< February 2
February 4 >

February 3

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 3, 2012

Wp;drv

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete all. There has been a long standing consensus against cross-namespace redirects. So, a compelling reason is required for a CNR redirect to be kept. There has been two such reasons recognized for redirects from the main namespace to wikipedia namespace: either the redirect belongs to a pseudo-namespace or it is very old. Exceptions have been rare (especially for redirects that were created a few months ago). In this particular discussion the main argument for keeping the redirects was that "it is useful for me", which is not a compelling reason. Ruslik_Zero 16:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wp;aiv; Wp;afd; Wp;ani; Wp;fac; WP;AN, and probably Wp AIV too. These redirects were previously listed for RfD at [1], but I believe that the debate in that case was not comprehensive, and in accordance to WP:CROSS (along with other reasons) I advocate deleting these pages.

First of all, I raise your attention to the general consensus cited on WP:CROSS, which "seems to be that newly created cross-namespace redirects ... should be deleted, that very old ones might be retained value for extra-Wikipedia links." Although this redirect has been around for some time, it is (1) in fact younger than the consensus laid out over there, and (2) certainly not old enough to have a lot of extra-Wikipedia links pointing to it, unless other editors can raise counter-examples.

The previous deletion debate closed as keep mainly because editors voiced concern that WP:CROSS's reasons for deletion are not satisfied. This is not true. According to WP:CROSS:

This applies precisely in this case, as the uncanny and hackish "Wp;" is best described as a crack from the main namespace to the other namespaces. That some editors prefer to go through this crack does not outweigh the harm done by obfuscating the main namespace (see part 3 below).
Again, see part 3 below.
This is one of the crux of my argument; that users should not have to filter through CNRs in the main namespace. From this search result, this one, etc., we see that this redirect is indeed listed in a main namespace search, which in principle must return only articles that are considered useful to the general audience. As Project pages are of interest only to editors, and readers far outnumber editors here, I believe that the nuisance caused to the readers may far outweigh any potential convenience the editors may receive. (And, of course, readers don't participate in RfD discussions, so we are necessarily going to have a non-neutral viewpoint here.)
Once again, this hits the point home. On Wikipedia mirrors, readers using the search function will be presented with confusing pages that link to nowhere, which is most certainly unhelpful.

In addition to these reasons enumerated on WP:CROSS, here are two additional suggestions:

  1. I highly doubt that this redirect is "helpful" enough to override all sensible guidelines on naming style and conventions. "WP:DRV" is an appropriate and concise shotcut for "Wikipedia:Deletion review"; "Wp;drv" is an ugly hack that confuses and does not conform to the style set by every other page. Really, if one really wants to save time by not pressing the Shift key, why not create a bookmark for this page?
  2. Even if we are to reach a community consensus that redirects of this kind should be maintained, the stylistically appropriate way to do it is probably making "Wp;" or "WP;" a namespace identifier identical to "Wikipedia:", as I fail to see why these particular few redirects have merits to exist, but not similar redirects for every Wikipedia project page. If we are to reach a consensus that these pages should be kept, I will propose this idea for consideration as an alternative, since I believe that there is a need to address the aforementioned issues, whether the page is kept or deleted.

ZZArch talk to me 22:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note how you had to use "may" twice. There are not many more users of wp;drv (primarily you) than there are of ruud;cs. I can't possibly imagine what you find objectionable about ruud;cs. It's useful, not a candidate for an article title and redirects are this cheap. —Ruud 20:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to with whether ruud;cs is useful or not? Clearly "usefulness" is the only criteria we are considering here. I think ruud;cs is useful. —Ruud 21:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that other users have suggested that the ; is a plasuable typo and have given examples on how the typo could reasonably occur I can't see how you can claim that it is not a consideration. The suggestion that people are only saying that the redirect is useful and nothing else is simply false.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely replying to Reyk here, not to other users.
In reply to you argument, the criteria for redirects are misspellings not typos (a possibly uncorrectable confusion about how something should be spelled versus how you actually manage to type something at some particular instance and which can generally be easily corrected by trying again). Barrack Obama is a plausible misspelling, hence we have a redirect, Varack Obama is a plausible typo, which quite properly is a redlink. —Ruud 21:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Oops, sorry, page unavailable

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete per Dmitrij D. Czarkoff. --Salix (talk): 21:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary at all. People don't generally find articles on Wikipedia by copy-and-pasting error messages into the search box. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 16:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previous nom: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_20#Oops.2C_sorry.2C_page_unavailable
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pakistan military intelligene

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 16:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale: Delete because "intelligence" is incorrectly spelled. Lyk4 (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Salalah incicent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete both. JohnCD (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because "incident" is incorrectly spelled. Lyk4 (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
More