Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 September 28

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 23:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Unused template redirect without any conceivable use. --MZMcBride 21:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The pagehistory shows that this template got a fair amount of traffic before it was merged/redirected. Leaving the redirect in place prevents that kind of forking from re-occurring. Rossami (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm more likely to search for Template:Cantons of Bosnia and Herzegovina than Template:Cantons of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina even if the countries have split--Phoenix 15 18:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nom. --- RockMFR 02:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

redirect makes no sense - Boone was a minor figure in this and it was a circular redirect Toddstreat1 20:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: saw note in Talk:Steven Boone. I removed the {{RFD}} template from the redirect page too. Toddstreat1 21:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

A cross-namespace redirect that makes no sense to anyone searching for an encyclopedia article on the subject, and an unlikely search term for a user looking for the project page. The redirect seems to exist for the purpose of Wikipedia:Cheatsheet, but it's only marginally useful there, and it's used as an intentional link target elsewhere (except that it doesn't have to be red to fulfil its purpose, unlike most other intentional link targets). I suggest deleting and salting it is probably the best course of action. --ais523 16:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• If you have encyclopedic content to say on the topic of "target pages", just overwrite the redirect. I have to admit that I can't think of anything, though. The only uses I can think of for this phrase are in the context of redirects and the Wikipedia:Redirect page is as useful as any to the reader. Rossami (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Tutorial (Wikipedia links) uses it as an example of a target of a link (rather than of a redirect). --ais523 18:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as an unnecessary and confusing cross-namespace redirect, and add to Wikipedia:Protected titles/Deliberate redlinks. Melsaran (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fairly useless cross-namespace redirect, with no suitable target in the article namespace. Terraxos 16:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. The target article was deleted after an AfD discussion. The redirect term is only related to the former article, which was determined to be original research. Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 11:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

This phrase is not mentioned in the article. Confusing, misleading, possible non-neutral suggestion. Chick Bowen 01:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a nonsensical redirect. --UsaSatsui 07:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It documents a particularly controversial pagemove. Controversial enough that it needed an AFD discussion to sort out the page's fate, at least. It doesn't seem to be a particularly helpful redirect but I don't see it as directly harmful either. Rossami (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, reading that AfD confirms to me the necessity of deleting it. First of all, the "Eighty Years' War" content has been removed (reasonably). Secondly, there's no way that article, which had absolutely no sources and was essentially original research, would be kept by current standards. This discussion ought to supersede that one. In any case, I've now listed the targed article for deletion as well; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survey of the twentieth century. Chick Bowen 03:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR. No evidence this term is in widespread academic or popular use. --Folantin 07:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. --- RockMFR 21:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

procedural nomination Nominated for WP:PROD-deletion when it should have been brought here. PROD nominator states: "Unneeded redirect" User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a harmless redirect. --UsaSatsui 07:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Documents a pagemove from back in April 2006. However, only a few anon editors touched the page before it was moved and the page has been very heavily edited since. In this case, I think it is safe to say that everyone interested in the page has found the new location. Rossami (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nothing wrong with this--Phoenix 15 18:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per precedent that there is no reason to delete redirects that stem from the old subpage system. Melsaran (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Melsaran and Rossami. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 22:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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