The result of the debate was Keep. VegaDark (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest deletion after long discussion in Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages and consensus about this subject. The name of Jerusalem in the Greek language is not the city's original name. Magioladitis (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – as the creator of the redirect, let me note: it was created on request (see my comment on adding it). I wasn't particularly aware of the language issue being discussed, but I'm skeptical of its not being a worthwhile redirect. The Greek name might have historical significance, though - but I'd have to double-check. Nihiltres^{t.l} 16:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Though not much likely, it may have historical significance. Also, Israel is a very multilingual country, and many different langauges is heard on the streets of Jerusalem. Greece is not far away from Israel, so I reckon it might be natural that Greece is represented in Jerusalem. --EivindJ (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep— This is a useful redirect. As EivindJ said, it's not likely, but historically significant. -- Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 00:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- a fairly important book written in Greek refers to the city by this name fairly often. While I recognise that that was classical Greek rather than modern Greek, as this is, that seems in itself valid enough reason. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Aha, that's what I was trying to remember. Nihiltres^{t.l} 04:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep as formerly common study of Greek and the Christian Bible in English language schools would make this a weakly useful redirect. 70.55.86.190 (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has historical value, as said above. A curious person might look it up. Midorihana みどりはな 06:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for nominator's reasons. That a book written in greek, even if it is the Bible, uses a greek word is expected. Should we have all Greek language names/locations mention in the Bible redirecting to their english WP articles? Certainly not, IMO - Nabla (talk) 02:37, 27 May 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The result of the debate was keep - nomination withdrawn -- KTC (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention of the word Blargg (2 Gs) in article space is this redirect; Blargg was removed from the list as "too minor" on 20 April 2008, having previously been added and removed in 2007. This relates to the RfD for Blarg earlier today. PamD (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because the redirect serves to keep other new editors from making the same mistake. If the character is too minor to even be in the list, it is far too minor for a stand-alone article. A redirect politely makes it clear to new users that the community has already considered the question and points them to the place where their contributions are more likely to be appreciated. Rossami (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Politely makes it clear..."? Only if the new user is sophisticated and persistent enough to trawl through ancient edit histories! If the redirect survives, it would be useful to add a comment to the target page to explain why the entry isn't there, which would help potential editors but still mystify readers! PamD (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Why do we need a new RFD entry for this one? In any event, still Delete. Too obscure in my eyes. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, it's a different spelling. No opinion here, then. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Still useful as a search term, even if it's no longer on the target list. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If they create a disambiguation page on blarg, which is discussed below, maybe this one should be redirected to that page? --EivindJ (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - have created a Blarg(g) dab page, and explained, I hope, the position of this non-entry on the Mario list. Redirected Blargg to Blarg. Hope that's OK! PamD (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I withdraw my nomination. PamD (talk) 23:11, 22 May 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 - nomination withdrawn. KTC (talk) 09:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No apparent reason for redirect. Title appears to be special characters, not straightforward question marks. PamD (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Those special characters form the name of Sally Yeh in Chinese. See the category redirects from alternative languages. Cunard (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw nomination - sorry, I'd realised about the special characters and came back to find it already pointed out. I was only seeing questionmarks, and had been led to the article by finding it inexplicably linked from http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artist/xnf9/, a BBC page about another person, so when I saw that there was a redirect from this strange-looking (on my browser) redirect name, I thought this might be causing the linkage from BBC and didn't think about other explanation for it. PamD (talk) 08:57, 22 May 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 Delete. VegaDark (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was deleted, then overturned as a result of this DRV. Now submitting to RfD. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Your link to the DRV discussion appears to be broken. Can you please update with a sub-page specific link? I'd like to review that discussion before commenting. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:GURCH and WP:EVULA both exist as levity redirects. The content on WP:EVULA is almost identical in nature to what is on WP:BIA. Thus, I ask that WP:BIA be allowed to continue existing. Bstone (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete simply because I think cross-namespace redirects in WP namespace should be used sparingly. It sets a bit of a dangerous precedent to allow users to make WP redirects to user space for pretty much any purpose. It would definitely be helpful to have a policy on this, but the related essay isn't that specific. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as cross-namespace redirect. WAX are not a reason for keeping or deleting. Taemyr (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and delete the others too. This is vanity, plain and simple. If the target had some sort of legitimate use, like it were an essay or a well-known joke or something similar, I would feel differently. If people want their own little slice of fun in their userspaces, I have no problem with that, but there's no need to tie up WP shortcuts with them. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's add WP:ZN to this. May as well. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and grandfather WP:GURCH and WP:EVULA as redirects that have earned their right to be left alone. Notice that WP:GURCH has already survived RDF. Notice that WP:EVULA is way funnier than WP:BIA, and WP:EVULA also serves a purpose to ridiculize a certain way of thinking, so a comparison between them is moot. And, yeah, I'm being unfair and arbitrary here. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make a good point about WP:EVULA, but I don't buy the "grandfathered in" argument, particularly when the "survival" of a previous EFD is a "no consensus". I don't think anything should be kept just because they did it first, and if that idea held water, there would be great difficulty deleting anything around here. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:REDIRECT#Reasons_for_deleting only cites redirects from mainspace, not redirects from WP space. Because of lack of precedent we can start to form a consensus here, draw a line on the sand on which redirects are valid and which are not, and similar stuff. Once that consensus is formed, we can update the guideline with the new consensus. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redirects into userspace are inappropriate. If the page is helpful for developing an encyclopedia, then it should be in WP: space already. If it isn't, then it doesn't need a link from project space. --B (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Cross-namespace redirects should be rare, and only employed for very good reasons. Linking to a humorous userpage isn't one of them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Project->User redirects are acceptable when helpful for the project, the community, like redirects to essays. But it's not the case here, and I don't think it's worth an exception. Cenarium (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cenarium. KTC (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not funny. Waste of space. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This target page doesn't seem to have a use, unlike essays in userspace. Midorihana みどりはな 06:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 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. When we delete CNSR and talk about avoiding them, that is what we're talking about. See WP:SELF for more information about why. For all other namespaces, there is no issue, whatsoever. This seems to be something that several people, not just those involved here, have been confused about in the past. -- Ned Scott 06:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, this is being used as a shortcut, not as a true page redirect, which makes the CNSR argument even more illrelevant. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment target was moved to User:Bstone/BSTONEISAWESOME to remove the "Wikipedia:" part, has been tagged as "humour", and the message about being a policy has been altered so readers won't get confused --Enric Naval (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete and there are no sound reasons presented in this MfD to delete.. As I've made my opinions clear in the DRV, there is currently no valid criteria to delete these types of redirects, as other have pointed out. I have no opinion other than keep since this is not mentioned at Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons_for_deleting and subsequently there is no consensus to delete redirects out of wikipedia namespace, only article namespace. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum. Also, "waste of space" as a reason to delete is in contravention to RfD. Redirects are cheap. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as broken redirect. --Eivind (t) 20:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The page isn't there any more.... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It now redirects to User:Bstone/BSTONEISAWESOME. It was a broken redirect for a while. --Eivind (t) 09:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Not a terribly useful redirect, but as far as I'm aware, users are allowed to create redirects from Wikipedia-space to their userspace. (There must be hundreds of userfied essays out there with 'WP' shortcuts.) The page itself is going to stay, and the redirect is pretty harmless, so why get rid of it? Terraxos (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Harmless. The policy also deserves more publicity; I suggest making it the sixth pillar. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I can not agree these cross-space redirects are harmless.
  • I came to one of these user's page for the first time two days ago because I was concerned over their tagging practices. I was hoping I would find another wikipedian willing to engage in meaningful, civil dialogue, who was going to prove willing and able to consider the possibility they may have made a mistake.
  • Instead I saw they were joking about being infallable.
  • This is not harmless. I didn't realize they compounded this apparent arrogant insult to future correspondents by placing a cross namespace redirection to the Wikipedia: namespace. This is definitely not funny. It wouldn't even be funny if they compensated for joking about being infallible by bending over backwards to show they were capable of reasonable, responsible discussion.
  • I suggest all non-standard cross namespace redirections, that don't have a demonstrable benefit to the project should be deleted.
  • Compliance with the wikipedia's civility policies is not a joking matter. Geo Swan (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree. --Eivind (t) 16:31, 29 May 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 no consensus - I will note that, from my understanding, GFDL is satisfied by maintaining deleted edits, and thus keeping old redirects to maintain pagemove documentation would not be required by the GFDL. I would have closed as delete had that been the only argument presented, but I will assume that those wishing to document the pagemove believe there are other benefits of such documentation, although not specifically mentioned in the discussion. VegaDark (talk) 06:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A really silly redirect, theres no way someone is going to type that into the search. Anyways the title says "List of people who CLAIMED to be Jesus", so having "except Jesus" is redundant and unnecessary. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, very implausible redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UsaSatsui (talk • contribs) 03:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - borders on WP:POINT territory here. Clearly not a likely search term. B.Wind (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. From mathematic point of view, this is correct. Jesus claimed to be Jesus but he is not on the latter list. Still this is useless as a searchable item. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it's documentation of the pagemove. The title may seem silly to us now but that's where the page was early in its history. The pagemove was executed before the software was changed to automatically record the movement in the edit histories. This, by the way, is only one of many titles that the list has been at in its history. The others are equally implausible as search terms but we keep them because redirects do more than merely support the search engine. Rossami (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • question why is "documentation of the pagemove" important? (note: I'm fine with keeping this, or not... just curious on the reasoning) - Nabla (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably for GDFL reasons. --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Looks like Rossami is correct. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on history and context. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rossami. This is why you always check page histories at xFD. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for record of the page history; it could well be a search term also. The redirect title is correct, logically. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:25, 26 May 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 no longer a redirect after change into a dab page. -- KTC (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very improbable redirect. I can't see how Blarg has anything to do with Red vs. Blue. Cunard (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and revert to the previous target. Looks like an old case of IP vandalism. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er...what does that target have to do with it? --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Blargg" was a character from the target list; was removed, but still could be searched for. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There doesn't really seem to be a good target for the term, and it doesn't seem to refer to anything in particular. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Possibly change target - there's a "Blarg" in the list at List of characters in Magic: The Gathering: B. PamD (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to dab page - there does seem to be a Blarg (well, a "Blarggity Blarg-Tucker") at List_of_characters_in_Red_vs._Blue#Junior as well as the above. (Found and fixed some long-standing Blarg vandalism at Lance while looking!) PamD (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And most of the use of the word in WP articles seems to be the Blarg mentioned in List_of_characters_in_the_Ratchet_&_Clank_series#Species. Definitely a dab page needed. PamD (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd support the bold creation of a disambig based on that. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Not sure what the protocol is for removing RFD tags, or even whether it's actually OK to be bold and turn a redirect into a dab page while under RFD... ? Apologies if I've got it wrong. PamD (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I completely agree with the changes you made in turning Blarg into a dab page, so I withdraw my nomination. Cunard (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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