The result of the debate was Delete for the convincing reasons not to have WPP type shortcuts where avoidable.Tikiwont (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WPP:DISCOG
• WPP:FILMBIO
• WPP:HIST
• WPP:LAW
• WPP:LE
• WPP:MED
• WPP:Novels
• WPP:PITT
• WPP:POETRY
• WPP:USA
• WPP:WMATA

Below redirects added 09:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC):

• WPP:Books
• WPP:AUSLAW
• WPP:CANLAW

All the above shortcuts have the same shortcut with the standard WP: prefix. As shortcuts with the WP: prefix are not in the article namespace, they are not cross-namespace and therefore do not blur the line between the encyclopaedia and the project to make the encyclopaedia, as all these redirects do. mattbr 21:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the articles with prefix "WPP:" there's quite a bit more. Most of those redirect to WikiProjects, some to a portal. None of them are articles. --Amalthea^Talk 21:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added three more that meet the criteria for the nomination. The others are different cases and should be considered separately. mattbr 09:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What's wrong with them? They're Wikiprojects, as indicated by the prefix (WikiPedia Project), and that's standard. So what if they have a WP prefix too? There's nothing wrong with redundancy. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP: shortcuts were moved out of the article namespace to reduce the number of cross-namespace redirects. As the encyclopaedia can be reused by anyone, CNRs create broken links if the encyclopaedia is separated from the project to create the encyclopaedia. These will also clutter up search results for encyclopaedic content, whether here or elsewhere, which people searching the encyclopaedia will not want to see. All these redirects have the same WP: shortcut, which is the standard for pages in the Wikipedia namespace, and therefore cancel out the benefit that that work provided. In this case, the redundancy is harmful. mattbr 09:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mattbr gave an excellent reason for why we shouldn't have the WPP redirects, and therefore I believe these need to be deleted, especially with an identical WP redirect existing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Most of the redirects have no useful/permanent incoming links (most are generated by this RfD), and the handful of links that exist can easily be replaced (I'll do it if the discussions closes as "delete"), so there's no need to keep these redirects when the same "WP:" shortcuts exist. However, mattbr offers a good reason for deleting them. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:07, 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 Delete. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to userspace. Currently the U: prefix places a page in the article space, this should be deleted as a guestbook is not an article. MBisanz ^talk 02:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U:EWM → User:EvilWendyMan Nomination extended by Amalthea^Talk 16:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a cross-namespace redirect, though I think it might be a good idea to eventually change the U: prefix to userspace. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. I initially tagged U:EWM as an R2 before I found this discussion, since as MBisanz said it technically is article space unless U: gets promoted to a pseudo namespace. --Amalthea^Talk 16:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Both per nom (since it was quite sufficient and I have nothing else to add). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom and per WP:CSD#R2. mattbr 21:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom and per WP:CSD#R2 (log). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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