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) 16:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Concision razor → User:Born2cycle/Concision razor (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Pointless cross-namespace redirect that defeats the purpose of the userspacing. This MfD concluded in favor of userspacing it, because it was a one-editor-WP:OWNed essay that conflicted with consensus, yet being cited by author as if it were (and confusing others into thinking it might be) a WP guideline or a supplement essay that represented consensus. In closing, however, User:Salvidrim! declined to go with the userspace-without-redirect option favored in the MfD, on the basis "that would orphan a very large number of links found in talkpage discussions and I think keeping a project>user redirect is less harmful than creating potential confusion in the histories of hundreds of discussions." But there are no such "very large number" and "hundreds of discussions". Not counting MfD itself, only 18 pages link to it at the title Wikipedia:Concision razor or WP:Concision razor, and all of these can be refactored to refer to the current location in a total of 5 minutes or less. See also the user-spacing-without-redirect of same editor's other two controversial essays, here and here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No reason to delete, defaulting to Keep - I agree that my initial assessment that it would "orphan a significant amount of incoming links from discussions" may have been exaggerated slightly, but as I said on my talk page when SMcCandlish brought it up, per WP:R#DELETE there does not seem to be a reason to delete it, and redirects from project-space to user essays are generally accepted as non-harmful, and I would add it is especially relevant to conserve the redirect in the case of former titles of moved essays. Even I have a handful! I also strongly disagree that the MfD for this essay presented consensus for userfy-without-redirect as SMcCandlish implies. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, 18 pages that can be fixed in minutes vs. a "very large number of links" in "hundreds of discussions" is not what I think anyone would call "exaggerated slightly". Again, the entire point of the MfD was that the essay was being cited at the WP:-namespace location misleadingly, and preserving the redirect defeats the purpose of the MfD, which concluded that this was in fact the case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without arguing on the specifics of what constitutes "a very large number" vs. a few in regards to the 20-something links in question (as I think that is besides the point of either deletion discussion), I object to a deletion closure of this RfD on the rationale that WP>User CNR redirects to user essays are harmful by "giving the wrong impression"; what may "give the wrong impression" is whether the actual essay is in a user's userspace or in general projectspace, and that was what the MfD was primarily about -- getting the essay itself out of projectspace. However, I will acknowledge that the community's consensus on this particular redirect (both in this RfD and in the MfD) seems to leans in favor of removing said redirect. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I object to a deletion closure of this RfD on the rationale that WP>User CNR redirects to user essays are harmful by "giving the wrong impression"" indeed, my and Si Trew's comments explicitly noted that our delete opinions apply only to this specific redirect and not the general case. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the redirect as it can give a wrong impression of the nature of the page. Omnedon (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am normally of the opinion that redirects like this should be kept, as there is no policy or precedent against "WP:" shortcuts pointing to userspeace and misuse should be countered by dealing with the person doing the misusing rather than the redirect they misused. However this case, like WP:YOGHRTRULE by the same author, is different in that there is an active consensus of editors that this contradicts existing policies and guidelines and changes to those to reflect this essay have been overwhelmingly rejected. The one person who inserts this shortcut into pages consistently uses it inappropriately to suggest his minority view represents a consensus of editors (exactly as they did with YOGURTRULE). As such the encyclopaedia is best served by deleting this shortcut. Thryduulf (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. I tend to favour keeping harmless redirects. However, this now is a CNR to an essay and that's pushing it a bit, I think. I was wondering whether to suggest retargeting to Occam's Razor, also a CNR of course; but that seems probably inappropriate also, since the essay is about concision in article titles, not in text generally. Si Trew (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Single authored disputed essays should be userfied without redirect. The few incoming links can be fixed if desired. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 22 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Illinois-by a 5 grader → Illinois (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Some primary school student appears to have put an essay on Wikipedia, it would be better if its deleted. - TheChampionMan1234 12:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This has no encyclopedic value with its title, and has no encyclopedic value in its edit history. Steel1943 (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:33, 7 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• תפוח → Apple (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

No significant ties with Hebrew. - TheChampionMan1234 12:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOT a translation dictionary. A general topic with no particular affinity for Hebrew. If this is kept, it will need to retarget to Tree of the knowledge of good and evil as the only viable topic with Hebrew ties -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:36, 7 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 4pp13 → Apple (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Pure leet, unlikely search term. - TheChampionMan1234 12:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No internal links (except gnoming at this page etc.) Si Trew (talk) 14:15, 13 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Beethoven 5. senfoni → Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete inappropriate redirect. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, let alone a foreign language dictionary: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: this is English Wikipedia, and this Turkish terminology for a well-known piece of music is not found anywhere in English usage or literature. Smerus (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Si Trew (talk) 14:16, 13 September 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 keep. Of little utility but technically correct. Harmless and, since it is over 10 years old, therefore WP:RFD#HARMFUL wins out. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ts'ai Tai-wan te Chung-hua Min-kuo → Taiwan (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This romanization system is little used nowadays, and furthermore, the corresponding term in Chinese characters (在台灣的中華民國 )does not exist as a redirect. Neither does the form in the currently accepted romanization system (Zài Tái Wān De Zhōng Huá Mín Guó). Also, this does not appear to be a likely search term on the English Wikipedia - TheChampionMan1234 05:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per nom. Nom states that it is correct. Nominator should create the Chinese character redirect, and the new romanization style redirect. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nom and 65.94.169.222. "Little used nowadays" does not mean never used, and indeed makes it more likely that people encountering this term in older literature will want to look it up. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment, I couldn't find any uses of this romanisation system to express this term, see [1] - TheChampionMan1234 11:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  An old romanisation system is significantly more likely to be represented in offline environments than it is online. Thryduulf (talk)

  Comment. Yeah, I found what Thry found; but it seems harmless to keep it. Whether anyone would actually type it is another matter, but it is doing no harm. The online dictionary references essentially refer to, or are scraped from, Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. Si Trew (talk) 14:21, 13 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Single purpose account → Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Inappropriate redirect to project space. - TheChampionMan1234 05:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And a somewhat plausible article topic even (or at least plausible redirect to something else in mainspace; [[Throw-away account]] redirects to [[Disposable email address]], for what it may be worth). Delete. — Keφr 07:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• comment. If this is redirected somewhere, a ((selfref)) hatnote to the current target should be provided. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if kept, retarget to disposable email address -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redirect should not cross the namespace. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:01, 11 September 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) 16:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Capitals of North Korea → Pyongyang (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This states that the counntry has more than one capital, when it does not. - TheChampionMan1234 09:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some countries do have more than one capital, and this is also a reasonable typo. Furthermore redirects do not have to be correct and anyone deliberately using this term is quickly educated by the target article that Pyongyang is the only national capital of North Korea. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheChampionMan1234 04:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

- TheChampionMan1234 04:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Too implausible an error.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A nonsense 'redirect'.--Smerus (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NK, since patently they are the capitals in North Korea. (Ducks.) Si Trew (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as above. Si Trew (talk) 14:39, 13 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Symbols of Corea → Korea (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This just uses a differenty spelling. Delete per discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 12#Symbols of Korea - TheChampionMan1234 04:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Symbols of Korea deletion -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and 65.94.169.222.--Smerus (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Corea is a DAB, not sure if it should be though (at least, not to North Korea and South Korea at the top of it: who ever spells it with a C?). Might as well put in Corealanus as ((R from misspelling)) to Coriolanus, if we are doing that kind of thing. 84.236.81.26 (talk) 20:34, 13 September 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.