|
Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion
|
 |
If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes.
Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic redirects. Items sent here usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted by an administrator, kept, or retargeted.
Note: If all you want to do is replace a currently existing, unprotected redirect with an actual article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold.
Note: Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as a reason to delete a redirect. Redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted as well, so it's not a necessary condition either. See When should we delete a redirect?
Old discussions are archived at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log.
Before you list a redirect for deletion...
...please familiarize yourself with the following:
The guiding principles of RfD
- The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
- Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things much if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is cheap since the deletion coding takes up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. In general, there is no harm in deleting problematic redirects that do not contribute to improving the encyclopedia.
- The default result of any RFD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Thus, a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination.
- Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
- RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article. However, for more difficult cases, this page can be a centralized discussion place for resolving tough debates about where redirects point.
- Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another page's talk page don't need to be listed here, as anyone can simply remove the redirect by blanking the page.
When should we delete a redirect?
The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:
- a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
- if a redirect is reasonably old, then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles — such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.
Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.
Reasons for deleting
You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):
- The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.
- The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so it should be deleted.
- The redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article.
- The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Google to love.
- It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule is the "CAT:" shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space but in practice form their own "pseudo-namespaces".
- If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist or itself, it can be deleted immediately, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
- If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created.
Reasons for not deleting
However, avoid deleting such redirects if:
- They have a potentially useful page history. If the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
- They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
- They aid searches on certain terms.
- You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. Old CamelCase links and old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them.
- Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.
- The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form.
Neutrality of redirects
Note that redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This covers only article titles, which are required to be neutral (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article naming). Perceived lack of neutrality in redirects is therefore not a valid reason for deletion. Non-neutral redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term.
Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:
- Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Dalmatian Kristallnacht → Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991).
- Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and redirected to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008).
- The subject matter of articles may be commonly represented outside Wikipedia by non-neutral terms. Such terms cannot be used as Wikipedia article title, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance, the widely used but non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it.
If a redirect is not an established term and is unlikely to be used by searchers, it is unlikely to be useful and may reasonably be nominated for deletion. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources), it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.
See also: Policy on which redirects can be deleted immediately.
Closing notes
- Details at: Wikipedia:Deletion process#Redirects for discussion page. See also Administrator instructions for RfD.
Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).
How to list a redirect for deletion
To list a redirect for deletion, follow this two-step process:
| I. |
Flag the redirect.
Enter {{rfd}} above the #REDIRECT on the redirect page you are listing for deletion. Example:
- {{rfd}}
- #REDIRECT [[Foo]]
- If the redirect is to a category or image, make sure there is a colon ( : ) before "Category:" or "Image:".
- Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
- Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]
- You can check the "Watch this page" box to follow the page in your watchlist. This allows you to notice if the RfD tag is removed by a vandal.
- Save the page.
|
| II. |
List the entry on RfD.
Click on THIS LINK to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.
- Enter this text below the date heading:
- {{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=Reason the redirect should be deleted}} ~~~~
- Put the redirect's name in place of "RedirectName", put the target article's name in place of "TargetArticle", and include a reason after text=.
- If the redirect or its target is a category or an image, make sure there is a colon ( : ) before "Category:" or "Image:".
- Please use an edit summary such as:
Nominating [PageName]
replacing PageName with the name of the redirect you are nominating.
- To list multiple related redirects for deletion, provide a separate link for each listing under a single heading and detail your listing reasons below the last redirect (example).
|
- Please consider using WhatLinksHere to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.
- It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the redirect that you are nominating the redirect. To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect. For convenience, the template
{{subst:RFDNote|PAGENAME}}
may be placed on the creator/main contributors user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace PAGENAME with the name of the redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]
Current list
December 5
December 4
This was the original title of an article that has recently been moved as a result of an AfD on it. It is a literal English translation of the subject's Russian name, and is virtually unused except by whoever created the article in the first place. The only reason I didn't tag it with an R3 template is to give that person enough time to track it down to its new location. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - looks like something created in error, and I can't see any potential as a search term. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Actually, it is a plausible typo, of a kind which I've done myself on occasions too numerous to count. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Not mentioned in target article, doesn't seem a likely search term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please note, this redirect was created on top of a prodded article, which has been contested, and undeleted (before I noticed this, oops). I'm going to rollback the adding of the redirect, therefore this discussion will either need to be closed, or should discuss the addition of a hatnote on the said article. I'm not familiar with these discussions, so I'm asking someone who is more knowledgable about these matters to come forward. Thanks, Stwalkerster [ talk ] 19:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete and redirect. The article about the trademarked Skyroof should be deleted, as the product is non-notable, and "skyroof" is used in casual speech as an alternative term for general sunroofs. The redirect to sunroof should be kept, as the two terms are sometimes confused. —Lowellian (reply) 20:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Since someone removed the PROD, I've listed it on AFD now. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyroof. —Lowellian (reply) 20:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Redirect from template space to user space. The user in question was last active in January 2008, so they do not need it, and certainly no one else does. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Tiedemann Giese#Mauritius Ferber - one notable person redirect to a second notable person simply because they were both bishops of Warmia? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not needed as the redirect has been stubbed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, according to Piotrus' previous edit, the Ferber article is not a stub. -- Matthead Discuß 00:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
December 3
The re-direct has a history of a hoax article. As this was not deleted, the blocked hoaxer reverts every now and again to his hoax versions, so I really recommend deleting and protecting the page. Something that one should have done earlier. Miacek (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC) The Estonian Patriotic Movement that this re-direct page goes at the time is indeed about a real organization (hard-line nationalist movement), which has nothing to do with the hoaxer's creation.--Miacek (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete May cause confusion, unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. It is a pain in the ass having to patrol this redirect against reversion into the hoax article. Martintg (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Estonian National Movement has actually much broader meaning, it usually refers to The Estonian Age of Awakening in the 19th century and Singing Revolution in the 20th. I'm not that sure if deleting the page actually gives us anything, it would be better to create an appropriate article in the long run. But for short term, sure I guess getting rid of it for now all together would take it away from IP socks of the known hoax and sock puppet master Bloomfield.--Termer (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Reviewed article was moved and I moved the PR to repair the link on the talk page. Redirect is not needed. Otto4711 (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Erm, we really don't need this CNR to non-content. MBisanz talk 04:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Improper CNR, should have a WP: in front of it. MBisanz talk 04:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Improper CNR to a project page, does not link to content. MBisanz talk 04:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Unlikely CNR to a policy, no history to preserve. MBisanz talk 04:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Redirect is a non-notable (and judging by Google results, unused) nickname for a baseball player who hasn't even signed with a Major League team yet. Mosmof (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
It can refer to any Bus (computing) which operates at 100 MHz, thus redirecting it a specific topic (Front side bus) is confusing. The redirect is not linked to by any article and is an unlikely search term. Rilak (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Retarget to Bus (computing). Common term in a variety of PC spec sheets, and thus a plausible search term. Nominator is correct that the term is more generic that the current target indicates, thus the recommendation to retarget to the more general topic. --Allen3 talk 18:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
It can refer to any Bus (computing) which operates at 133 MHz, thus redirecting it a specific topic (Front side bus) is confusing. The redirect is not linked to by any article and is an unlikely search term. Rilak (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Retarget to Bus (computing). Common term in a variety of PC spec sheets, and thus a plausible search term. Nominator is correct that the term is more generic that the current target indicates, thus the recommendation to retarget to the more general topic. --Allen3 talk 18:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
December 2
I earlier requested that this redirect be deleted, but consensus was to keep. I now think that it would be better to retarget this to template:R from modification. Bwrs (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Davis, CA is where the Davis Enterprise paper is located, but it only says one sentence about the newspaper: "Davis has one daily newspaper, the Davis Enterprise, founded in 1897." Note that the link the sentence includes is circular as it leads back to the city article. I don't think the newspaper should be redirected to an article that has one sentence about it. Killiondude (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Nothing wrong with the redirect. Target does mention the paper. Redirects are cheap anyways. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - better to have a target for this search term than a search index page. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
December 1
It is too general. There are many other uses for the term Bossa, such as the Bossa distributed computing framework by BOINC Aaronp808 (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep — It's not that general. There are only one or two extra plausible articles in my opinion, these could be linked at the top of the Bossa Nova article. If you're really fussed, delete and create a disambiguation page, but I really don't think it's necessary. —Matt (talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, but if a disambiguation page should replace it, then do so. Stifle (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Someone originally set up several similarly named articles that covered the same ground as guided affective imagery. This one was originally written in Greek, though someone replaced it with a translation. I'd put a merger tag here a couple of months ago, with no response. I changed it to a redirect earlier today, consistent with the treatment that was given to the similarly named articles, but I think this one is a stretch. Who's going to be looking on English Wikipedia for this topic under a bastardized Greek name? —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The article was originally nominated for deletion 3 years ago. The reason for deletion was because the term was a neologism. The result of the debate was deletion, however instead of deleting the page it was redirected to Boss (video games). However, that article does not even mention the term "superboss". Checking to see what links to Superboss, I found only 2 articles for video games, which I changed to link to Boss (video games). As it stands this redirect does not seem to make sense, and there's no reason to keep it around. -- Atamachat 02:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I've heard the term used, and it seems better to have it point to something. It could be retargeted to supervisor or boss. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment - You've heard the term used? That somehow prevents it from being a neologism? Would anyone ever actually look up the term "superboss"? I guess that's the real question. If there's any real point in having it as a redirect, of course it should stay, but I can't imagine someone wanting to look up a "supervisor" and typing in "superboss". -- Atamachat 20:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
-
November 30
Highly unlikely CNR to a project page. MBisanz talk 09:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- It was just a stupid spelling error, remaining after a compensating article move. Jolly well delete it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
-
- Still, though, it sounds kind of funny. Yet, I don't think that reason is good enough to keep it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Improper CNR to a wiki-process, does not link to content. MBisanz talk 09:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, XNR. Stifle (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Improper CNR to a defunct project, does not link to content. MBisanz talk 09:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Soft Redirect to Wikimedia Cookbook. It seems pretty obvious that someone searching for this term is looking for that target. --UsaSatsui (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, XNR. Stifle (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Stubify if notable. A soft redirect makes sense but is a self-reference, not intended for mainspace. --Thinboy00 @106, i.e. 01:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Improper CNR to a project draft, does not link to content. MBisanz talk 09:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK - it only a redirect page. I'll comment there. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
-
- If this use of redirect is against policy, what do you suggest? I'll do what is suggested. The WP:BITASK taskforce itself is important, and is only on hold pending discussion at WP:IDTF. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Well the redirect WP:BIDRAFT1 would probably be the best redirect, since it puts the page in the Projectspace so readers would not see it on a search for articles. MBisanz talk 20:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I see what you mean now. I'll get on it tomorrow. Sometimes people are funny when you use "WP:" - so sometimes I've kept away from it. With the search box in mind though, using WP makes a lot more sense - this page is for wikipedians, not the encyclopedia readers. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK - I've created WP:BIDRAFT1 and WP:BIDRAFT2, and have sorted the 'What links here' pages that link to them. You can delete BIDRAFT1 and BIDRAFT2. --Matt Lewis (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, XNR. Stifle (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
November 28
Redirect to a wikiproject, does not link to content. MBisanz talk 08:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete it's a cross-namespace-redirect! abf /talk to me/ 11:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete uncyclopedic, no value. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, XNR. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Unlikely CNR that points to non-content, does not have history to keep. MBisanz talk 08:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete it's a cross-namespace-redirect! abf /talk to me/ 11:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, XNR. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Redirect stressing self-importance of the project, does not link to content. MBisanz talk 08:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete it's a cross-namespace-redirect! abf /talk to me/ 11:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, XNR. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Unlikely CNR, no major incoming links, does not redirect to content. MBisanz talk 08:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete it's a cross-namespace-redirect! abf /talk to me/ 11:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, XNR. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems to have been created as a joke/pun. Since it is technically a legal term and no article has been written about this subject yet, it should either be redirected to Wage or simply deleted. Eastlaw (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- If the term is legally significant and you know a bit about it I suggest you turn this into a stub article, although even changing the redirect to Wage might be better than deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- I decided to be bold and do this myself. PatGallacher (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment...this is a rather common nickname for Vegas. Just saying. --UsaSatsui (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep as redirect to Las Vegas, seems to be a common name. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I have moved the stub article to the correctly capitalized Lost wages so the redirect now points there. Which rather moots this discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Inappropriate redirect. The redirect is most likely of a vandal/troll nature, and portrays rape as humorous. See http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=raep Opencents (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep likely misspelling, rtansposition of hte last tow cahracters. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Very like misspelling, just because it's also a slang term is no reason to delete...in fact it makes it even more important to keep. NPOV does not apply to redirects, they are there to help prevent users finding "search results 1 to 20 for...", which is exactly what this does.--Patton123 16:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep highly plausible spelling typo. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Plausible misspelling. — neuroIT'S MY BIRTHDAY! 18:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as plausible misspelling. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Plausible misspelling. 98.201.39.129 (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The content of this page has been merged with Marat. PatGallacher (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC) I add that nothing except talk pages direct here, although I am aware that does not clinch it. PatGallacher (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Prose content has been merged to Marat by PatGallacher (). The GFDL requires keep. Uncle G (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Could you explain why the GFDL requires "keep". If this is so, then it could help us wasting time by nominating pages. PatGallacher (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Read Wikipedia:Merge#Performing the merger, which tells you what the entire merger process is, without listing deletion as a step at any point, and which explains in boldface which section of the GFDL has particular relevance here (although §4(J) is also relevant). Uncle G (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Uncle G is correct that we must keep the page history in order to comply with the GFDL. However, I would vote to keep in any case; redirects from Foo (disambiguation) to the actual disambigation page for the topic "Foo" generally benefit the project and do no injury, even when the target is just the shorter Foo with the disambiguation text omitted. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Gavia immer. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Move to save the history, then Delete the resulting double redirect. I
honestly don't care where it is moved to think a sysop should move it over a (non)existing redirect, and a Dummy edit is all the GFDL needs to continue compliance in this case. --Thinboy00 @110, i.e. 01:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC
November 27
Wanted (2008 film) should redirect to Wanted (film), not the other way around.
- I read the revision history, and personally believe that it should be redirected to a disambiguation page if not the actual article, but I'm not quite sure which ones exactly. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Retarget to Wanted dab page, specfically Wanted#Film_and_television.--Lenticel (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Improper CNR to a wikiproject, does not link to content and is in the article space. MBisanz talk 06:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: What harm does it do? None that I can see. What good does it do? Could help someone who has heard of "WikiProject Yorkshire" to find it. On balance it benefits Wikipedia. Why bother to delete it? PamD (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- The issue is that being formatted in that manner places it in the article namespace, so it would show up to non-editors searching for "Yorkshire" topics, even though a WikiProject is not encyclopedic content. MBisanz talk 08:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: It was created for the reason that if you type WikiProject Yorkshire you did not find the project, but as ther were loads of other similar links I created it. It also if as you say search for 'Yorkshire' and get it if offers loads of links on the page to the Yorkshire related articles any way. The project page is clear that its not an article as such. It may be that the policy your deleting them under needs reviewing then as you are obviously going round picking them off one by one. Should all projects with similar links not be invited to participate by placing the notice on the project page or related page thats linked to by the redirect not the creators talk page were it hidden. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, inappropriate XNR. Why should this be an exception? Stifle (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Improper CNR to a wikiproject, does not link to content. MBisanz talk 06:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete sounds good to me. Good catch.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per the discussion above: cross-namespace redirects like this are acceptable in my view, when there's no possibility they could be confused with article content. Terraxos (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
November 25
