Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion: Difference between revisions
Line 152: | Line 152: | ||
* [[Stephen W. Taylor]] → [[Steven W. Taylor]]. Procedural nomination to fix below editors failed attempt to delete this via AfD. No vote. [[User:Jni|jni]] 08:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC) |
* [[Stephen W. Taylor]] → [[Steven W. Taylor]]. Procedural nomination to fix below editors failed attempt to delete this via AfD. No vote. [[User:Jni|jni]] 08:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC) |
||
**''This page was created in error and later corrected and all Wiki links to this page have redirected to the correct page which is [[Steven W. Taylor]] --[[User:TommyBoy|TommyBoy]] 17:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)'' |
**''This page was created in error and later corrected and all Wiki links to this page have redirected to the correct page which is [[Steven W. Taylor]] --[[User:TommyBoy|TommyBoy]] 17:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)'' |
||
* [[Authentic Matthew]] → [[Gospel of the Hebrews]]. Absolutely totally POV. Neither religious groups, nor academic ones believe the Gospel of the Hebrews to be the original version of Matthew. Nor does the redirect represent a merge. [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] ( [[User:-Ril-/BarBoy|!]] | [[User:-Ril-/Temple Bar|?]] | [[User:-Ril-/Nissa|*]] ) 18:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Footer== |
==Footer== |
Revision as of 18:01, 3 October 2005
Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · · Archives |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
V | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 6 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.
- If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
- If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
- If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss the proper target.
- Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)
Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.
Before listing a redirect for discussion
Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:
- Wikipedia:Redirect – what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
- Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion – which pages can be deleted without discussion; in particular the "General" and "Redirects" sections.
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy – how we delete things by consensus.
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – guidelines on discussion format and shorthand.
The guiding principles of RfD
- The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
- Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
- If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
- Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
- RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
- Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
- In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.
When should we delete a redirect?
This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons. (edit | history) |
The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:
- a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
- if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").
Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of 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. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
- 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 the redirect should be deleted.
- The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
- The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
- The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
- 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 are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
- If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
- If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
- If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the
suppressredirect
user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves. - If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
Reasons for not deleting
However, avoid deleting such redirects if:
- They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, 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 article text because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
- They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
- Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
- 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 being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
- The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.
Neutrality of redirects
Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}
.
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. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
- 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 now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
- The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the 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 because a number of press reports use the term.
The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream 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.
Closing notes
- Details at 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 discussion
STEP I. | Tag the redirect(s).
Enter
| ||
STEP II. | List the entry on RfD.
Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.
| ||
STEP III. | Notify users.
It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate. may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as: Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]
Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages. |
- Please consider using What links here 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.
Current list
Older unfinished requests are at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Old.
August 6
- Cult homicides → List of groups referred to as cults by some media outlets -- POV - not relevant to article content --ZappaZ File:Yin yang.png 04:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. inherently POV ≈ jossi ≈ 17:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Looking at this, and the similar Cult homicide (which wasn't listed here in this batch, dunno why), they both have extensive histories, and I'm concerned that if they are deleted, they will just be re-created rather quickly. In particular, there are things like the Charlie Manson murders which I think most people would describe as "cult homicides". If people really want these redirects deleted, I will slap a {{deletedarticle}} on them and protect them - or would people rather have them redirect to the NPOV List of groups referred to as cults by some media outlets article - or is there some more suitable target? Noel (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Why isn't there an article on cult homicides? The Manson Family and the Cult of Thuggee come immediately to mind. If there is enough for a separate article, there probably shouldn't be a redirect at all. StuTheSheep 15:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Hey, go for it. There are lots of revisions in the history which are articles; that's one of the reasons I held off deleting them, so people could get at the histories. Noel (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
September 10
- 00-xx and 00Axx → Areas of mathematics -- Makes no sense. Delete Andrew pmk | Talk 03:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- These have some history which I have been trying to figure out if it was used (and where). Guess I need to get on the stick and deal with them! :-) Noel (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- They are the American Mathematical Society codes for general mathematical topics. The redirects do little harm.--Henrygb 00:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
September 25
- ArrayTag and MiniCode, loop redirects from Barcode, and no other referrers.. Yeryry 13:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Well, those names are mentioned in the target article. (However, it links back to these redirs.) Advice from all, please? Remove the links in the article and keep these? What? Noel (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Halobacterium → halobacteria -- Halobacterium redirects to halobacteria, but halobacteria is the only link to Halobacterium. If you look at Halobacteria, then you can see that Halobacterium is in a list of organisms that are part of Halobacterium, and i think the redirect should also be deleted because of this: so that it shows a red link so someone with knowledge about Halobacterium can insert usefull info into that page. Quadraxis 21:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Then edit the redirect, and start the article. Make it a {{stub}}. Be bold. Proto t c 13:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- One is the singular of the other, so the redirect is reasonable and should be kept. The fact that one can be used for the genus and the other for the class just show how odd classification is. If there are two articles in the future, then they will each need to be clear about the point. --Henrygb 01:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'll see if I can whip up a stub for this; I'll get to it later (unless someone else does it first). Noel (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
September 27
- Antique White → Antique white
- Antique white → White
- Dark peach (color) → Peach (color)
- Seashell (color) → White
- Linen (color) → White
- Papaya whip (color) → Papaya whip
- Light brown → Brown
- Spring Green (color) → Spring green
- Spring green → Green
- Dark slate gray → Grey
- Tangerine (color) → Orange (color)
- Mint Green → Green
- Denim (color) → Crayola
- Antique Brass (color) → Antique brass
- Antique brass → Crayola
- Robin egg blue → Crayola
- Slate gray → Grey
- Steel blue → Blue
- Sandy brown → Brown
- Chocolate (color) → Brown
- Pale red-violet → Red-violet
- Pale mauve → Mauve
- Bright green → Green
- Gray-green → Gray-asparagus
- Dark Scarlet → Scarlet (color)
- Tea Green → Green
- Bright turquoise → Turquoise (color)
- Dark brown → Brown
- Dark cerulean → Cerulean
- Dark chestnut → Chestnut (color)
- Dark green → Green
- Dark Indigo → Indigo
- Dark Olive → Olive (color)
- Dark pastel green → Green
- Dark pink → Pink
- Dark spring green → Green
- Dark tan → Tan
- Dark Tea Green → Green
- Dark turquoise → Turquoise (color)
- Dark violet → Violet (color)
- Pale chestnut → Chestnut (color)
- Pale cornflower blue → Cornflower blue
- Pale Denim → Denim (color)
- Pale fire brick red → Fire brick red
- Pale magenta → Magenta
- Pale pink → Pink
- Pale Sandy Brown → Brown
- Pastel green → Green
- Pastel pink → Pink
- Reasoning: Almost all of these articles redirect to articles that never mention the redirect's title in the slightest bit. The only exceptions to this are colors that link to Crayola. However, the largest reason behind every single one of these nominations is that these articles' only purpose seems to be to fill up the List of colors. -Nameneko 05:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- I see no problem with redirecting "Dark foo" or "Pale foo" or "Light foo" or "Pastel foo" to "Foo" - at least someone looking up a shade of a color will get to the article on the color (which, incidentally, ought to say something about different shades). But some of these - Pale sandy brown, Dark tea green, Dark slate grey - must go. No vote on the redirects to Crayola, presuming that they are actual colors of Crayola crayons. -- BDAbramson talk 06:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I agree with Abramson's Keeps; the question is whether it is better that Dark Tea Green be a red-link or a link to whatever we have to say about shades of green. I think the redirect is slightly preferable, because without it, it will not be obvious that the place to add something about Dark tea green is Green, as opposed to Shades of green or even green tea. Septentrionalis 15:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I made sure only to list redirects that link to pages that don't mention them. For example, while Pastel green links to Green, it is not mentioned in the article itself. The only reason these redirects seem to exist, as stated earlier, is to fill up the List of colors. There doesn't seem to be any other need. If they are to be listed on the color page, then it would make more sense to link it as [[Foo|Dark/Pale/Light/Pastel Foo]], as the only pages linking to them are the List of colors, this page, and User:Latitude0116, who simply has it to point out that he/she created them. -Nameneko 23:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- All these are unreferenced colours created by User:Latitude0116, a look in the page history will tell. They ought to go; I'm not sure if RfD is the right place for this, if it is Delete the lot. Pilatus 13:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- I listed these here bcause they are all redirects. I have a list of color pages that I plan to list on AfD sometime in the near future. -Nameneko 21:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- They are redirects now. Someone redirected all these shades to the main colour in the attempt to infuse the heading with some content. Pale Green, for example, used to have a page, saying it is colour 0x77dd77 (and nothing beyond that). Pilatus 00:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think that this makes their existence any more valid, though. Despite being linked to major colors, they are never mentioned in the articles they redirect to and had no references (per consensus on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles) when they were articles anyways. -Nameneko 07:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- They are redirects now. Someone redirected all these shades to the main colour in the attempt to infuse the heading with some content. Pale Green, for example, used to have a page, saying it is colour 0x77dd77 (and nothing beyond that). Pilatus 00:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete the lot Dlyons493 Talk 02:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the dark/light/pale redirects to brown, green and pink; no vote on the rest. -Sean Curtin 00:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
September 28
- Ketchup Dance → The Ketchup Song - Is there really a dance called the "Ketchup Dance"? delete or verify. --SuperDude 04:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Our article on The Ketchup Song says that there is. Uncle G 22:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yahoo shows 'about 2,250 for "ketchup dance"'. Sounds like it's for real (amazingly enough). Noel (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Apparently enough people think such a dance exists (I vaguely recall something of the sort) to justify a redirect. -- BDAbramson talk 15:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
September 29
- ノ → の. History-free redirect of a non-English title to a non-English title. See Wikipedia:naming conventions (use English). Uncle G 01:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/の], if kept, the target's probably going to be moved to No (kana), so this redirect would naturally be retargeted there (along, I assume, with の). Noel (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Changed the redirect to No (kana). Toothpaste 03:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/の], if kept, the target's probably going to be moved to No (kana), so this redirect would naturally be retargeted there (along, I assume, with の). Noel (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Kiddie Rape → Pedophilia. The redirect is an offensive, youngster-slang, non-notable kind of word to describe the word Pedophilia. Delete --SoothingR 14:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
October 1
- 1337 (number) should not redirect to Leet, please kill it. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 00:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, the link to Leet from 1337 is enough. Thryduulf 11:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Don't forget to remove the link in 1337's header to 1337 (number) (how's that for redundant?) as well. nae'blis (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Dwarf (Legend of Zelda) → Legend of Zelda series -- Mightily obscure, not addressed in target article because there's no significant information. I'm not sure the term "dwarf" was ever even used in any Zelda games. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Fangush → Wikipedia:Fangush -- I don't think cross namespace redirects are a good idea, besides which it just looks like complete nonsense. -- Francs2000 File:Uk flag large.png 16:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or Expand - wow, what a terrifically POV 'article' that redirects to. If it's really needed, it should be its own article, but I'd prefer just delete. nae'blis (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - why of all Wikipedia namespace articles does this one need redirection from the main namespace? — ciphergoth 17:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Blue Fire → Legend of Zelda series -- Aside from a capitalization issue, I find it hard to believe that the Zelda series is only fictional use of blue fire. And don't some real-world materials burn at high temperatures with a blue flame? If, for some reason, it does remain a redirect, it should point to The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of time, the only game to feature it. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe turn this into a link to a Blue fire dab page? Noel (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- UuU → Roentgenium -- This one is a bit controversial as its history apparantly contains the oldest edit on wikipedia, however I don't think it should be left to clutter up the main namespace. I'd be fine with it being moved off to some subpage of a wikipedia-namespace article on the history of wikipedia though. --fvw* 21:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a genuine piece of history, and 25 bytes isn't going to kill anyone. Redirect it back to U, as TheGodsOfWiki intended. --PHenry 23:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but it should redirect to U as per PHentry. Thryduulf 11:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - It is not genuine history. It is only the oldest redirect not yet deleted. Before it another redirect had that claim before being deleted. After it another redirect will have that claim. It started as an article (not the oldest edit but an old one a day after Wikipedia began) that was later moved to U. The remaining redirect has no historical significance. - Tεxτurε 15:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- There is a significant difference between actively destroying the oldest edit like this, and losing previous older edits by "accident" - very early versions of the software did not keep history. (This still exists because there were no subsequent edits until the softwre starting saving history). Thus, your point is wrong. Pcb21| Pete 15:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- I understand your opinion but I don't view older edits as lost by "accident". They were lost by valid decisions such as done here. You seem to agree that this is not the oldest edit. Only the oldest edit at the moment. That's not sufficient to call it historic, IMO. When it's gone you can say the same thing about the next in line. - Tεxτurε 16:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- There is a significant difference between actively destroying the oldest edit like this, and losing previous older edits by "accident" - very early versions of the software did not keep history. (This still exists because there were no subsequent edits until the softwre starting saving history). Thus, your point is wrong. Pcb21| Pete 15:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
October 2
- ScottMoonen → User:ScottMoonen -- Like the above, there used to be a very old article at this place (which I moved to the appropriate user subpage) and people are claiming it should be kept because of external links. It's a speedy deletion candidate, but what the hell, let's chatter about it. I'd posit that historycruft belongs in the Wikipedia and User namespaces. --fvw* 04:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, let's delete the oldest page on the wiki. Great idea. Keep Pcb21| Pete 14:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete of course. Old or not, user pages do not belong to main namespace. Rest of the world has already had several years to adapt. jni 08:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Jeez... like having one user page in the main namespace is doing harm. Pcb21| Pete 15:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Non bias → Neutral -- Where does the phrase "Non bias" come from? It makes no sense. — ciphergoth 09:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Foot Model → Elisha Cuthbert - Elisha Cuthbert may have been a footmodel, but why should we link this Foot Model to Cuthbert's article. She's not synonym with footmodelism. -- SoothingR 12:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Probably should write a foot model article, redir this there, and list her there as one. Noel (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - hopefully someday someone will feel inclined to write such an article, but I can't see how keeping this redirect around helps them and until they do it's misleading. — ciphergoth 13:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Dumb CD → Dead or Alive (band) -- Pretty POV. KingTT 17:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Man Ure → Manchester United F.C. -- Offensive redirect created by an anon who has since gone on to vandalise Chelsea F.C. -- Arwel 19:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete obviously. TBH I doubt consensus support is even needed in an obvious case like this, but... — ciphergoth 22:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it's apparently got a certain amount of usage. Yahoo shows 'about 23,000 for "Man Ure". So it's not just pure vandalism. No strong opinion either way, just noting some data. Noel (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
October 3
- Stephen W. Taylor → Steven W. Taylor. Procedural nomination to fix below editors failed attempt to delete this via AfD. No vote. jni 08:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- This page was created in error and later corrected and all Wiki links to this page have redirected to the correct page which is Steven W. Taylor --TommyBoy 17:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Authentic Matthew → Gospel of the Hebrews. Absolutely totally POV. Neither religious groups, nor academic ones believe the Gospel of the Hebrews to be the original version of Matthew. Nor does the redirect represent a merge. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 18:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Footer
NOTE: WE DO NOT DELETE REDIRECTS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY INCOMING LINKS. DO NOT LIST THIS AS A REASON TO DELETE A REDIRECT. We also sometimes delete redirects that do have incoming redirects, so it's not a necessary condition either. See #delete and #keep above for the reasons for deleting or keeping redirects.