November 30
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 30, 2008
The result of the debate was
Retarget to
Reference ranges for blood tests.
Lenticel (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Highly unlikely CNR to a project page. MBisanz talk 09:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was just a stupid spelling error, remaining after a compensating article move. Jolly well delete it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, though, it sounds kind of funny. Yet, I don't think that reason is good enough to keep it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:31, 30 November 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.
Ruslik (
talk) 15:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Improper CNR to a wiki-process, does not link to content. MBisanz talk 09:57, 30 November 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.
Ruslik (
talk) 07:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Improper CNR to a defunct project, does not link to content. MBisanz talk 09:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft Redirect to Wikimedia Cookbook. It seems pretty obvious that someone searching for this term is looking for that target. --UsaSatsui (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, XNR. Stifle (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stubify if notable. A soft redirect makes sense but is a self-reference, not intended for mainspace. --Thinboy00 @106, i.e. 01:32, 3 December 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.
Ruslik (
talk) 14:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Improper CNR to a project draft, does not link to content. MBisanz talk 09:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK - it only a redirect page. I'll comment there. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this use of redirect is against policy, what do you suggest? I'll do what is suggested. The WP:BITASK taskforce itself is important, and is only on hold pending discussion at WP:IDTF. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the redirect WP:BIDRAFT1 would probably be the best redirect, since it puts the page in the Projectspace so readers would not see it on a search for articles. MBisanz talk 20:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean now. I'll get on it tomorrow. Sometimes people are funny when you use "WP:" - so sometimes I've kept away from it. With the search box in mind though, using WP makes a lot more sense - this page is for wikipedians, not the encyclopedia readers. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK - I've created WP:BIDRAFT1 and WP:BIDRAFT2, and have sorted the 'What links here' pages that link to them. You can delete BIDRAFT1 and BIDRAFT2. --Matt Lewis (talk) 07:24, 2 December 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
Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure)
Unscented (
talk) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
There is no fourteeth Zelda game; most of the the numbered redirects to Zelda games went to the wrong pages, and when I fixed them, this one was left over. Unscented (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. the article (and outside sources) claim this is the fourteenth Zelda game. --UsaSatsui (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.