Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 29

< January 28 January 30 >

January 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 29, 2014.

List of towns in Nakhchivan[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

cross-namespace redirect to Category:Subdivisions of Nakhchivan. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it to point to the renamed category. I assume this is acceptable during an RfD. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes. :) Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Nakhchivan is ambiguous, the target is only one possible Nakhchivan with towns, and subdivisions of the republic are not towns. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Improper name (a category really is not a list). XNR from mainspace without proper prefix: confusing and misleading our readers. -DePiep (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unless somebody wants to use the cat list to turn this into an article-space list, this redirect should remain as it has been retargeted because it's still a good search term. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 16:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Official Conspiracy Theory[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an unlikely search term, and appears to be mistargeted.

Apart from Wikipedia, there's only one search engine result for this term, http://arizona.typepad.com/blog/2006/06/index.html . Judging from what that page says and from the history of the redirect, September 11 attacks would be a better target page, if this is kept. I checked stats.grok.se: it records zero requests in the past 90 days. [1]rybec 22:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why, but the new pageview tool shows this redirect has 54 hits in the last 30 days. For discussion about switching to the new tool, see Template talk:Rfd2#New stats tool and Template talk:Ln#New stats tool. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
My mistake, I should have looked at [2] (title case) rather than the lower case. The surge in views since 7 January may be attributable to its mention at Talk:9/11 Truth movement. —rybec 02:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery/Most wanted[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 5#Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery/Most wanted

User:ClueBot/FLAG[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was convert to links. WJBscribe (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This special page does not exist. See Help:MakeBot. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Note deletion previously contested by user:Cobi in 2009, at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_8#Redirects_in_Cluebot's_userspace. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
In use by User:ClueBot Commons/Infobox. If you want to redirect it elsewhere if that page has gone away, feel free, but the page must stay, and it should probably link somewhere where someone stumbling upon the page can go to verify that the bot is indeed flagged. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 04:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Would a permanently null page be usable for this function? Do we have a permanently null page for linking to a specifically null page? Or should all flagged bots have a null page for themselves? -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer a page like User:ClueBot NG/FLAG to a null page. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 17:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I mean that the "x/FLAG" pages would redirect to a null location (instead of ending up at SPECIAL:Logs), and that same null location would be used for all bots that need this functionality (or a new WP:space page, which documents itself as a target for bot functionality) -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Um... what? A redirect to a nonexistent page is in use by a blank page? How? Cobi, can you explain? --BDD (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    • View the source of that page. It's all in a <includeonly></includeonly> tags. The templating hierarchy of User:ClueBot, User:ClueBot NG, and all of the other user pages is quite complex. They all use the same base template. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 08:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep; if the bot op says a page in the userspace of the bot account is needed for the bot to work properly, that's good enough for me. 28bytes (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    I believe user:cobi is not saying the page is needed for the bot to work; rather, they are saying it is used to automatically put the correct value in the 'Flagged?' field of the infobox on userpages e.g. User:ClueBot NG. i.e. Rather than change a literal value in a bot's user page wikitext, to change the flagged status in these infoboxes one must delete or create these /FLAG pages. Ignoring the oddness of that approach, the content of these pages is of no consequence to bot or infoboxes - they could be a blank page and everything will continue to run smoothly. This discussion is about the target. It is an invalid target - there is no 'makebot' log. There is no need for a WP:CNR on these pages - the content of the page is irrelevant to its purpose. If Cobi is insistent on keeping these pages, they should contain instructions rather than a redirect. e.g. "Admins, please delete this page only if the [proper log link] shows the bot has been deflagged. Non-admins, please tag this page with {} to be processed by an admin." John Vandenberg (chat) 00:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
    That makes sense. It sounds like the best solution, then, would be to simply change these from redirects to simple links like the one in User:ClueBot NG/FLAG (assuming Cobi's fine with doing that, as he seems to be.) Would you agree with that? 28bytes (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
    That works for me. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Cobi, how does this sound to you? --BDD (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It's fine with me. As I said above, I'd prefer a User:ClueBot NG/FLAG to a null page. I don't really have any requirements for the contents of the page whether or not it be a redirect. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 07:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Deletion log/shortcut[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what this was originally trying to achieve, as it doesnt look like a shortcut, and has no incoming links. In any case, it is not a useful way to find the log of deletions, which has the shortcut WP:DL. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Previously listed at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_8#Redirects_to_special_pages. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak delete If nothing else, calling a soft redirect a shortcut seems a misnomer. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Shortpages/Ships[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 18#Wikipedia:Shortpages/Ships

Asian Games task force[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was redirected to Philippine Sports Commission, where content now exists something about a real thing called the Asian Games Task Force. — Scott talk 14:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:CNR created in 2011. There is a real thing by the name "Asian Games Task Force"[3]. Delete per WP:REDLINK. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete [4] there have been several security taskforces involved with the Asian Games. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. CNR from mainspace without proper prefix. Mainspace pollution, bothering readers with non-content. -DePiep (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Project Russian history[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:CNR to a WikiProject without term 'WikiProject' in the name. Project Russia was also a redirect to the same WikiProject created by now banned user:Tyciol, with an outcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 10#Project Russia of delete redirect and move Project Russia (books) so it doesnt unnecessarily have '(books)' suffix. Project martial arts is another of user:Tyciol's redirects, which was deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 18. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom; malformed CNR that should be subject to a similar outcome as the other examples given. — Scott talk 13:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:XNR to non-encyclopedic content, having nothing to do with real world projects on Russian history. Target is also not wikiproject dedicated to Russian history either. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. XNR from mainspace without proper prefix. Mainspace pollution. -DePiep (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dinosaur strat lists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:CNR created in 2009. As it is a content like name targeted to a content category, many of the arguments against CNRs dont apply. One that still does apply is that Category pages are not always rendered properly in apps, but we have many similar redirects, often as a decision from an WP:AFD.

However, "Dinosaur strat" is a WP:NEO, with only 27 hits for google:"Dinosaur strat" -Guitar, nearly all of which are wikipedia mirrors or wikipedia word lists. Receives <10 hits per month except December when there was a lot of interest in WP:CNRs, and has no incoming links. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom - inappropriate neologism/CNR combo. — Scott talk 13:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. XNR from mainspace with incorrect prefix. -DePiep (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Good articles[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:CNR recreated in December 2013, after being deleted five (5) times. Technically eligible for deletion under under WP:G4 due to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2006_August_7#Good articles → Wikipedia:Good articles, but that was a long time ago so re-reviewing. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

  • retarget to Wikipedia#Internal quality control and assessment of importance where the quality of Wikipedia articles is discussed. That target should probably also be metioned at the Feature article dab page (where Featured articles redirects). Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt. Mainspace search shouldn't be contaminated with Wikipedia inside baseball. It was very noble of John to bring it up here rather than immediately G4'ing it. — Scott talk 13:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unless I am mistaken, the existence of this redirect page isn't actually causing any problems for anyone, while at the same time its existence can actually be a convenience to many editors, myself included. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per longstanding consensus. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 21:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:XNR to something about Wikipedia, and not about the real world concept, or a list of real world good articles. Journalism classes give examples of "good articles" and ours are no such thing. Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material and SALT as multiple recreation. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. XNR from mainspace with improper prefix. Readers of our encyclopedia should not be mislead into non-content space. -DePiep (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete and possibly Salt. Probably the best of intentions involved but not a useful XNR. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Good article reassessment[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was deleted per WP:CSD#G7. JohnCD (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:CNR created in May 2013. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Well then, please go ahead. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
This isnt covered by WP:CSD#Redirects, so I cant 'be bold'. However you can tag it with {{db-u1}} if you like. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I've nominated it for WP:G7 speedy deletion on the grounds of Kailash29792's comment. —rybec 02:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Delete per the longstanding consensus. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 21:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. As with #Good article above. XNR from mainspace without proper prefix. -DePiep (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:XNR pipework redirect to non-encyclopedic content. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Main Path[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. 28bytes (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Unused improbable misspelling. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. Unless you are proposing to retarget it somewhere else, there is no benefit from deleting something this harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless contamination of search results. — Scott talk 13:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not particularly harmful, and because a Path (computing) is related to the location of a webpage, it's not particularly unlikely that someone would slightly mis-remember the name and try to go here. Yes, you're not going to type it when you're attempting to type "Page", but that doesn't mean that nobody's going to come here by accident. Nyttend (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
    • If they accidentally type "Main Path", they can learn from their mistake and type Main Page instead. It's not rocket science. — Scott talk 21:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
      • And in what way does that benefit them or the project more than just taking them direct to where they want to go? Thryduulf (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep I forget who originally said this but "little reason to keep, no reason to delete, little trumps no". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Probably not a likely error, but harmless enough. --BDD (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

User:Wikipedia.org[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. I'm not seeing any deleted contributions for this purported user, either. --BDD (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User renamed in 2007; userpage created in 2012 John Vandenberg (chat) 09:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. These should not have been created in the first place, and should have been speedy deleted as unlikely when they were. — Scott talk 13:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a User. -DePiep (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: there is an account with this name, not blocked [5], with no edits to live pages (I can't see deleted edits). The pages were deleted in 2007 [6] [7] and the redirects were created in 2012. Even though it appears dormant, could the account still be blocked as having a username which implies shared use, and which is misleading? —rybec 03:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

User:Main page[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was revert to user and user talk pages. --BDD (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User was blocked before they contributed. Years later, user:Gavia immer creates this redirect. There was some sock puppet tags involved in the history, which would be a better state to leave the userpage than the current easter egg. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Revert to 2008 version. No purpose is served keeping this as an Easter egg redirect. — Scott talk 13:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Revert per nom and per Scott. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 21:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Revert to the 2008 version per Scott Martin.--Lenticel (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

User:Spe88/GoTo.Main Page[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. WJBscribe (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No incoming links; user hasnt contributed for 6 years. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

  • keep. Exactly what benefit do you see will be accrued from deletion here? Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Meaningless, useless, worthless. In a word, junk. Don't encourage junk. — Scott talk 12:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Calling a redirect names is inadequate rationale for deletion. This is not a "really harmful" redirect. There is nothing here that supports deletion. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 21:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - even if they haven't been a while, productive users should be given a lot of freedom to play around with their userspace as long as it isn't harmful. Harshly treating encyclopaedia-building users for no gain will discourage participation and make the atmoshpere here more hostile, a huge detriment to the project. WilyD 09:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Nice red herring, but nobody is proposing treating encyclopedia-building users harshly. Spe88 gave up on this project in April 2007 and thus is not an encyclopedia-building user by definition. We are not obliged to maintain every shred of abandoned meaningless clutter (no incoming links, exactly zero prospect of ever getting any) created by long-gone users experimenting. — Scott talk 14:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Neither you nor I know when or if they'll return to the project. That they may not return is not a good reason for us to be dicks to them when it is of zero benefit to the encyclopaedic building project. That you feel the need to other them to justify gross mistreatment of them is telling. WilyD 15:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
LOL. That is all. — Scott talk 17:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Scott, please treat other contributors with respect even if you disagree with them. WilyD is entirely correct that we don't know whether a user is coming back or not, and that it is an entirely inappropriate to treat them as somehow inferior because of that. The user was apparently in good standing when they left and so remains in good standing unless and until they return and actively engage in behaviour that changes that status. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
WilyD's comment is quite possibly the most laughable thing I've ever read in a Wikipedia discussion, and I've been here a long time. It's not right; it's not even wrong. This business about "inferiority" and "standing" is entirely in your own mind, by the way, and is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Which, as it appears to be necessary to return to the point, is the point of maintaining useless junk in our database for the benefit of an imaginary person - Spe88's ghost. Not Spe88; Spe88 is gone, gone, gone. Anyone with the slightest shred of common sense is able to see that, but WilyD apparently swapped his for a tendency to engage in histrionic rhetoric. — Scott talk 21:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
What part of "treat other users with respect" and "assume good faith" do you not understand? Additionally, please show evidence of the harm caused by this redirect, evidence for your assertion that Spe88 is imaginary, and evidence for your assertions that WilyD has no common sense and is engaging in histrionic rhetoric. You should not need to be reminded that WP:No personal attacks is a policy that applies to everybody. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. (Disclosure: I saw this discussion mentioned off-site.) I can't see how this redirect is useful to anyone. If by any chance the user should return, it is a matter of 2 minutes for them to recreate it. We shouldn't keep lots of redirects lying around that are of no use to anyone. It's just good housekeeping. Andreas JN466 23:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Good housekeeping implies there is benefit from the activity. Please can you explain what the benefit actually is as nobody above has yet done so. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Let's note first of all that the "activity" requires an infinitesimal amount of work, and that deletion has no discernible downside whatsoever. Thus even a small benefit results in a positive cost/benefit ratio. So here are some of the potential benefits of deletion: (1) The "What links here" page for the main page will be less cluttered, ensuring that the pages shown there might actually be of interest to an editor checking the "What links here", and that such an editor will not have to sift through detritus to find what is of interest. (2) The redirect is clearly not watched. It could at any time be used to redirect to anything whatsoever. As such it could be used for various types of vandalism and mischief. (3) Unused user space redirects like this one inflate project stats, adding noise to project data. (4) Imagine a user created several thousand useless redirects like this. It would impose additional overhead on the servers. Creating the impression that any useless page in user space is a legitimate use of Foundation resources is likely to encourage undesirable behaviour. (5) If an editor bothered to nominate the thing in good faith, to oppose deletion for no project benefit whatsoever seems pointy, and unlikely to increase enthusiasm for participation. I could understand if there was something worth fighting for here, but there is literally nothing. Andreas JN466 00:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
        • The "nothing" worth "fighting for" should never be about a contest, but about the consensus found in the policies and guidelines. The appropriate guideline for this type of redirect (beyond what we read at the top of the main RFD page) is found at WP:USERSPACE, which guides us that redirects from userspace subpages to mainspace are common and acceptable. There is no reason to go to the trouble it would take to delete this perfectly harmless redirect. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 16:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Its a worthless CNR. Like Jayen466 said, there is literaly no reason to keep all these useless redirects that people dont use. Beerest 2 talk 19:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per Andreas, but without prejudice against Spe88 recreating it. Please leave a note to Spe88 in and closing statement and/or deletion summery that he's free to recreate this. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, basically verbatim per EHC. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep The redirect doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:RFD#DELETE, and it may be useful to the user (even if they haven't edited, we don't have a policy of clearing out a retired user's userspace) and the user pages guideline says it's "acceptable". Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

User:Makkapakka3/ROBLOXUSERBOX[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No incoming links; page was created by user:GreenCKE (blocked) and redirected to the main page by user:Wagner (also blocked), and of course Rcated by user:Paine Ellsworth. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

  • keep or revert to the original intention. There is no benefit to the encyclopaedia or the project from deleting these sorts of harmless redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
This is the original intention. -DePiep (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no benefit to the encyclopedia or the project in maintaining these sorts of useless redirects. — Scott talk 12:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually, there is benefit in not deleting pages unnecessarily, but even if there weren't "no benefit" does not equal "harm" and that is required to justify any deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf below. A rationale of "useless" is only "useful" if it shows why a redirect is useless. The What links here page is sadly lacking in this respect, especially for a near-5-year-old redirect. Have the incoming links from the vast Internet been checked? This does not appear to be a "really harmful" redirect, so a case has yet to be made that would support its deletion. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 19:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Utter tosh. You need to snap out of your utterly mistaken belief that we are beholden to the internet to maintain completely worthless unused crap, as more than satisfactorily demonstrated in the nomination. Once again, in the complete absence of even the faintest shred of demonstrable utility, you appeal to the requirements of imaginary unknowns. Not good enough. — Scott talk 22:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
My goodness! I must be out of my mind! Nahhht! It's really fascinating to deal with you Scott. You're such a fine deletionist! You can become an even better one if you would just read the guidelines. This is not a "really harmful" redirect. So please take your "good will" to the laundry. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 18:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
PS. On a more human note Face-smile.svg, I finally found a way to enable params in the {{This is a redirect}} template. Nothing anyone can say would spoil my mood today! PS left by – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX!
Enjoy, but don't let that make your contributions turn into trolling rants. -DePiep (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Please keep this civil and comment on the content not the contributor. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: User:GreenGKE and User:Wagner, both mentioned in the nomination, appear to be same socks of a pair [8]. -DePiep (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Page in a userspace that was not created by that user. Misleading name suggesting a userbox. Target does not match intended or suggested pagename/target. Original creating edit [9] could be called disruptive (G3 speedy). Second edit mentioned, by User:Wagner, could be nullified for being a sockedit. Gaming the system / we are being played with. Plus nom and Scotts arguments, in short: rubbish page. -DePiep (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately for you and the deletionist style arguments you cite, just because something might be called disruptive doesn't make it so, and your opinion that it is a "rubbish page" is not evidence of the harm required to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
If a user creates a page in another user's space with content as had this one, I'd have it speedy deleted as vandalism. The un-fortune is with you for not seeing that. You would not call this vandalism? And as you can read, "rubbish page" is not my opinion but it is my collective description of their arguments.
For sure, tagging my arguments a "deletionist style" (whatever that may mean) is the unneeded opinion here. You did not respond to one of them. -DePiep (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Nope, "lol" is not vandalism. In mainspsace it would be A1/A3 speedy deleted but those rightly do not apply in userspace. If it was replacing the content of an existing page, that would (in most cases) be vandalism. If there was a pattern of it then it might be disruptive, but I've not seen any evidence of that. The page name is not really misleading as its not being presented as a userbox anywhere, that it was created in a different users space does not make it harmful, nor does being created by sockpuppets make it harmful, and I see no evidence that this redirect is gaming any system. If you want to delete a redirect you need to show that the redirect is harmful, you have not done so. Thryduulf (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Not vandalism? You try to create such a page in my userspace. See what happens. -DePiep (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Given that you have made statements implicitly objecting to that, my doing so would be inappropriate (repeatedly doing so would certainly be harassment) but would not necessarily be vandalism (for example if I created a sourced article draft). Unless the page content is vandalism (which this is not) or there is evidence to the contrary we must assume that the page was created in good faith. Thryduulf (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I wrote "such a page", no need to change that in "sourced article draft" trying to turn it into your point. I gave you the diff. And to be clear, creating such a page in my userspace is vandalism, even without me warning you (though there are other reasons why you should not try it really, as an admin knows). Now if you respond please open with declaring whether you are deviating further in offtopic word quibbling or responding to my arguments. Saves me time. -DePiep (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
My point was that creating such a page in your userspace would be inappropriate because I know that you object. Creating "such a page" in the userspace of a user I know does not or would not object is no more vandalism than creating the page in my own userspace. In this case we do not know whether Makkapakka3 objects or not, nor do we know whether GreenCKE knew their opinions on the matter (and we could only know if they communicated this on-wiki). Assuming good faith, as is mandatory in the absence of a reason to do otherwise, means that we must judge the redirect on its merits not on the unknown background to it. A redirect from a user subpage to the main page is not harmful and so there is no reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
First, the "original intent" was this. No need to divert into other made-up examples, not a "sourced article draft". That page is not improving WP, full stop. There is enough about this at Wikipedia:User pages btw.
Second, elsewhere in this RfD I noted that the two editors mentioned in the nomination are related socks. There goes AGF.
Then, I made a list of arguments. There is no sense in picking out just one, and then try to falsify that isolated one (as you do; e.g., wrt page creation in other user's space; e.g., wrt vandalism). Of the whole (not just page content, but also history, editors, behaviour, effects, what you have), I concluded "rubbish". -DePiep (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
All that is relevant at WP:UP that I can see is "redirects from userspace subpages to mainspace are common and acceptable". I choose not to respond to the rest of your arguments as you have not listened when I have done so previously. Thryduulf (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Makkapakka3 was yet another of Wagner's sockpuppets.[10] This redirect is garbage piled upon garbage. — Scott talk 21:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as the nonsense creation of a blocked user. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to delete this one. For example, it's a highly unlikely search term (an impossible one, I should say) for the main page. I think my esteemed colleagues Thryduulf and Paine are misapplying RfD precedent here. Yes, we normally require some indication that a redirect does harm before deleting it, but only if the redirect has some utility to begin with. What possible use could there be for this redirect? I know we're not supposed to worry about performance, but if a redirect has no utility, it is doing some harm in taking up server space. So I can confidently vote to delete this one, and wonder why anyone would do otherwise apart from extreme inclusionism. --BDD (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    So, my esteemed colleague, the only harm you say this redirect does is to take up server space? And how much server space was that again? (Keep in mind that it's probably a little more than it used to be since T16323 and T44642 have been fixed, and there is now text allowed on redirects.) – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 01:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Deleting a redirect actually takes up more server space than keeping it (all the old revisions remain on the server, deletion is a revision, plus all the metadata about the deletion). I am not an inclusionist and this isn't about inclusionism. It's about upholding the very basic principles that underlie every single deletion policy and guideline on Wikipedia - we do not delete anything unless deletion is more beneficial to the project than keeping it and never, under any circumstance, is something deleted for no reason. The only relevant mention of situations like this that I can find in any policy or guideline is redirects from userspace subpages to mainspace are common and acceptable. Disliking a page is no reason to violate the fourth pillar. Thryduulf (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:DePiep mainly. There are a lot of problems with this redirect, any of which are good enough to justify deletion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC).
    There are a lot of problems with this redirect...
    And yet, you did not mention even one, which turns your !vote into a mere vote that lacks any rationale. The contributor you cited has not mentioned any problem that warrants deletion, either. Please include a specific rationale that would justify the deletion of this "common", "acceptable" and completely harmless redirect from a userspace subpage to mainspace. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 15:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    The user I mentioned went over the problems more than adequately in my view. If I was to list the problems I'd just be repeating myself. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete per DePiep and BDD, having viewed the original version, which consists of, and I quote, "lol". 28bytes (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

User:69.255.149.54[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted - housekeeping. A look at this redirect's history showed that it was created by a user (now departed - Trunks719) getting confused about where to create article content and/or a user page, then pseudo-deleting it by redirecting the user away after copy-paste moving the content. If an admin had been involved at the time they would have moved the content of the page without leaving a redirect. Additionally, Paine Ellsworth should consider himself trouted for categorizing this redirect instead of bringing it here. — Scott talk 13:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

IP addresses are shared. Easter eggs such as redirects to the Main page shouldnt be added to trip up the next person using the IP, or other users who click on it because it is blue. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.