Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 16

May 16
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 16, 2009

WP:X
The result of the discussion was Keep. Lenticel ( talk ) 02:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Retarget Single letter redirects imply a core principle/feature/policy of the Wikipedia project (Eg, WP:V, WP:N) and this Wikiproject does not fit that, giving it undue importance. Im thinking External Links. Arma virumque cano (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity
 * Since when? Since when have they implied that?  Since when has the number of letters been a measure of importance?  WP:J and WP:BLP are both begging to differ with you. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep 1. User proposes a retarget but doesn't offer any logical ideas of where to retarget to. 2) What the nominator "implies" has been proven false, per Uncle G. Tavix | Talk  14:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nom proposed WP:External links as a retarget. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 17:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP the reason that some one letter redirects go to policy pages is that some policy pages are one word enteries with the a redirect using the first letter on the world linking to it. For example WP:V links to WIkiedpa:Verfiablity. It is not due to a rule stating that one letter redirects need to redirect to policy pages. It should also be noted that on top of BLP there are no one letter redirects to what Wikipedia is not page or the original research page. Finallly, since there is also no ploicy page that WP:X could logically redirect to it should stay here. If there is in the future it would be worth disucssion but for now there does not appear to be anything we need to do here.--76.65.140.56 (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not sure where or how the implication in the nom was arrived at - nor do I find it anywhere else. Without a target for the "retarget", I'm not sure of the purpose of this nom. Athanasius • Quicumque vult  00:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It is also a likely shortcut for the paranormal wikiproject... 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Single-letter redirects suggest nothing about the significance of the target of the redirect, so the only reason to retarget would be if there is a more useful target for the redirect. While External links could be an alternate target, it already has the WP:EL shortcut; in the absence of a convincing argument about why the redirect would be more useful pointing somewhere else, I say keep as is. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Its a relevant redirect given that the Greek letter Chi, which looks like an X, has been an abbreviation for Christianity and Christ for centuries.  Unless there's a major policy that this would be better suited to I don't see why we can't keep it for now.  Them  From  Space  17:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete
The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Redundant to WP:Speedy delete, and cross-namespace. OlEnglish (Talk) 14:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion
 * Speedy delete (lol!) Per WP:R2; redirect to meta content Arma virumque cano (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 19:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not an R2. Amalthea  11:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually Wikipedia space is specifiacally exempt from speedy deletion under that criteria.--76.65.140.56 (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:XNR: "If someone searches for "articles for deletion", it's only logical that he is looking for Articles for deletion, and not for any encyclopaedia article.". And while I still oppose most XNRs, this is one of the very few I find more helpful than not. Amalthea  11:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC
 * Delete as a cross-namespace redirect from the mainspace with no significant page history. Among other things, cross-namespace redirects blur the distinction between namespaces and, thereby, undermine efforts to convey that distinction to new users. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

LV's & Autotune
The result of the discussion was deleted per original proposed deletion. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I redirected these to Kanye West discography because I thought they were official mix tapes, but apparently they are not. Thus there is no point in them redirecting to a page where they aren't mentioned. ThaddeusB (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Kanye West discography
 * → Kanye West discography

List of fictional gardeners
The result of the discussion was Re-targeted to List of professional gardeners. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * → Gardening
 * Note: Now changed to List of professional gardeners

Delete - misleading redirect. There is no list of fictional gardeners in the gardening article. There does not appear to have ever been a list, either within the gardening article or as a standalone list. Otto4711 (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes there was:, but gardener was merged into gardening without the lists of gardeners. I propose to recreate a separate List of gardeners - does that sound OK? Fayenatic (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Given how common gardening is as a hobby any such list is going to be enormous and trivial. The people on the list do not appear to be notable as gardeners or even know as being gardeners. There are also definitional issues, given that the first two names on the list are fictional characters called "gardeners" because they talk to "soul trees" and plants. Otto4711 (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to limit it to people known as gardeners by occupation, not as a hobby. The list can be far better than the deleted bare list (or a category) by giving context and explanation for each of the individuals or groups listed. If those two are called gardeners in their source doc, then they can go on the page with an explanation. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest List of professional gardeners then along with an introduction that clearly states the inclusion criteria. Otto4711 (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ - please review. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as there is no list of fictional gardeners in the target article. If Otto's idea becomes reality, then it can be retargeted to an appropriate subsection of that list. Tavix | Talk  17:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes there is -- it was already in List of gardeners before your comment. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete List of fictional gardeners shouldn't exist in the parent anyway. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please clarify - are you stating that List of ficitonal gardeners should not be in List of gardeners, and if so why? - Fayenatic (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Retarget to List of gardeners/List of professional gardeners (wherever the list eventually settles). - Eureka Lott 02:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Never mind. It's already been done. Keep. - Eureka Lott 02:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of professional gardeners for the moment. I think a separate list of fictional gardeners would be quite sustainable; don't be discouraged off by the opposition here. DGG (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement. Not many were suggested at Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 25 which led me to create this sub-list and redirect in the first place! - Fayenatic (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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