The result of the debate was Re-targeted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone mistakenly put British Chilean as a redirect to Britons with Latin American Ancestry. British Chilean means a person of British ancestry living in Chile, it does not mean a person of Chilean descent living in Britain. Lehoiberri (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Boldly retargeted to British Latin American#Chile per nom. Terraxos (talk) 03:14, 9 April 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 Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I've missed something obvious, but I don't think this makes any sense. Yellowspacehopper (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If this is a nickname for this rivalry, it's not a very common one (only 800 Google hits), and so not worth redirecting. Terraxos (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. According to the history, it originated by an editor, User:Rivalblues, who had a total of three edits to his/her/its credit. Similarly, there is www.rivalblues.com, a fansite. The bulk of the first several pages of Google links to "rivalblues" refer to the name as that of a person and deals with "Rivalblues' clips", etc. Note also Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2007, Apr 16. 'nuff said. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- I'm guessing the name stems from the colors of each school, the University of North Carolina and Duke University. Nevertheless, it should be deleted. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 22:49, 10 April 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 Kept (no consensus). Redirects currently do not interfere with article content so no driving need to delete or re-target in face of opposition. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Web cite → Template:Cite web

A cross namespace redirect. UsaSatsui (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as cross name space redirect.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as cross namespace redirect. Does not appear to be useful as it is transcluded, not linked to, and transclusion defaults to the template namespace. Maybe it should be redirected to citation or Wikipedia:Citing sources - cite book redirects to citation (although it was recently redirected to Template:Cite book, which I have now reverted). I have added the web cite redirect to this discussion. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there any policy specifically disallowing cross namespace redirects? If so, please point to it. And how is it transcluded when it's just a redirect from mainspace? But the really important issue is that this redirect is very useful, and helps in our mission of continuous improvement to the encyclopedia. Granted it's a tool, but a good one, and it saves time. Furthermore, it is highly useful to newbies that don't understand what namespaces are—and how to deal with them—and are just looking for help on specific citations. — Becksguy (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As the creator, to be honest I kept mixing "web cite" with "cite web." Since "web cite" didn't have anything there, I did the easy (lazy) thing and just made a redirect. JPINFV (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not useful redirect, cross name space. RkORToN 19:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - "Cite web" is a very useful shortcut to Template:cite web and saves typing "Template:" each time one needs that template documentation. The "Web cite" redirect, however, is not needed (transposed). — Becksguy (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I always search "cite web" when I need Template:Cite web to properly cite some sources. It is quite useful as a time saver; if anyone has a better solution I'm interested in hearing it. -FrankTobia (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question What exactly will happen if the pages are deleted? Will the page simply be blank or will they redirect to something else? I understand the problem if the situation is someone blanked a page for the sake of a redirect. Similarly, I understand the situation if it had to due with someone wanting to use "cite web" or "web cite" for an article. Otherwise it seems that there is no reason to actually delete the pages. -JPINFV (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds reasonable. I don't see a reason to delete either. The reason given is that it's a cross-namespace redirect, but as I understand there's no consensus on this being a good enough reason. I'm inclined to think it's not in this case. I'd like to hear additional arguments against; I can't buy the "not useful" argument because it's useful to me. -FrankTobia (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, FrankTobia. The mainspace redirect page, if deleted, is gone, and does not redirect to anything. There is however, an entry in the deletion log (although admins can normally restore the page). — Becksguy (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that there's a log entry, my question had to do about what the pages would be used for. If it's mearly "I don't like it," then it violates numerous Wikipedia policies, such as Not a bureaucracy ("Follow the spirit, not the letter,") and Ignore All Rules. Sure, policy and procedure is important as a means to an end, but these should not be an end in themselves. -JPINFV (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Very useful as a time saver, along with "cite news". Even if there is a rule against cross namespace redirects (which I doubt), we should not follow rules blindly. -- Gabi S. (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gabi S.--Michael White^T·C 14:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - very useful --Zr2d2 (talk) 03:03, 21 April 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 Deleted. Redirects are for finding content. As there is no content on this subject at target, the redirect is not useful. While the original article was redirected with a comment of merge, no actual content was merged (content added, & subsequently removed, was a description that didn't come from the original page) so there are no GFDL issues if target content is ever restored. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is a very minor, non-notable software product. I prodded it but another editor insisted on redirecting it to a more general article. Reasons for saying it's not notable are given on the talk page. If it's not notable it shouldn't be the source of a redirect. andy (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability isn't an issue for redirects. It's harmless, and potentially helpful. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• For the time being, delete as the phrase "Open Conference System(s)" is nowhere to be found in the target article, thus not indicating relevance to the article itself. B.Wind (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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