Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 November 17

November 17
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 17, 2008

Yakumo (Naruto) → World of Naruto


The result of the debate was Speedy delete by User:Sephiroth BCR. Tikiwont (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Less than a week after the close of an RfD resulting in a "delete" (and a few days after a resurrection of a Yakumo redirect was speedied) comes yet another attempt at pointing Yakumo (Naruto) at an invalid target (in which Yakumo is not mentioned at all). It appears that a speedy tag was declined over the weekend by User:WJBscribe (who did the first deletion) with the explanation "not the same redirect that was previously speedied." So here it is again. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment. The first redirect was deleted because it was pointing to wikia. The reason that the redirect was re-created since then, was because we had a new (valid) on-wiki target at the time, at Land of Fire, where there was a section which mentioned the character.  However, it turns out that "Land of Fire" was then itself redirected to World of Naruto, which doesn't mention the Yakumo character.  There has been discussion ongoing at User talk:Elonka about what to do with this redirect, as well as a few others that have been left orphaned.  It's my hope that we can find an appropriate article on Wikipedia where we can include (sourced) mention of the characters, and then adjust the redirect accordingly to a relevant target. --Elonka 20:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. This seems to be a good faith attempt to salvage the redirect, and we can afford to wait a bit and see if things are worked out. If not, it can always be deleted later. Note that it should not go back to being a Wikia link; if it does, it's a speedy deletion candidate under citerion G4. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The case of Sklyarov, ElcomSoft, Adobe, and the DMCA → US v. ElcomSoft Sklyarov
The result of the debate was Keep. To answer the nominator's question: Risk of breaking links outside of Wikipedia is one of the arguments against deleting redirects. I tried to improve the wording there, noting that a trip to RfD is for many an opportunity to appreciate the reasons why we are conservative about deleting redirects.Tikiwont (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)  'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. This is torturously-titled and no longer has any mainspace links. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  Delete Keep. Outside links.--Oneiros (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep because I'm not sure if there are links in outside articles or news stories that may still lead to the old title. Thumperward (Chris Cunningham) renamed this article (on which both of us have worked) only two months ago, while the article was created in March 2006, so the odds are heavy that any outside link would lead to the old title. Although no one would spontaneously search for the old clumsy title, the new one isn't the case's official name either, but another clumsy title (missing an essential "and" or "&") taken from the Electronic Frontier Foundation's site and probably unique to that site and Wikipedia. ¶ Strictly by the way, whatever happened to the article's discussion page, if any? — did it get moved over properly when the article itself was renamed? —— Shakescene (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Found at least one.--Oneiros (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a cromulent argument; did I miss it somewhere in the guidelines? I'd rather not go proposing things which aren't going to be deleted in future if that's the case. As for the article talk, I don't think there was ever one. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) I don't know what cromulent means, but (2) I certainly considered the possibility that this semi-stubby article had nothing on its talk page when it was moved; I just wanted to ask and make sure, and (3) I myself wasn't questioning anyone's good intentions. (plus, if needless to add, (4) I also considered the renaming, if imperfect, to be a big improvement over the original name.) Advanced best wishes for Thanksgiving (U.S.) and/or St. Andrew's Day. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Cromulent. It was a compliment. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. "Keep" because the redirect helps document the recent pagemove and directs the readers and editors who worked on the article at the old title to the correct place.  Changes in pagenames are part of the project's history.  Unless it's the result of pagemove vandalism, leave them alone.  "Speedy" because I am losing my ability to assume good faith when nominators move pages then attempt to cover up their tracks by deleting the redirects that our software automatically and intentionally leaves behind.  Rossami (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Rossami, that is uncalled for. Not everyone agrees on the need to keep old titles and implying it's bad faith and an attempt to "cover up their tracks" is in poor taste. Some people just like having things tidy. Also, RFD is not heavily participated in (Thumperward's contributions show minimal participation). You shouldn't be expecting our 8 million plus users to know it as well as some other areas of Wikipedia. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Noted player → Notable players
The result of the debate was deleted --B (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Delete unnecessary cross-namespace redirect Mayalld (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy Delete I created this page, err, hole in the floor, before I understood the policy correctly. My bad.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 05:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:Kill → Project Kill
The result of the debate was Delete.Tikiwont (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Cross-namespace redirect. There does not seem to be a WikiProject Kill. --Eliyak T · C 01:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy Delete CSD R3 as the article for a movie named Project Kill is not an appropriate target for a redirect from Wikipedia space; furthermore there are no feasible alternative targets. B.Wind (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Just no!  MBisanz  talk 05:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redirect was created over a year ago, so it does not qualify for R3. Best to just delete here. &mdash; Mizu onna sango15 Hello!  04:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)