The result of the debate was retarget to apophasis. PeterSymonds | talk 15:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing, 'You know who' is a common English phrase and a most unlikely search term for anyone looking for the target of this redirect. There are no incoming links to the redirect. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The connection is far too tenuous. Rossami (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete— the only people who would use this and connect it to Voldemort are hardcore fans of the books, and even they would probably just type in the appropriate search key. Total uselessness. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 05:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to apophasis Delete This looks like WP:FANCRUFT, not like something done because it might be useful when searching for the article on Voldemort --Enric Naval (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fancruft. I can think of all sorts of people this could better redirect to. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - take your pick: either G1 or R3. Certainly too many possible meanings for "you know who" - for all we know, this could mean Jimbo Wales. B.Wind (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redirect to apophasis instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwray (talk • contribs) 02:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to apophasis. per JwrayTaemyr (talk) 23:42, 12 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 Disambig. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is a common English phrase with no reasonable target. I changed it from Void (astronomy), but the new target isn't much better. There are no incoming links related to either target. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There are two inbound links to this page, neither of which has any substantive connection to Outer space (at either title). They seem to be intended more to talk about a quantum-mechanics level concept of space with an absense of both matter and energy. I'd recommend repointing to that page if I could think of what the title might be for that theoretical abstract. (My QM days are too far behind me, I'm afraid.) As is, a redlink is probably better than an incorrect redirect. Rossami (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Free space per Rossami's comment Delete inaccurate redirect, per rossami's comment. Keep if someone can find a reasonable target --Enric Naval (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, inaccurate. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to vacuum? Or, following Rossami reasoning Free space. Taemyr (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think that vaccuum cuts it, we may need a desambiguation page because of having several meanings, check the what links here page
  1. Sides_of_an_equation "For example in mathematical physics, the homogeneous equation may correspond to a physical theory formulated in empty space, while the inhomogeneous equation asks for more 'realistic' solutions with some matter, or charged particles."
  2. Size_changing "This theory states that if you reduce the amount of the empty space in an atom between the nucleus and the electrons, you can shrink an object by reducing the size of an atom."
  3. User:Mathbot/List_of_mathematical_redlinks_(E) "(...) Empty list -- Empty relation -- Empty space -- Empty type (...)" --Enric Naval (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Free space is what I was trying to remember. Thank you. Change my opinion to retarget there. Rossami (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: perhaps redirect to Space, an overview article that does present various aspects of this concept? --Russ (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Vacuum is a more reasonable target than free space, as it is more comprehensive and we have to assume most readers are not quantum scientists. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of QM can tell me whether free space and vacuum state should be merged? The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be uncomfortable with vacuum because that is commonly understood to mean a real vacuum - that is, a space that is merely mostly empty. The inbound links are pretty clearly using the phrase in the theoretical sense of a perfect vacuum. To answer your other question, free space and vacuum state should probably not be merged since they represent different approaches. Free space is a perfect vacuum as expressed in the classical physics model. Vacuum state infers the attributes of a perfect vacuum based on the quantum mechanical model. Even though they both describe the theoretical abstract of a perfect vacuum, they reach very different conclusions and implications about the vacuum based on the assumptions of the model. Rossami (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said most people are not that technical; if you asked for synonyms of empty space far more people would come up with vacuum than the other terms discussed here. I still think deleting the redirect would also be acceptable. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anyone would oppose to making a disambiguation page with the meanings I listed above and with the other meanings that people has given? --Enric Naval (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I replaced the redirect with a disambiguation page [1] --Enric Naval (talk) 13:22, 13 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 as no longer needed redirect. Woody (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated project template no longer needed by WP:MILHIST as all instances have been converted to use ((WPMILHIST)). -MBK₀₀₄ 22:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Inactive project, now merged into MILHIST project. Megapixie (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cla68 (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom's rationale. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 21:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no longer used, and all instances converted to new name. Still two incoming links on what links here page, they should be replaced so they are not red links --Enric Naval (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, those two were placed by me when notifying of this discussion. They should be fine as red links. -MBK₀₀₄ 10:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK --Enric Naval (talk) 05:00, 9 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 as a highly unlikely search term. PeterSymonds | talk 15:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect has no incoming links, and the target article is not useful for someone looking for information on this topic. If any links did exist, they probably should be broken up to [[Irish people|Irish]]-[[Spanish people|Spanish]] or similar. Russ (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The term appears to have no encyclopaedic value (how many notable irish-spanish topics exist?). Apparently the creator User:Hashmi,_Usman creates lots of redirects (see his contribs) so he must be making a few useless ones along with the useful ones --Enric Naval (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as very highly unlikely search term on the order of Scottish-Greek. One nationality should be enough for a search term, unless there is substantial coverage of the pairing (like Cuban American). B.Wind (talk) 01:16, 10 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 as a redundant crossnamespace redirect. PeterSymonds | talk 15:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect to a Special: namespace page. Even if this were useful (and it's not; logged-out users have a link to Special:UserLogin on every page, logged in users have a link to Special:UserLogout on every page), redirects to special pages don't work. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unnesecary, already more easily accesible, doesn't work then should not be kept. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as crossnamespace and redundant.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete created on February 2008, so no historical value, just a good faith mistake --Enric Naval (talk) 09:11, 8 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 retarget to Pathetic -- Gurch (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect. Gurch is a good editor and quite funny on IRC, but I don't think this redirect's acceptable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I see no problems with this. The cross namespace redirect rule is to stop mainspace to other space redirects. It's not causing any harm. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no harm done, and accurate too but inaccurate. Al Tally (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Gurch (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Gurchie, I'm kidding! You're awesome really!! Al Tally (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — I don't think this (the page) is unacceptable. Matthew (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmm. Eventually, Gurch, you're going to re-redirect it back to your usertalk? Tis a joke, aye? Do we really need an RfD for this? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Loser --Gurch (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I dispute this !vote. Gurch is not a loser. Al Tally (talk) 18:29, 6 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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These characters are the Unicode for U+1D12A MUSICAL SYMBOL DOUBLE SHARP and U+1D12B MUSICAL SYMBOL DOUBLE FLAT. I see the relevance, but cannot see that anybody would search for them. This, that and the other _[talk] 08:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering that we have articles like C♯ (musical note) and G♭ (musical note), there's a very good reason someone would enter it into a searchbox. I see no problem with keeping this redirect as harmless and accurate, but I'd suggest moving the former articles to have either "-sharp" or "-flat", as appropriate, instead of the Unicode. Gracenotes^T § 18:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, double sharp/flat. (Should read more carefully :P) Given that they're covered in the respective articles, I don't see the harm with these redirects either. Gracenotes^T § 20:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unlikely search terms. I think that they are characters that can't even be typed on a keyboard (at least, I don't know of any keyboard that lets you type that directly!). You ought to copy/paste them from somewhere, like from Microsoft Word, or from some webpage displaying them. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so what happens when someone does come across one of these? Also per Gracenotes; redirects are cheap and NOTPAPER :) —porges_(talk) 01:20, 14 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 as an unlikely search term. PeterSymonds | talk 15:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the words "root beer" transliterated into the Shavian alphabet. It is not useful to have it on Wikipedia. This, that and the other _[talk] 08:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unlikely search term. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unlikely search term in en.wiki.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's English, so it's more useful as a search term for en.wiki than any other wiki.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-useful redirect --Enric Naval (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 100% useless: very unlikely search term and only a transliteration, probably not the actual word in that language. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 11:57, May 10, 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's actually the word in that language, which is English. Shavian is an alphabet for English. If this is to be done, it should be a system-wide transliteration system, like in other Wikipedias for multiple scripts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:55, 12 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 Properly redirected now to the Huey Lewis song article Hip to Be Square. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hip to be Square is a Huey Lewis song; it has no reference or relevance to the state of Colorado. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 02:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close. I have seen no evidence of Colorado ever being a redirect article. B.Wind (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think you got those the wrong way around, Ohyeahmormons. I've fixed it.This, that and the other _[talk] 07:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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