The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly named dab page moved to proper location. No need for redirect which does not follow convention and is unlikely to ever be used. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Will not be used. --- RockMFR 22:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems rather pointless to me. If you were looking for a new person, why would you look for disambiguation page? TheBlazikenMaster 01:08, 31 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 delete. Reasons to keep appear to centre on a navigation aid for those searching for "Ryan Jordan". The other main argument was based on the guidelines for formatting that page. However, that is a disambiguation page linking to Essjay controversy. Given that a direct unpiped link is available from that disambig page to the target article, it does not seem to fall within the Galactic quadrants (Star Trek) exception in WP:MOSDAB where redirects should be prefered in disambig pages. As such there seems a clear concensus that this redirect is unnecessary given the unlikely search term. WjBscribe 03:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ryan Jordan (Wikipedia) → Essjay controversy
• Talk:Ryan Jordan (Wikipedia) → Talk:Essjay controversy

Needless redirects, only the result of a short time move, only linked to from one page where the deletion of exactly this title is suggested + including real name as a page title in the main namespace, per WP:LIVING, RTV. who would type in this title when searching for this story? "Ryan Jordan" (without "(Wikipedia)") is already there as a disambig and that is ok.
db request was reverted and sent to here: [1] -Jon 20:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I agree that it's improbable that someone would type "Ryan Jordan (Wikipedia)" into the search box. However, Ryan Jordan is a disambiguation page, and WP:MOSDAB#Piping says "This guidance to avoid piping means that a link to a redirect term will sometimes be preferred to a direct link, if the redirect term contains the disambiguation title and the redirect target does not. For example, in Delta (disambiguation), a link to the redirect term Delta Quadrant would be preferred over its target, Galactic quadrants (Star Trek)." In practice, this often means that an improbable redirect is created for the sake of the disambiguation page. At the moment, Ryan Jordan doesn't fully meet the recommendations of WP:MOSDAB, but if it did it would probably use this redirect.
  That said, it would be no great loss to Wikipedia if this were deleted. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've formatted Ryan Jordan per WP:MOSDAB, so the redirect is used at least once. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Which anothger user reverted here, SqueakBox 01:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. People reading the Essjay news stories may google his purported name. There is no reason we shouldn't redirect to the article Essjay controversy. Notable alias. - Denny 20:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  As explained before: Essjay controversy is already linked from "Ryan Jordan" (that should stay, of course), but without the brackets (the term "Wikipedia" is mentioned there too -> enough + better for all "google issues"). - Jon

• Delete, unlikely search term. Picaroon 22:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the redirect leads to an article that is not a biographical article and therefore it is misleading. (→Netscott) 00:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep People will look for Ryan Jordan and there should be an article on Ryan Jordan. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your misrepresentation of the issue is unhelpful. Picaroon 03:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your patronising disregard for the opinions of others is irksome. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 17:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as long as there remains an article on the Essjay controversy. If that article is deleted this should then also be deleted, SqueakBox 01:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While a redirect from "Ryan Jordan" would make sense, that title is appropriately in use as a disambiguation. The Essjay controversy article is linked from the disambiguation page. I can't imagine anyone searching using this term; but stranger things have happened, I suppose. Risker 22:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, only reasonable use for it supplanted by creative wording on the Ryan Jordan page. We have no article on him, we don't need a redirect from him. --tjstrf talk 02:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Josiah Rowe. Even if the only use for this is on the dab page, that is a use, and redirects are cheap, and MoS:DAB does prefer redirects in cases like this. The objection that it doesn't point to a biographical article seems silly, since there are many, many, many redirects from names that don't point to biographical articles, often after AfD. It seems to me that a lot of people are letting their distaste for the subject unduly influence their opinions, to the point where they're going out of their way to violate style guidelines. I almost feel like I should remind people that WP:NOT#CENSORED. Xtifr _tälk 16:04, 1 April 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 speedy delete per CSD R1. WjBscribe 22:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The target article has been deleted through AFD. Otto4711 19:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under CSD R1. Tagged as such. PTO 21:05, 28 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 Deleted. -- JLaTondre 00:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure on the policy for this one. However, I can't say I've ever seen this done before and I believe cross-namespace redirects are frowned upon. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't believe the mandate of the deletion discussion was complied with here. I believe permitting such a redirect would circumvent the purpose of AfDs and AfD discussions, which need finality to be effective. --Shirahadasha 04:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yes, as a general rule, the article namespace should not link to the project namespace. +A.0u 04:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article namespace should not link to process. Gavia immer (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it must. go ahead. I request that you at least not lock it after deletion. It seems that nothing I do is accepted by others. Sir Intellegent 19:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I wanted to do was to make it so people know why this article was deleted in the first place. Obviously any thing I try to do is just not correct according to every one else. Please make my suffering shorter than my first. Sir Intellegent 19:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Part of the problem here could have been avoided if Bucketsofg (talk · contribs) would have linked to the closed AfD in the deletion log rather than just writing "delete"[2]. Closing admin: If you would be so kind, when deleting this redirect, please link to the AfD. -- Scientizzle 01:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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