The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 22:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Doesn't have much to do with game theory, a (sometimes applied) branch of mathematics. The history is that it used to be a cross-namespace RD to WP:POINT; someone apparently figured this target would be better, but it's an inappropriate target. Can't think of a good one, so might as well just delete it. Trovatore 19:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I'd recommend a better redirect target if I could think of one, but I can't (Abuse of process and Bad faith are not close enough, IMHO). Redirecting to WP:POINT and Game theory are both totally inappropriate. Pete.Hurd 19:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget, because it is a semi-common term that people could be expected to look up in an encyclopedia. I think abuse of process is the closest match. >Radiant< 11:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It was also once redirected to Rules lawyer, but another user retargeted it claiming that that target was completely unrelated. I think it's another target for consideration (it is related, but only tenuously). --ais523 16:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment In general when there are a bunch of articles sort of tenuously related, but no clear canonical fit, I think the best solution is to delete; anything else risks confusion. "Abuse of process" might make sense if we were talking about the everyday layman's understanding of that term, but the abuse of process article isn't about that; it's about a specific tort in law (appropriately so, I'd add, because the everyday understanding would be a dubious topic for an encyclopedia article). Not every common phrase needs to bring up a Wikipedia article. --Trovatore 17:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Trovatore, redirect to "Abuse of process" is inappropriate as long as that article remains narrowly defined on a strict legal definition. Pete.Hurd 19:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A redirect means "for more information, see this page". It does not mean "this term has exactly the same meaning as that term". >Radiant< 12:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's true -- but it should be reasonably predictable that the article should treat the concept that you're in fact looking for. If there's another one that's just as likely, or comparably likely, then the redirect is a bad thing; it violates least surprise principles. So then you'd generally want a disambig page. But only if the topics are in fact worthy topics for encyclopedia articles, and the articles do in fact exist or soon will! In this case I don't think they're worthy topics, and the articles don't exist and probably shouldn't. So let's just delete the redirect; that way the search term brings up the search page, and users can see whether the phrase is used in articles and pick out the article they want if so. --Trovatore 15:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aye, not having an article on Apples doesn't really make redirecting to Oranges a good thing. Pete.Hurd 18:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reviewing the inbound links to that page, they are all either Talk pages or Wikipedia pages and, as far as I can tell, they all seem to refer to the concepts in WP:POINT. That said, "gaming the system" is a phrase that has life outside Wikipedia so there could be some small chance of confusion. None of the proposed redirects would be exactly appropriate if this ever were used in an article's context and anything we could create would be mere dictionary definition. Delete the redirect without repointing it anywhere. Then clean up all the inbound links by piping them to WP:POINT (or perhaps Nomic depending on context). Rossami (talk) 04:30, 5 October 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. WjBscribe 06:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Cross-namespace redirect. — Moe ε 16:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. WikiProjects don't need redirects from the article namespace.Terraxos 17:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. CNR was created in July 27, 2007, way after the creation of the Wiki-space. No page move history. It's an implausible redirect given that anyone trying to find the WikiProject won't be typing in "WikiProject Vietnam", and will instead look in talk pages. And even when they do find it, shortcuts (WP:VIETNAM and WP:VIET) make it easier to link. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 17:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a completely unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Anyone with a knowledge of WikiProjects will have a knowledge of namespaces, and as Mtmelendez pointed out, WP:VIET and WP:VIETNAM are a lot easier to type. Melsaran (talk) 20:02, 1 October 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. Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 10:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Cross-namespace redirect Stifle (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the compromise needed to keep these pages from endlessly reappearing. There was originally an actual page by this title. It was VfD'd (kept), moved, then split, then split again and finally deleted here. The prevailing argument in the deletion discussion was that the categorization had successfully obsoleted the page(s). The redirect serves to very clearly tell all future readers that we do not need or want a re-creation of the list. (It also has the minor benefit of providing an easy way to link to the category page for new users who don't yet know how to make the direct link.) Rossami (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• That's why we have WP:SALT. You don't redirect a page that shouldn't exist -- you delete a page that shouldn't exist. Delete, and if recreation is a problem, salt. - Che Nuevara 23:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SALT is more for pages that are endlessly created in bad-faith. It's wording and effect is pretty hostile. This was a page created in good faith. I think the link does a better job of not biting newbies than salting. That, of course, is a judgment call but I still prefer the redirect over salting. Rossami (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Its only been recreated once. Lets see what happens if we delete it rather than assuming it will be recreated. If it is recreated, keeping the XNR or salting the page can be discussed but its entirely possible the page won't be recreated... WjBscribe 22:12, 8 October 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 per originator's agreement. -- JLaTondre 11:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cross-namespace redirect not justified for an old RFA page. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I created this redirect in the hope that Aecis would use it to reduce the length of his signature's code. This didn't occur (and he appears to no longer include the RfA link in his signature), so this isn't serving any purpose that I'm aware of. —David Levy 02:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I guess David Levy's endorsement is sufficient as CSD#G7. In any case, I believe "WP:" shortcuts should generally only be used for general pages of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not individual, temporary (set at only 7 days) sub-pages of discussions. As I said at WT:RFA, during active discussions, users who wish to monitor discussions after they comment on them can simply watch the nomination sub-page, or use the User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report template. Generally, the moment these discussions end the shortcuts cease to be useful; and I can only imagine two types of exceptions: (1) the nominated user who would use it as future reference during discussions, or (2) a notable RfA which the community sometimes refers to (maybe because of controversy?). However, both are resolved with the fact that RFA links are easy to remember (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Username) and then piped, and the fact that referrals to these past discussions throughout other community discussions decrease to nothing as time passes after the discussion. If these RFD discussions are set at keep, I fear it would create precedent on allowing many shortcuts to many temporary sub-pages (existing and future RFAs as Wikipedia expands), and then alternate redirects to the same discussions based on other capitalizations, titles without diacritics, etc. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 02:59, 30 September 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. WjBscribe 06:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

WP:RFA/SV/N → Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stevertigo/Notes

WP:RFA/SV1 → Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stevertigo1

Delete - Cross-namespace redirects not justified for an old RFA page and its subpages. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. See my comments above. It'd be easier if these would be nominated jointly. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 03:00, 30 September 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 speedily deleted per CSD G7 (author request), I consent to this nomination (unnecessary redirects from main namespace). Melsaran (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Delete - Cross-namespace redirect not justified for an old RFA page. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. See my comments above. It'd be easier if these would be nominated jointly. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 03:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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