The result of the debate was Delete.Tikiwont (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper cross-namespace redirect, not a potential article topic. MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Helps new users find the policy. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Normally cross-namespace redirects are improper, but there are times when they are useful and appropriate. This is one of those times. Reyk _YO! 01:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What's the likelihood of having a standalone article of "No Personal Attacks"? None, unless there's a notable movie, book, song, or musical act with that name. In this specific case, the price of deletion is much greater than the price of keeping the redirect... and should that movie, book, song, or musical act come along, the redirect can be overwritten (with a hatnote added). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not convinced that this is a particularly useful exception to our rules about cross-namespace redirects. If someone is linking to this article instead of the project namespace page, they'll only continue to do so when they find that the link works. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't want to open the floodgates for mainspace links to WP policy pages. --JaGa^talk 23:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Improper cross namespace redirect, I would like to echo JaGa's comment above.--Serviam (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per EVula and JaGa. The presence of this redirect encourages mislinking, whereas a redlink would make an editor notice the actual location of the policy page (and, in the process, provide information about the different namespaces). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unuseful cross-namespace redirect. Stifle (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's an improper cross-namespace redirect. AdjustShift (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per various arguments already made. Mike R (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As the encyclopaedia can be reused by anyone, CNRs create broken links if the encyclopaedia is separated from the project to create the encyclopaedia. The redirects also clutter up search results for encyclopaedic content, whether here or elsewhere, which people searching the encyclopaedia will not want to see. mattbr 19:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and matter of policy and principle. Danski14^(talk) 23:05, 16 September 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.Tikiwont (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper cross namespace redirect. Not an article topic. MBisanz ^talk 20:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Helps new users find the policy. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What else could someone typing this in the search box possibly be looking for? Haukur (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What's the likelihood of having a standalone article of "No Original Research"? None, unless there's a notable movie, book, song, or musical act with that name. In this specific case, the price of deletion is much greater than the price of keeping the redirect... and should that movie, book, song, or musical act come along, the redirect can be overwritten (with a hatnote added). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not convinced that this is a particularly useful exception to our rules about cross-namespace redirects. If someone is linking to this article instead of the project namespace page, they'll only continue to do so when they find that the link works. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per EVula. I don't like putting this in the mainspace. And it doesn't seem like a very intuitive redirect anyways; more likely a person will search on Original Research, which has a link to the WP page. --JaGa^talk 23:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - It's a cross namespace redirect, as for helping new users find the policy, how hard is it to put WP: before a link?  Asenine  10:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete per my comment on other RFD--Serviam (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per EVula. The presence of this redirect encourages mislinking, whereas a redlink would make an editor notice the actual location of the policy page (and, in the process, provide information about the different namespaces). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with the nominator – it's an improper cross namespace redirect. I don't think it will help new users. It is not difficult to put WP: before a link. AdjustShift (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Mike R (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As the encyclopaedia can be reused by anyone, CNRs create broken links if the encyclopaedia is separated from the project to create the encyclopaedia. The redirects also clutter up search results for encyclopaedic content, whether here or elsewhere, which people searching the encyclopaedia will not want to see. mattbr 19:57, 15 September 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 Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#R2.

Redirect to user namespace. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel ^(talk) 12:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, given the (practical joke) at the end. I understand the reasoning behind this redirect, but its unlikeliness as a search term makes it a poor redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unlikely search term. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a useful redirect in my opinion. Please note the redirect was the result of an AfD nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French military victories (practical joke) (2nd nomination) Equendil Talk 21:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it should have been deleted at the prior AfD (although French military victories would have been a valid redirect to Google bomb if it weren't for the Military history of France article); its malformed name, most unlikely to be used as a search item, should be deleted now. Perhaps a hatnote would be in order, on the other hand. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unlikely search term. I had a check to make sure no information was merged from this article at the time of the AfD closure (which could necessitate keeping the history for license reasons) but no, it looks like it was just redirected with no info transferred. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 16:58, 15 September 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 Converted to disambig. Doug Williams (American football)'s middle name is "Lee". -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No obvious connection between this redirect title and the article it goes to - I set up the redirect because the articles were identical (uploaded by the same new user). Avruch ^T 19:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Doug Boas' real name is Doug Lee Williams according to target. If it doesn't exist, also recommend creating Doug Lee Williams. I disagree with the below, as there is no blanking indicated in the history. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now (it appears atop the Infobox in the target article), but I would strongly suggest taking the target to AfD as the sea of redlinks in the article (mostly of names of nonnotable wrestling organizations) is a strong indication that there is/would be problems in the notability department. It should also be noted that the creator of the redirect is also credited with repeated edits to one article: the target, which he started from scratch. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 18:26, 13 September 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 speedy deleted per CSD G7. The only author of any 'substantial content' blanked the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never seen an RFD formatted like this before. Not to mention that with the space and hyphen, it's not a very likely search term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:27, 12 September 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. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely used redirect created by editor having only two edits, this redirect and an image deleted long ago from Criticism of Wikipedia. Suntag (talk) 05:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Stupid redirect, somewhat offensive. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not useful. Haukur (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Ridiculous redirect, however I doubt that it is 'offensive' per se.  Asenine  11:04, 14 September 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 Soft redirect. The current redirect seems to be a correct association but is not mentioend at the target. Given that we have a wikionary entry for another meaning, I'll opt for a soft redirect there with hat note for yurt.Tikiwont (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ssr created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kibitka about this redirect and I have closed the discussion as being in the wrong forum. User:Ssr's deletion rationale is as follows: "Nominating the redirect for deletion per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Latebird#Kibitka". I have no opinion on this discussion. Cunard (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the "yurt" meaning of kibitka is much less common AFAIK, then its other meaning. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a Google search with the two words (without quotation marks) reveals more than a handful of sources connecting the two words by various means. For example we have from Peoples on the Move: Introducing the Nomads of the World by Daniel Phillips (2001) - the second entry on the list: "Traditionally they [referring to the Kalmyks, mentioned earlier in the paragraph] are cattle breeders and they call their yurts kibitka."[1]. While "kibitka" appears to be an obsolete term in the Russian language, it also seems true that the term is still quite widely used in central Asia; thus it can be a useful search term and therefore merits keeping. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 18:58, 13 September 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. Maybe TPH's law needs a corollary for redirects. Alternatively an unilateral redirect during AfD can also be undone to allow for continued discussion with delete and redirects as possible outcomes. Tikiwont (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was initially a WP:HAMMER-violating article that got redirected. Unlikely search term IMO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (as nominator of AfD that resulted in the redirect.) This is a very unlikely search term, and there is no properly-sourced information in the page history that needs to be saved. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 04:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There isn't an AFI's ninth EP so why this? Tavix (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There was infact a ninth EP and it was titled 336 (EP) and it was released december 2nd 2002. the tenth Ep does not have a title because NO RELIABLE SOURCE HAS POSTED ONE! And it is infact a good search term for people who know what they are searching for. I do not expect a random viewer to be able to locate this page. i do however expect a fan of AFI who is looking for information about the EP to find it. 13 September 2008
• Delete per the post immediately above this one, in its second sentence. It hasn't been used in a reliable source. Until then, the best place to look would be the AFI (band) article directly... which also has access from the AFI dab page. Of course, fans of AFI will most likely start with either the official site or their favorite fansite, instead, as they are more likely to have information about a future release than Wikipedia, thanks to WP:CRYSTAL. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• To the post above, I did Not say that there was no reliable source I said that a reliable source has not released the title of the EP. Therefore it is as of now an untitled tenth EP by the band. However the information that was put in the article is indeed a reliable source. And to the source above when you stated "Of course, fans of AFI will most likely start with either the official site or their favorite fansite, instead, as they are more likely to have information about a future release than Wikipedia" If you looked at the official site or fansites you will have to search hard for the posts because they are quite old. I simply facilitated the process by summing up the information that was posted on the sites. The aim of the article is not necessarily to announce the release date, but to give information about track listings and such. Blaqkfire (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry... only one !vote per editor. Followup comments are welcome, however (don't forget to sign with four tildes for both your signature and time stamp). I'll leave it up to someone else (maybe our mystery editor?) to strike the "double vote"... but then the pesky issues of WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, and WP:RS need to be addressed if the redirect is to be kept. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is for the Post above. thank you for the advice and tips but i believe that the article did not violate the issues of WP:RS because it is indeed a reliable source. How much more reliable can a source be then one from the band member himself? I also don't recall saying anything that conflicts with WP:CRYSTAL. I don't remember making any assumptions, i recall stating the given facts about the EP. The sources are also verifiable as stated by WP:V. I must admit, that this was my first article and I wasn't sure how to post the sources and I think that was the problem in my opinion, and if that is infact the problem i would be glad to learn how to, and then list the sources. Blaqkfire (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "How much more reliable can a source be then one from the band member himself?" A lot. Primary sources are not as reliable as third party sources.  Asenine  11:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok i guess thats true but being as there are no third party sources about the EP i believe that a band member is the next best thing Blaqkfire (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For all reasons stated above. And please do something about all those that keep recreating the page despite it continued removal. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:41, 18 September 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.Tikiwont (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. MBisanz ^talk 02:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a cross-namespace redirect. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Resulting page has information about the topic, whether cross-namespace or not. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, non-encyclopedic. Speedy, AFAIC. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An old, historical, 'fun' page does not need a cross-namespace redirect. mattbr 20:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - cross-namespace redirects need a very good reason to exist, and this doesn't have one. Terraxos (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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