Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 March 1

March 1
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on March 1, 2008

Category:Former Wikipedians → Missing Wikipedians
The result of the debate was Deleted. While this may be a reasonable search term, it is a valid search term for both missing and deceased wikipedians. Our normal way of solving such an ambiguity for a main space redirect would be to turn it into a disambig page. However, doing that in category space is problematic. As such, the best alternative seems to be to delete it and allow folks to use the search engine to find the two Wikipedia space pages. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Cross-namespace redirect. Also, there are plenty of former Wikipedians who are not necessarily missing, so this redirect is inaccurate. VegaDark (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Missing Wikipedians refers to all those who have left the encyclopedia, whether by death or personal issues or whatever. In this case 'missing' has a similar meaning to 'former'. EJF (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All Wikipedians in Deceased Wikipedians are also "former" Wikipedians. This redirect name is too broad since the page on missing Wikipedians does not cover the deceased Wikipedians.  Additionally, I think it is unlikely someone will specifically type this in as a search term. VegaDark (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. This looks like a reasonable search term, given the subject matter. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sean Penning → Short circuit
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 16:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Apparently irrelevant, not mentioned in target. 82.26.80.211 (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

!@$%& for Deletion → Articles for deletion
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 16:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Despite the previous deletion concerning this title here, where it was decided to redirect this to AfD, this redirect is incredibly improbable and therefore completely useless - any editor who cares to contribute to deletion discussions will know this page much better as WP:AFD, and if they do type it out in full, they're not going to waste time making sure they have all these characters in the right order, as the search so annoyingly requires. Long story short, the April's Fool joke that was held here has no encyclopedic value, as was concluded previously, and the redirect is next to useless. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 08:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete The nom is right, it's good only for a chuckle, and then not much of one. &mdash; Scientizzle 17:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the nominator. seresin | wasn't he just...? 03:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

14a → Video game content rating system
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 16:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC) I was told that this was a place for deletion of redirects; I'd like to see these redundant links deleted. I see that they have nothing to do with the video game content rating system (14+ seems to be something like 14 and over, but I don't know). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * 14a → Video game content rating system
 * 14+ → Video game content rating system

Joe Nichols (2000's) → Joe Nichols
The result of the debate was deleted as CSD R3. Grand master  ka  09:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Unused redirect that doesn't meet naming conventions; serves no purpose. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'