Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 July 27

July 27
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 27, 2008

WP:FOO → Sandbox
The result of the debate was well, keep. Tikiwont (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Foo has nothing to do with sandbox. TALKIN  PIE EATER   REVIEW ME  23:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * facepalm . -- Ned Scott 08:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * that's, keep, in case anyone was wondering. -- Ned Scott 09:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How come? I mean, my reason sucks.  If you have a better one, or one that makes sense, I want to know it.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I came off kind of rude there. The more I think about it the more I start to go.. well.... maybe it shouldn't redirect there.. The generic value of "foo" is used so often in new user guidelines and help pages, it seemed logical, at first, to have it lead to the sandbox. Now I'm not so sure. facepalm on myself. -- Ned Scott 09:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't seem rude to me. I just thought you had some blatantly obvious reason that I didn't know about or something.  Anyways, sure, it's nonsensical, but harmless, and...well, I don't know -how- it makes sense, but it does.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (To Ned Scott) I get what your getting at. HOw about a retarget? I'm not sure WHAT to retarget yet, but I think it should be something that only noobs would use.   TALKIN   PIE EATER   REVIEW ME  01:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the hell of it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, not sure if this applies, but is this a valid reason to delete? TALKIN   PIE EATER   REVIEW ME  01:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but I voted to keep. :) Besides, if I'm voicing my opinion on any link, it's this one. --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, fine, I IAR the policy WP:IAR. =) Can we even do that? Ignore IAR? TALKIN   PIE EATER   REVIEW ME  18:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, you can IAR the IAR rule, but I can choose to IAR your IAR of IAR. In fact, the only rule you can't IR is NCR.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Doesn't do any harm. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  17:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, just because it doesn't do any harm, doesn't mean it should be deleted. TALKIN   PIE EATER   REVIEW ME  01:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOHARM is simply an essay, not a guideline, not a policy. I typically try to follow it, but in this case, there is no strong reason to delete and no strong reason to keep. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  13:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Harmless" is also a valid keep reason for redirects. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Invisible idiot → The Dragons of Eden
The result of the debate was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Arbitary and unhelpful choice of target; AFAIK Sagan's book doesn't discuss this hoary example of machine translation, and the article certainly doesn't. It would be easier to find an article that does without the redirect existing, but we don't seem to have one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * How about speedy delete per CSD G10? TALKIN   PIE EATER   REVIEW ME  01:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Cluebat → Luser
The result of the debate was Retarget to wiktionary. Tikiwont (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Target does not make any sense. No discussion of the term at the target. No real possibility of creating an article and I can't find a good new target. UsaSatsui (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * The versions in history show that this used to be a badly written (and wrong) dictionary definition. I recommend retargeting to cluebat using a soft-redirect (wi).  Failing that, delete.  The definition has no potential for expansion and the connection to the current target is too tenuous.  Rossami (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect sounds good. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Retarget per above, as the target and redirect have nothing in common. TALKIN   PIE EATER   REVIEW ME  23:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A retarget would be good per above. Midorihana   みどり  はな  02:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)