Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 November 15

Unneeded cross-namespace redirect. No incoming links. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 09:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I see no real use for this. The Facebook page, now more appropriately called Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians, is only used within the project, and mostly by users constantly working in it, who already know the differences of namespaces. No move logs or history other than the redirect creation. I suggest deletion as a clear self-reference of Wikipedia (the project, not the site). - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cross namespace redirects, especially from main are a really bad idea. The project page doesn't have the notability to make it as an article. It's also valid to observe that there might be some future wiki with this name, and this redirect may discourage the creation of an article, when it becomes necessary. i kan reed 22:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Casual reader won't be looking for it, familiar Wikipedian will know not to be looking in article space. Cross-namespace, and all, but the above posts address that. Not sure what else there is to say, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The target article used to have a section on the Inverse Ninja Law, but that section was deleted as unsourceable a while ago, and the article no longer has anything to say about "the more ninjas attack, the less effective they are". Synonymous redirects are Law of Diminishing Ninjas, Inverse Theory of Ninja, Inverse Ninja Effectiveness Principle and Inverse ninja law. McGeddon 16:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's a previous nomination at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_2#Inverse_Ninja_Law_.E2.86.92_Stormtrooper_effect that applies here, although these aren't recreations, just variations that were missed. In any case, there's a history of source-free lameness associated with the "Inverse Ninja" concept, so without any mention of it at the target, we'd be well served by not having these. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect A significant number of non-Wikipedia uses can be found ([1]), many from informal blogs/gaming forums. It is a gaming/movie convention that has been noted, and was noted in the previous incarnation of the Stormtrooper effect article. Just because it's not currently in Principle of Evil Marksmanship doesn't preclude it from being added back. Wl219 (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• While I guess I'd like it if we could source some mention of this, in one way or another, the target page doesn't seem to mention anything relevant that would justify the link, at this time. In lamer terms, "donut" probably should not redirect to a "croissant" article which mentions nothing about donuts, just because they're both kinda pastries, and we wanted a donut redirect. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]