The result of the debate was speedy deleted as R3 (implausible typo) by Useight [1] — Gavia immer (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very unlikely search term, especially what with being in all caps. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - what the...? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever! Extremely unlikely search term. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 19:33, May 18, 2008 (UTC)
• Could it perhaps be the name of someone's dog? Delete. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per Black Falcon. Cunard (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as nonsense redirect. Maybe it's for Snuppy but still, that would be a weird redirect for that article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete, but will likely be an article at some point in the future. VegaDark (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GTA IV was just released. This is getting a little ahead of ourselves isn't it...? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This is a pointless redirect and should be deleted. Rob Banzai (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Hmm...I suppose it could be construed as a typo of the 'IV' in GTA IV, but that isn't obvious. Unlikely search term/typo so delete. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 19:32, May 18, 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think we ought to create redirects for all possible (though not necessarily plausible) typos of Roman numerals, so delete. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete very unlikely typo per reasons mentioned above. Cunard (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete probably a case of WP:CRYSTALball, since Grand_Theft_Auto_V also exists --Enric Naval (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as a case of WP:CRYSTALball, we don't know if this game will exist. Midorihana みどりはな 01:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - This was a close one, but documenting older page moves by maintaining redirects is not actually backed by any policy I have found, and the consensus looks to be more towards the idea that maintaining this as a cross-namespace redirect is not necessary. VegaDark (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This redirect doesn't make any sense at all. Six Degrees of Wikipedia is internal WP game and it shouldn't be in mainspace. And it doesn't have anything in common with Kevin Bacon Have a nice day. Running 12:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete as unlikely redirect, we can't also redirect to Wikipedia:Six degrees of Wikipedia since that would be cross-name space.--Lenticel ^(talk) 12:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete utterly pointless redirect. Hut 8.5 15:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Nonsensical redirect. Enigma ^message 03:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Seems to just be leftovers from the page move and/or someone having a little bit of fun :) Deletion is fine by me. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget this back to Wikipedia:Six degrees of Wikipedia. This was created as the result of a pagemove and is the only documentation of the move since the software at that time did not record them. The Wikipedia page is one of the older pages of the project. Links to this pagename are scattered across the project history and there is a reasonable chance that there are external links still pointing to this name as well. There is no possibility that someone will mistake this for an encyclopedia article. Unless there is active risk of confusion, the downsides of a cross-namespace redirect do not outweigh the needs to support our readers. Rossami (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I wasn't aware of the problem that older page moves aren't properly documented. If this is indeed the case, and we can't fix it some other way, then I support retargeting, even though it's crossing from the article -> project namespace. -- Ned Scott 06:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget per Rossami. Seems like an acceptable use for a cross-namespace redirect - it's obviously about the Wikipedia namespace, and no one will ever write an article with this title. Terraxos (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Question Would we be able to delete the article space page or project page, make a second page move, and then restore, in order to create an entry in the log? -- Ned Scott 04:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And what would that achieve, exactly? Oh, and delete as an unlikely search term and unneeded self-reference. _{Struck out, didn't properly read the above re:page moves} RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:35, May 24, 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per above. No reason to retarget it as a cross-namespace redirect. Ral315 (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(a) This was "demoted" from a separate article, to an article section, about 6 months ago. (b) No article links to it. (c) I can't imagine anyone looking for it by typing "The Handshake" into Wikipedia, they would look in either Mark Latham or Australian federal election, 2004, both of which cover it. (d) article history is very short, nothing of signficance will be lost. (e) There is a chance that some other handshake will one day become "The Handshake", in which case this one will be cluttering the namespace. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• There is no useful edit history worth preserving, so delete per nom. The content of the article The Handshake, which was created on 22 November 2007, was present in the article Mark Latham at least as early as 28 October 2007. No merging of content appears to have taken place. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - minor event with no lasting notability, I don't see the need for a redirect here. Terraxos (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 'Delete non-notable handshake, and not a likely search term for finding that specific event, the name should be left free for when we find a more notable handshake --Enric Naval (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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