The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel ^(talk) 15:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how someone would connect ! with Polling is not a substitute for discussion. See above at reasons for deleting. The redirect makes no sense.Someone who hasa basic understanding of English knows that ! is a punctuation mark, not something related to polling. The redirect itself has had a wierd history, the redirect first pointing at Berwick-upon-Tweed.[1] Next, someone redirected it to its current destination for no particular reason.[2] This is a somewhat useless redirect with only 4 pages linking to it, none from Wikipedia namespace. DA PIE EATER (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect via WP:UCS

• Based on the redirect target, I'm guessing that the rationale behind this was the common XFD convention of referring to a user contribution in a deletion debate as a "!vote" instead of "vote". But it's still pretty pointless. The page already has shortcut redirects from WP:PNSD, WP:POLLS and WP:POLLING. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What does the name of the redirect in question have anything to do with the target in question? 99.230.152.143 (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While I understand the reasoning behind this redirect (it's, as Bearcat explains, because '!Vote' is often used as shorthand for 'AFD is not a vote'), it's sufficiently obscure and confusing that the redirect is not helpful at all (as the above comment shows). Unless there's somewhere else it could go (Unusual articles, perhaps?) it should be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redirect, convert to article. My understanding is that the character ! (aka exclamation mark, closing exclamation mark, or shriek) has at least the following usages:

• In natural language to indicate a paticularly strong statement (e.g. a command rather than a request).
• In mathematics to indicate the factorial operator.
• In some computer languages as the 'not' operator or as part of a compound to that effect (e.g. C != ≡ ≠). The latter is almost certainly the basis of this redirect.

Even if these are the only three uses (which I doubt), it's absurd to pretend that only a specialist meaning of the last one is applicable. -- Korax1214 (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Lenticel ^(talk) 15:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a cross-namespace redirect and should be deleted per WP:CNR Bstone (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note- there was clear consensus here that Wikipedia to userspace redirs are not allowed. Additionally, WP:LAWS is misleading and confusing. Bstone (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False. The redirect to your page was deleted because it wasn't a particularly useful redirect, not because of any agreement that CNRs from Wikipedia to userspace are bad. In fact, your "clear consensus" has a comment indicating just the opposite: "Several editors here seem to be very confused about a very important fact: Cross namespace redirects are only an issue for article space -> project space."" Raul654 (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; Wikipedia --> User redirects are not harmful. Ral315 (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ral - CNRs from the article namespace into another namespace (like Wikipedia or user space) are bad. Wikipedia to user space is not. Raul654 (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. - Shudde ^talk 06:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Useful redirect and useful/entertaining target. I read the cited policies and see no reason for a delete. --Johnuniq (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What do you mean there is clear consensus there? 1) That's an essay which isn't the opinion of everyone here, just some sound commoon sense endorsed by a few editors, 2) Nowhere in the essay does it mention wikipedia space to user space redirects, that claim is completely false and 3) Overwhelming consensus on nearly all previous wikipedia space to user space redirectgs has been keep. Cross namespace redirects make the mainspace look unproffessional, but they cause no harm and are actually useful in other namespaces.--Serviam (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Contrary to the assertions of the nominator, redirects from project space to user space are generally allowed, though not encouraged. There's nothing in the nomination to say why this one should be disallowed. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ral. Such redirects are common and accepted when not completely pointless, and this one leads to a useful page. LaraLove|Talk 15:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Redirects from different project namespaces are not problematic. We need a big flashing banner at the top of some page so people know to stop nominating project redirects for being "cross-namespace redirects". -- Ned Scott 09:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (Neutral) Y'know what's funny? I think I smell a WP:POINT violation or something here. It looks like (in my opinion), both nominations stem from the deletion of WP:BIA,which used to redirect to the nominator's subpage, and Bstone is upset and is mad at this page. I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but frankly, I'm unsure that too many people really knew to type "WP:BIA" in the search box. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comment on WP:RAUL below. Raul's Laws have been around for a long, long time, and the redirect is useful; nothing wrong with a link from Wikipedia to User space. The point of redirects is to be helpful, and these are. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 05:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Lenticel ^(talk) 15:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a cross-namespace redirect and should be deleted per WP:CNR Bstone (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note- there was clear consensus here that Wikipedia to userspace redirs are not allowed. Bstone (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False. The redirect to your page was deleted because it wasn't a particularly useful redirect, not because of any agreement that CNRs from Wikipedia to userspace are bad. In fact, your "clear consensus" has a comment indicating just the opposite: "Several editors here seem to be very confused about a very important fact: Cross namespace redirects are only an issue for article space -> project space."" Raul654 (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; Wikipedia --> User redirects are not harmful. Ral315 (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ral - CNRs from the article namespace into another namespace (like Wikipedia or user space) are bad. Wikipedia to user space is not. Raul654 (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. - Shudde ^talk 06:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Useful redirect and useful/entertaining target. I read the cited policies and see no reason for a delete. --Johnuniq (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What do you mean there is clear consensus there? 1) That's an essay which isn't the opinion of everyone here, just some sound commoon sense endorsed by a few editors, 2) Nowhere in the essay does it mention wikipedia space to user space redirects, that claim is completely false and 3) Overwhelming consensus on nearly all previous wikipedia space to user space redirectgs has been keep. Cross namespace redirects make the mainspace look unproffessional, but they cause no harm and are actually useful in other namespaces.--Serviam (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Per above. Mainspace → project space is bad, but I don't see any reason why project space → userspace can do harm. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Contrary to the assertions of the nominator, redirects from project space to user space are generally allowed, though not encouraged. There's nothing in the nomination to say why this one should be disallowed. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ral. Such redirects are common and acceptable when not completely pointless. LaraLove|Talk 16:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per my comment on WP:LAWS. -- Ned Scott 09:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- the redirect is useful; many of us have it bookmarked and have been using it for a long time. Crossovers from user essays to project space are a long-standing tradition on Wikipedia -- most guidelines come out of essays. Cross namespace issues mainly have to do with the main namespace, not wikipedia->userspace. This redirect isn't hurting anyone by existing, but deleting it would cause an annoyance. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 05:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Lenticel ^(talk) 15:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for this redirect - no mention of pedobear in 4chan article (wikipedia does not like memes very much). Have a nice day. Running 01:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks like somebody's redirecting someones from someplace username to there over some fallout or something... Yes, it does appear to be a well known meme.---Serviam (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't make any sense... Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a protected redirect for a reason: history and logs. Something should be put about it into the target, but the redirect should probably be kept for history at least (if not to deter people from trying to create the page). --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A well-known 4chan meme. Whatever the feeling du jour is regarding Internet memes is irrelevant, because it's out there, and people will and do look it up. – ClockworkSoul 18:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As I pointed a while ago in the talk page (and inline with UsaSatsui above), the article has relevant history. The redirect does no harm whatsoever, and despite there not being any mention of pedobear in the 4chan article, the fact that Pedobear redirects there is at least a hint. I'd say it'd better than nothing. As Clockwork said, it does exist and people will look it up. --Waldir ^talk 22:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We can't really say much about it, but at least this way people won't try to create an entire article for Pedobear. -- Ned Scott 09:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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