The result of the debate was
Deleted. --
JLaTondre 02:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a redirect of an insult to a developmental disorder. Up until March 7, it pointed to a sexual act. A Google search didn't turn up much support for the term being used for either sense. Even the article for the sexual act doesn't mention the term. It doesn't seem to be notable enough for inclusion, either way. --Dajagr 23:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I speedied it the redirect, I never closed an RFD before though as i don't deal with this area, let another person close it. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 04:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I had to undelete it and reopen the debate. As a redirect, it's actually not an attack - it's a recognized slang term for a person suffering from that syndrome. The slang term is usually spelled with only one "s" and is always pronounced with a long "e" at the end. (The redirect to the sex act appears to have been an act of vandalism that took a while to catch.) The original article at this title was deleted after an AFD discussion but recreation as a redirect to a different topic is not "substantially identical" so it doesn't qualify under speedy-deletion case G4 either. It has to be decided on it's own merits. Rossami (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite the confusion, keep as a plausible misspelling of Aspie which is an accepted redirect to the syndrome (and which survived its own AFD discussion back in Oct 2005). Rossami (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 January 23, where the concensus was to delete the redirect from Ass pie. This redirect seems to me a clever way of working the slang term into an attack term. I don't think its a likely mispelling for a search term- the pronounciation were the word spelt that way would be quite different. WjBscribe 04:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete again, puerile. >Radiant< 08:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's an attack. Gavia immer (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If it'd been misspelled as "aspy" or "aspee" or something else along those lines, one could excuse it for being an innocent misspelling of the slang term for Asperger's. But the spelling of "asspie" is way too suspicious for one to be able to discount it as being innocent. As Gavia immer and others have stated, "it's an attack". (Krushsister 23:08, 24 March 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
Moved to
Portal:Current events/Background articles for ongoing events & new Background articles for ongoing events
deleted. --
JLaTondre 02:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page seems to have been used as a place to list Wikipedia articles related to (then) current events. The page was redirected to Current events and I can see no merging of content to that or to Portal:Current events (the history ends in 2003, and the histories of Current events and Portal:Current events don't start until 2006). This CNR could be confused with encyclopaedic content and should be deleted. mattbr 23:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unnecessary and unhelpful XNR. Does not act as a shortcut. Someone searching for this is not looking for a portal. No obvious merge of content so I don't see any GDFL issues. WjBscribe 00:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as cross-namespace, completely non-short cut link, I don't see any use for it. --Maelwys 17:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to a subpage of Wikipedia:Archive and delete the resulting redirect. This is effectively projectspace, and the edit history is probably worth preserving even though it hasn't been merged anywhere. --ais523 18:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. It predates the creation of the separate namespaces. It has no possibility of confusion with an article and, in the meantime, serves to preserve the project's history. Rossami (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't the history be preserved just as well if moved to Wikipedia:Archive per ais523? A note could be added about its orginal location... WjBscribe 04:41, 21 March 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
Moved to Portal:Dogs/List of dog topics & new List of dog topics
deleted. --
JLaTondre 01:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to have been used as a list of uncategorised articles which were eventually categorised and the page effectively blanked before the redirect. This CNR could be confused with encyclopaedic content and should be deleted. mattbr 23:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The connection between the title and the redirect page is tenuous at best. The only possible excuse for XNRs is as a shortcut. That clearly is not the case here. Someone searching for "List of dog topics" is not looking for a portal. WjBscribe 00:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This page has substantial history and should be kept to preserve our compliance with GFDL. If/when it is ever in the way of actual encyclopedic content, any editor can overwrite the redirect with that content. Deletion is unnecessary and in this case harmful. Rossami (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It only needs to kept to comply with GFDL if the content was merged somewhere else. That does not appear to have been the case here. WjBscribe 04:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, do a histmerge if we're worried about GFDL issues. >Radiant< 08:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.Anime redirects to categories
[edit]The result of the debate was
Procedural keep. Redirects were never tagged with ((rfd)) so if anyone finds them useful that wouldn't have known about this nomination. Nominator is free to tag & renominate. --
JLaTondre 01:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are redundant to directly linking to the category and have trivial edit histories. There are no possibilities for expansion and disguise the category location. mattbr 22:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.Non–standard shortcuts with corresponding standard shortcuts
[edit]The result of the debate was
Kept. --
JLaTondre 01:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carelessly capitalized, ignores WP:NCP, double redirect (main article is Richard_K._Guy) Dan Hoey 16:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep to aid in searching, now that I've retargeted to avoid the double redirect. The naming conventions apply to the main name that a page should have; other possible names shouldn't be used for the article itself but usually make good redirects. --ais523 16:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep now that it's properly retargetted. WP:NCP explicitly puts redirects and disambiguation pages out of scope because of their uses as navigational aids. Rossami (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with the retarget. Capitalization errors are common mistakes when performing a search and retaining the redirect could prove valuable. Arkyan 16:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.XNRs to the Manual of Style lacking useful edit histories
[edit]The result of the debate was
Deleted. --
JLaTondre 02:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an incomplete list of cross-namespace redirects to various sections of the Manual of Style, although none redirect directly to Wikipedia:Manual of Style. All of the redirects above lack useful edit histories, but are not speedy-able per WP:CSD#R3. In most instances, an appropriate shortcut to the target page prefixed with "WP:" already exists. I have included in this mass nomination only those redirects which I believe would not be useful for new users (i.e., unlikely search terms). -- Black Falcon 00:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep there seems to be a lot of pages linking to these redirs, and they don't seem to be hurting anyone. Josh Parris 03:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, once you exclude any links that are a result of this RFD, my notification of the creators' of the redirects, or part of a database dump, the end result is that only 2 of the redirects have non-trivial links: Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) and Math style manual. Most of these links are to user talk pages and their archives. And "Math style manual" may be confusing to users, who may liken it to citation style manuals like the APA, MLA, etc. -- Black Falcon 05:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambiguate any links to these pages and delete. —Michael Z. 2007-03-19 05:42 Z
- Delete all except "Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)" and "Math style manual" because there really aren't a lot of pages linking to those redirs (except to the two I mentioned, which have about 40 and 60 inlinks respectively). No opinion on those two. >Radiant< 10:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all, even the ones with inbound links. If users know about the Manual of Style, they'll know about the Wikipedia: prefix; and I agree that Math style manual is plausible as an article title. --ais523 12:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. They are cross-namespace and unlikely to be typed anyway. --Rbraunwa 21:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. Links are mostly trivial and others can be disambiguated. These are unnecessary cross namespace redirects that aren't very likely to be typed. I agree that Math style manual may confuse users expecting mainspace content. WjBscribe 15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all as unnecessary and improbable cross-namespace redirects. Dekimasuよ! 10:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.