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 No Consensus . Jax 0677 (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• CAT:Chem → Category:Chemistry (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I count three WP:CNR in Special:PrefixIndex/CAT: that dont use all caps. We already have CAT:CHEM. Search engines dont care about capitalisation, so this redirect is only benefiting people who want to literally type Chem in the URL bar. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As you say, some people use the URL bar; why punish them? Deleting this redirect would cause harm for them. What's the benefit to deletion? --BDD (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:SHORTCUT should be capitalized. Although per BDD, with the recent change in the searchbox behaviour to go to the searchpage instead of actually using pagenames, there's a big problem with Wikipedia right now. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; redundant and inconsistent. — Scott • talk 19:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as entirely harmless - just because the internal search bar is case insensitive does not mean that every method of finding a Wikipedia page is. This redirect has existed since 2006 there is a large liklihood of external links (which are case sensitive) and breaking them would be harmful for exactly zero benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2014 (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.

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. --BDD (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Creating article in wikipedia → Wikipedia:Your first article (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

WP:CNR. It is interesting that google:Creating article in wikipedia does put the target in first place, but second place goes to Wikipedia:Starting an article without being the target of a mainspace redirect. If the search term is put in quotes ([1], the first result is Category:Redirects to project space, which receives many more times the number of pageviews. So IMO this redirect is getting pageviews *because* it is categorised, and is not serving any potential editors. \o/ John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete does not belong in articlespace DP 11:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• (Weak) Delete would be fine with me. I suppose the idea is to help greenhorns who don't know about our various namespaces, and thus don't search for WP:Creat..., start articles. However, this page just gets one or two views a day. Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Starting an article are merge candidates, and it is not immediately clear to me that they serve different audiences or purposes. The WP:AFC backlog seems to indicate that most potential contributors are figuring out how to create articles, so this kind of "help" doesn't seem to be needed. Most new editors should learn the basics of our various policies and guidelines before creating an article, by editing existing articles, so they don't overburden volunteers with too many creations needing to be Wikified. After working on existing articles, editors should become aware of project space, which is where the policies and guidelines are. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT Content is not to be a how-to guide. It should be added to the sidebar instead under the Wikipedia logo somewhere -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2014 (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.

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. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Creating a Article → Wikipedia:Articles for creation (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

There are many ways to create an article; I don't think mainspace should be promoting one method (AfC) over the others. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. Heck, it's not even grammatically correct DP 11:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Article, as Creating Articles and Create articles already do. Nothing in the title is specific to Wikipedia and priority should be given to staying in the current namespace when possible. Create article should be handled the same way. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I could also support deletion based on bad grammar. See also Create an article and Creating an article, the gramatical versions. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not the only place with articles that can be created. There are even styleguides in the real world on how to write articles. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an Redirect. — Scott • talk 01:00, 24 March 2014 (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.

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. --BDD (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Notice board for Israel-related topics → Wikipedia:Notice board for Israel-related topics (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

WP:CNR for a noticeboard. This redirect received eight views in the last 30 days. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete XNR pipework redirect which should not be accessible from mainspace. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per 70.50. — Scott • talk 19:22, 22 March 2014 (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.

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. --BDD (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 39 clues task force → Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/39 Clues Task Force (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This is the last of the 'task force' WP:Cross-namespace redirects that exists. Unlike the previous one nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_29#Asian_Games_task_force) I cant find any suitable real topic target. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete XNR pipework redirect to nonencyclopedic content which should not be accesible from contentspace pagename. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per 70.50. — Scott • talk 19:22, 22 March 2014 (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.

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 procedural close, as the redirect has been expanded into an article. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Predestination (film) → All You Zombies (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

The redirect seems unwise - A red link is better until the film is farther along Ego White Tray (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per images from the film HERE and then premiere at SXSW (according to REFs 1). I think the filming and post-production has finished and awaiting to be released. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 06:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Dekete. Predestination (film) is in the target but says it is a separate work. So it is misleading to direct it to a previous work. I should delete it per WP:REDLINK to encourage the creation of the article. Si Trew (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Who says it is a separate work? Please take a look at This REF and read it carefully, it (review) says it is an adaptation of All You Zombies. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This would be better as a WP:REDLINK. — Scott • talk 19:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Better take it to the AFD, I've added contents with sources confirmed that the film has premiered recently. Now it's not a redirect anymore. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does it even need to go to AfD then, if there is now content and a separate article (and I see for example they are appropriately linked together? Nice job, and I would just close it here without taking it to AfD. Si Trew (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. What redirect? It's a legitimate article now. The tag should be removed ASAP. Gene2010 (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done - I just removed the tag, it's a complete article now. Thanks to all for your time. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:57, 24 March 2014 (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.