The result of the discussion was keep WP:CUEGLOSS as meeting the criteria for cross-namespace redirects. Delete CUEGLOSS as being an unlikely search term.--Aervanath (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from Wikipedia-space to article space. Previous redirects like this have been deleted; there should be no need to create shortcuts to articles. Robofish (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CUEGLOSS → Glossary of cue sports terms

Created since this section started. Co-listed here to hopefully avoid repetition and reduce disruption. --Zigger «º» 09:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, bad article shortcut even ignoring inter-namespace. Seems to have been created after usage by creator on Talk:Billiard_ball, and used since by others on similar pages — usually with better piped text, making the unusefulness of this type of Wikiproject jargon apparent. Already have Template:Cuegloss. --Zigger «º» 08:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: "Redirects are cheap". I created it, as a intra-project shortcut for a long article name that is frequently referred to and frequently accessed via the URL bar. I don't really care all that much if it stays or is deleted, but it actually does serve a purpose. Zigger may call it "Wikiproject jargon", but I have to say that hand-wringing over cross-namespace redirect (CNR) alleged issues, that don't actually present any identifiable problems, strikes me as far more wikigeeky than this shortcut, which is never used in articlespace. Maybe there "should be" no need to create shortcuts to articles, according to Robofish, but try typing "Glossary of cue sports terms" 50 times a day, vs. "WP:CUEGLOSS", and you'll quickly see that "should be" and "is" are not always identical in working reality. I don't see anything in policy that forbids such redirs. WP:R#DELETE has a problem with redirs out of articlespace, but not into it, and WP:CNR states clearly that the issue is articlespace-outward redirs. While I would agree that a huge profusion of them would be a bad idea, a few like this don't hurt anyone and save some of us a great deal of otherwise wasted typing time. According to WP:CNR "the issue remains moderately controversial", so this is not an automatically settled issue. None (as in zero) of the "Arguments for deleting CNRs" apply in this case. On the other hand, at least four of the nine "Arguments for keeping CNRs" do apply, including: (1) unlikely search terms, (2) utility for a subset of users, (5) ease of use, and (9) exclusive use outside of articlespace. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: There are many other ways to save typing in the URL bar, including menu bookmarks, toolbar bookmarks, "magic word" bookmarks, and at least one common browser can also search bookmarks and URL history based on the user's initial typing. --Zigger «º» 09:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:CUEGLOSS per SMcCandlish. Strong keep as to CUEGLOSS. Bundling these together makes some sense but they are quite different in what rationale to apply. Whereas WP:R#DELETE has an express problem with cross-namespace redirects which implicates the former, there is nothing there that implicates CUEGLOSS. As noted above, typing "Glossary of cue sports terms" over and over is painful and it is an article I visit on an almost daily basis and sometimes multiple times on a given day. The article presently gets about 13,000 hits per month so others are going to be in the same boat. WP:R#KEEP provides that we should "avoid deleting... redirects if: 5) Someone finds them useful." I find both useful and fail to see any rationale provided for deletion of the latter.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was keep (actually it was not proposed to deletion) turning into a disambiguation page was suggested - Nabla (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having LMFAO redirect to LOL is hasty, given the popularity of the rap group, especially their single (I'm in Miami, Trick). LOL seems more like something for Wiktionary, whereas a music group is certainly more Encyclopedic, and very notable. I'm not questioning the validity of the article LOL, just questioning whether it deserves that assumption of intent. mäkk (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose considering that the LOL-like definition is the most likely meaning, it should remain targeted there as long as we have an LOL article. Feel free to delete the LOL article first, before retargetting this to the rap group. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment mäkk, you should change LMFAO into a disambig page for LMFAO and LMFAO (band). You can just do this yourself. Resurr Section (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I concur with Resurr Section; just go make it a DAB page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete - Nabla (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just asking for vandalism. The meme is so well known that even locking the redirect might not cover all the bases -- there'd still be the temptation to vandalize the redirect's talk page or add Over 9000 jokes to Internet meme. Also one of only contribs by the user. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over 9000 (and that page's repeated deletion log). Not every internet meme needs a page, even as a redirect; in this case, it isn't even mentioned on the target page. Robofish (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete - Nabla (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary cross-namespace redirect created as a result of moving a page out of article space. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this redirect deleted because the keyword "neozone" has nothing to do with "Neoedge networks". The word is nowhere to be found in the article for Neoedge networks. I believe it's a case of speedy deletion (improbable typo) but some persons disagree, so I'm listing it here. --Agamemnus (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless anyone can demonstrate the value of this redirect. Robofish (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, based on pages such as http://neozone-game-center-arcade.neoedge-networks.qarchive.org/ . http://zone.neoedge.com/ now redirects to http://www.mostfun.com/ . --Zigger «º» 11:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think because there is an archive for an old program (this company?) wrote with the word "neozone" in it that it should qualify as a redirect for the company. It is really just a combination of two common web words. Case in point: the reason I even know about this redirect is certain coincidence: I frequent a website that's very similar to the redirect "neozone" (we often call it "Neozones"), and someone else on our site randomly searched for it on wikipedia and found this redirect. These sort of companies (like NeoEdge) come out with tons of web-word combo products every year, and have multiple names, sub-sites, etc. and they change them every year (or even every month!) to suit the "whims" of marketing ploys. If redirects like this were common, there would be an incredible number of (competing) redirect pollution on Wikipedia. --Agamemnus (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the site it exists because of has evidently shut down now. --Tom Edwards (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The reason this does not fulfill WP:CSD R3 is that it is not recently created. Besides, why didn't you simply tag the page ((db-r3)) instead of blanking it? Of the people who disagreed with you, two of them were administrators, and one of them even provided a detailed rationale on your talk page. decltype (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for reminding me of that. Now, a comment to your comment: Just throw common sense out the window, then? What does it matter if it was "recently" or not "recently" added? Following _guidelines_ blindly down to every syllable does not indicate any serious discussion or thought. That's all I have to say on that matter. --Agamemnus (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Two words: Tea pot. Refusing to communicate and cooperate further, meanwhile trying to implicate your debate opponents as mindless dorks, does not impress anyone or generate any sympathy. Cf. WP:DICK. Coming from me in particular, that's a pretty serious "check your behavior" notice, given how irritable I have made some of my own debate opponents over the years here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Ooh, is it a competition on who can say the least now? One word: strawman You attached my last sentence and furthermore interpreted it as something more than it meant. Just pointing it out, and also violating my own rule. I don't want to begin a pointless debate but give you my opinion on the matter, and furthermore I was saying that I had nothing more to add. Now I am just saying that last sentence differently, and if you "argue" then all that I will do is just rehash the same thing over and over again, occasionally veering over to debate unrelated points, and that's just pointless, isn't it? --Agamemnus (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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