pass WP:N is impossible. But that is all beside the point - the point is that I can still see no cases where people are citing this essay as policy as you suggerst - they are all making personal judgements based on it - no more, no less.


 * One more thing - even in the unlikely event that people are somehow misreading this essay as policy in those recent Dublin street AfDs, that still doesn't explain one thing. Why delete this redirect? No-one in those debates has used WP:STREET to get to that essay. Grutness...wha?  22:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep per Grutness. flaminglawyerc 05:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Some redirect being in project space shouldn't confuse people that it is a policy, otherwise I'd have an awful lot of essays to haul off to MfD. Protonk (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Most viewed article → Statistics
The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Unhelpful cross namespace redirect. Patton 123  20:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * I just used it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.190.166 (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Me again, according to http://stats.grok.se/en/200811/Most_viewed_article it was used 1344 times in November. 66.57.190.166 (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ekipa (series) → Prime Minister (TV Series)
 The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Unlikely name for redirect, as it is in the wrong namespace — Snigbrook 19:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Death Cap → Amanita phalloides
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Redirect that was created in the wrong namespace — Snigbrook 19:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Savannah State Tigers Head Football Coaches → Template:Savannah State Tigers football coach navbox
The result of the discussion was retargeted per previous Rfd.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 10:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Cross-namespace redirect to a recently-renamed template. Taking it here for discussion after my attempt to retarget it to Savannah State Tigers was quickly reverted, re-establishing the CNR. A similar attempt (while a mass RfD was in process) was reverted by the same editor without updating the discussion before the RfD was closed. B.Wind (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment - The edit summary did not include rationale for changes. As indicated in my summary, the redirect pointed to the template listed above because the original page was about the coaches before the move and not the athletic teams (Savannah State Tigers). -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I took it here for a handful of reasons. First, this is redirects for discussion, and I thought it best that a community discussion be held about this in light of the double revert (including the first one while it was first in RfD). Second, it's a cross-namespace redirect, which is generally a Bad Thing here at Wikipedia. Third, the retargeting was to an article that has the template transcluded, thus accomplishing the same thing without having the CNR. Rather to engage in a silly edit war, I thought it best to be discussed here. Note that the above poster did not mention anything about his first revert while RfD was going on. B.Wind (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but you lost me. I simply reverted an inaccurate redirect to an article not related to the subject. Since you have nominated the page for deletion I think this is a moot point. In other words, I hope you don't feel like someone is attacking you because I reverted your edit. Next time, just explain what you are doing. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The Rolling Clones → Tribute act
The result of the discussion was deleted without objection.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 10:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Redirect --Jerzy•t 07:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) from title of article deleted for n-n and without any suggestion of merging,
 * 2) created subsequent to deletion, by the initial editor of the deleted article (& apparently predominant contributor to it), who did not participate in the AfD discussion,
 * 3) to a page that does not now mention them, where the plain-text list entry for them was removed in a general house cleaning a few months after the deletion.
 * Delete Non-notable tribute act, not mentioned in target. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.