Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
|
Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic redirects. Items sent here usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted by an administrator, kept, or retargeted.
Note: If all you want to do is replace a currently existing, unprotected redirect with an actual article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold.
Note: Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as a reason to delete a redirect. Redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted as well, so it's not a necessary condition either. See When should we delete a redirect?
Old discussions are archived at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log.
Contents |
Before you list a redirect for deletion...
...please familiarize yourself with the following:
- Wikipedia:Redirect — our general policy on what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
- Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion — our policy on which pages can be deleted without discussion. The "General" and "Redirects" section apply here.
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy — our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion — whose guidelines on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
The guiding principles of RfD
- The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
- Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things much if there are a few of them scattered around.
- The default result of any RFD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Thus, a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination.
- Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
- RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article. However, for more difficult cases, this page can be a centralized discussion place for resolving tough debates about where redirects point.
- Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another page's talk page don't need to be listed here, as anyone can simply remove the redirect by blanking the page.
When should we delete a redirect?
The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:
- a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
- if a redirect is reasonably old, then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles — such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.
Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.
You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):
- The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.
- The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so it should be deleted.
- The redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article.
- The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Google to love.
- It is a cross-space redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exceptions to this rule are the "WP:" shortcut redirects (like WP:RFD), "CAT:" shortcut redirects and "WT:" shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space but in practice form their own "pseudo-namespaces". All "articles" beginning with "WP:" are in fact redirects.
- If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist or itself, it can be deleted immediately, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
However, avoid deleting such redirects if:
- They have a potentially useful page history. If the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
- They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
- They aid searches on certain terms.
- You risk breaking external or internal links by deleting the redirect. Old CamelCase links and old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing external links pointing to them.
- Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.
- The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form.
See also: Policy on which redirects can be deleted immediately, and Precedents for precedents that are followed with regards to redirects.
Closing notes
Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).
How to list a redirect for deletion
To list a redirect for deletion, follow this two-step process:
I. |
Flag the redirect.
Enter {{rfd}} above the #REDIRECT on the redirect page you are listing for deletion. Example:
|
II. |
List the entry on RfD.
Click on to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.
|
- It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the redirect that you are nominating the redirect. To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect.
Current list
September 25
Wikipedia:We sincerely hope that you will refrain from being a penis → Wikipedia:Don't be a dick
Humorous but pointless redirect, created as a result of a link from User:Ambi/Quotes#from the meta talk page for WP:DICK which no longer exists. Currently has no incoming links, and is unlikely ever to be searched. I realise I'll be accused of having no sense of humour for nominating this, but it ought to be deleted. Terraxos 22:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Longest war → Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War
Also The Longest War and Longest war ever. Mainstream historians do not consider this the "longest war ever", or even a real war at all. See also List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity for comparable examples of non-real wars of equal or greater length. Pharos 20:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep 'The Longest War' because the edit history shows that content from that page was merged into the destination page. (It could be deleted if someone really wants to go to the effort of a history merge but that seems more trouble than its worth.) Delete 'longest war' to prevent possible confusion. As Pharos notes, many disagree with the categorization. Delete 'longest war ever' because it's grammatically incorrect and because all google hits on that phrase refer to something altogether different. Rossami (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
In-universe → Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)
Cross-namespace redirect. I was going to link to this in an article, then I realized it went to the Wikipedia namespace. (To a section that no longer exists.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocket000 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- For purposes of furthering discussion, can you summarize, in a couple lines, the nature of the article you'd like to write? (cause otherwise, this Redir should prob be deleted.) ThuranX 02:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- What kind of discussion nomination is this? It says nothing for us to comment about. The person listing something here needs to start the discussion. Give us something to reply to, something to comment upon. Doczilla 05:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- This was recently created as a cross-namespace redirect. It is not a holdover from a pagemove. The redirect has only one inbound link from an article page. That link attempts to define the term (which it probably should not do because Wikipedia is not a dictionary) and definitely does not refer to the policy page. The redirect is used on some user Talk pages. Its use on Talk pages is more ambiguous but in almost every case, was accompanied by an explicit reference to the MOS. The connection from this title to the Wikipedia policy page is not intuitively obvious. Unlike most CNR nominations, I can see some possibility of confusion here. Delete and replace the inbound links with cross-wiki links to wikt:in-universe. That seems more in line with the intent of the authors using this phrase. Rossami (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Rossami above. Cross-namespace redirects are generally a bad idea, and this one could easily be confusing or unhelpful. Should probably exist as a WP: shortcut instead. Terraxos 22:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
September 24
PanoTools → Panorama Tools
procedural nomination This was nominated via AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PanoTools by John Spikowski. I have closed the AFD and am moving it here as it is a redirect. -- JLaTondre 01:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The following is copied from the AFD debate:
- View AfD) – (
PanoTools is a copyrighted name of a panorama web portal and is being used as a slang term for Panorama Tools John Spikowski 21:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - article properly redirected to Panorama Tools before a deletion template was placed. I would recommend administrators check the Talk:PanoTools and Talk:Panorama Tools page for past discussions on this topic. John has a major conflict of interest problem with the use of this abbreviated name very commonly used for this software. The official Source Forge developers of the official project also commonly refer to the software as PanoTools. Roguegeek (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- The author has never authorized a name change to PanoTools, PT or any other shortcut. The only opposing group to removing the reference is a splinter group that assumed the idenitiy of the PanoTools group, taking it's resources and member base. Again, undisputed facts. John Spikowski 22:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- The continuing discussion is simply highlighting the John's conflict of interest. Roguegeek (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- How is defending the misuse of the PanoTools name and identity that belongs to the group I manage a conflict of interest? Can you expand on what your calling a conflict of interest? John Spikowski 22:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The name is used since at least 2000 for Panorama Tools. Earlier references [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and from the web archive [6] --Wuz 22:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thomas, how many names, shortcuts, etc. does a software need. Before you continue with your crusade, why don't you ask Helmut if he would rather have the name of his software use properly? (Panorama Tools) John Spikowski 22:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - AfD nominator has personal interest, is biased and makes up reasons for deletion without a proof (I really doubt he is able to register a copyright). He has a history of AfDs with other panorama related articles (hugin, PTgui). The term panotools is widely used and is connected to the term Panorama Tools. No copyrights exist for these terms. The hugin/panotools projects are a participant of the 2007 Google Summer of Code. --Einemnet 22:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- User:Einemnet and User:Wuz manage the PanoTools Next Generation group that has a history of policy violations with Yahoo Groups and the use of the orignal PanoTools GNU FDL base wiki. They have tried to bully the efforts here on the Wikipedia and in the community by harassing vendors that wish to sponsor the PanoTools site. How about Thomas's last stunt of having all the other vendor references removed. John Spikowski 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- I consider your comment as personal accusations. Keep a civil tone, please.--Einemnet 23:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just stating facts. If your feelings are hurt, too bad. You should have thought about that when you where dragging my name through the mud. John Spikowski 23:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Facts" are no facts without proof. Stop your accusations, again. That only falls back on your own reputation. --Einemnet 23:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Visit you PanoTools-List archives. Do you need more proof? I didn't take another groups resources like you did. I didn't assume another groups identity like you did. Give it up Carl, you guys are nothing more then common bandits that are destroying the panorama community with your bitterness and inability to let the past go. John Spikowski 23:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Facts" are no facts without proof. Stop your accusations, again. That only falls back on your own reputation. --Einemnet 23:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just stating facts. If your feelings are hurt, too bad. You should have thought about that when you where dragging my name through the mud. John Spikowski 23:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- I consider your comment as personal accusations. Keep a civil tone, please.--Einemnet 23:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
RFD debate should continue below.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- JLaTondre 01:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep- The term PanoTools is used by Helmut Dersch since at least 2001, see mirror. I don't see a hint on panotools.info that the owner of that domain (John, the RFD nominator) keeps a valid copyright for the term PanoTools (he will definitely have problems proving to be copyright owner for the whole site content). Even if he had it was no reason to delete the redirect, for a redirect is needed to point to an article from a well known term, see Wp:redirect. As an example Siemens redirects properly to Siemens AG. --Einemnet 07:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- One recommendation per person please. The purpose of copying the AFD discussion here was so that those opinions could be factored into the closing of this one. You may add addition comments, but not another recommendation. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 13:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- The name is the most commonly used abbreviation for the Panorama Tools software. Nominator of this report has too much personally and professionally invested in the subject with which seems to be ulterior motives for even editing on Wikipedia. This issue goes well beyond any RfD report. Roguegeek (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Same as above. -- JLaTondre 13:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Are you three guys going to fill the page with votes? (wiki bullies at it again) Give someone else non-PanoTools related a chance to review the facts. John Spikowski 09:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Coneslayer pointed this out on the Panorama Tools discussion page, but I thought it was important enough to reiterate here. Names are not subject to copyright protection and any claim that a name is "copyrighted" is specious. Roguegeek (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep if this is a commonly used name. If it's also the name of something else notable can be made into a disambig page (without coming here), and any reg-trademarks can be noted and referenced. Rich Farmbrough, 15:39 25 September 2007 (GMT).
September 23
Gnostic Institute of Anthropology → Gnostic Association of Anthropological, Cultural and Scientific Studies
Name of redirect page is a different association than that of the target page. Anton H 16:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Then just overwrite the redirect page with text about the correct association. There is no need to purge the redirect from the pagehistory. In the meantime, the (one) inbound link seems to be a plausible reference to this organization. Rossami (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Martin dugard → Martin Dugard
procedural nomination Tagged for WP:PROD-deletion when it should have been brought here. PROD nominator states: "Not needed. Nothing links here." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Capitalization variants are generally useful. No reason for deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per Gavia immer. WP:RFD#K2, WP:RFD#K3, and WP:RFD#K5 apply. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 19:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The prod-nominator misunderstands the purpose and nature of redirects. In a perfect world, nothing should link to the redirect. They serve other purposes. Rossami (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As above, alternate capitalizations serve to redirect to the proper article. Ariel♥Gold 23:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: the software takes care of incorrect capitalisation in the "Go" box, but not in the form http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_smith (from Cryodon). Rich Farmbrough, 15:34 25 September 2007 (GMT).
I'm gonna kill you → Threat
procedural nomination Tagged for WP:PROD-deletion when it should have been brought here. PROD nominator states: "This seems like an unlikely search terms and hence an unnecessary redirect" User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Having a target for this (or any similar threats) without good reason is potentially harmful, even if the target is innocuous. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for the reasons I stated above. :) --Moonriddengirl 23:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Bratz, the video: Starrin & Stylin' → Bratz: Starrin & Stylin'
Nothing in WLH Isn't mentioned on TV or on website. -Domthedude001 20:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The redirect documents a pagemove from 2005. Pagemoves are generally considered useful history per WP:RFD#K1 above. Rossami (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've deleted it, this redirect is of no actual use, having punctuation in it, it's unlikely to ever be used. -- Zanimum 14:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
September 22
Infobox album → template:Infobox album
RFD 5: Cross-space redirect out of article space. Geopgeop 04:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Melsaran (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. CNR was created in April 2007 as a redirect (i.e. not a page move), way after CNRs were determined to be unuseful. Only 3 incoming links, all from user pages. WP:RFD#D5 applies. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 19:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
→
(disambig) → (disambiguation) - 8 page nominations
- Cayuse (disambig) → Cayuse (disambiguation)
- Coyote (disambig) → Coyote (disambiguation)
- Elba (disambig) → Elba (disambiguation)
- Empanda (disambig) → Empanda (disambiguation)
- Flight (disambig) → Flight (disambiguation)
- Gandalf (disambig) → Gandalf (disambiguation)
- Kerosene (disambig) → Kerosene (disambiguation)
- Risley (disambig) → Risley (disambiguation)
These are non-standard DAB pages! Nominated for deletion because most (if not all) people will go to the correct DAB page name. JohnI 09:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all. In each of these cases, the pagehistory shows that they document the pagemove from the old naming standard to the new naming standard. In all but one case, the move was made back before the pagemove function automatically recorded the move in the destination page's history so this is the only current record of the move. Per k1 above, pagemoves are usually considered useful history. They are also all old enough that we need to be seriously worried about breaking external links (k4). Neither these nor the hundreds of others in this format that have not yet been nominated meet any of the "delete if" criteria. Rossami (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. These links are from the old naming conventions which were subsequently moved when the conventions changed, which might have useful internal historical links or external links. Therefore, WP:RFD#K1 and WP:RFD#K4 apply. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 19:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: My main reason for requesting these deletions is that I regard these (disambig)s as confusing. Newcomers may think these are still an acceptable standard. The following are precedence for these deletions: Binomial (disambig), Alex Jones (disambig), ANC (disambig), Matte (disambig), Krka (disambig), Brewster (disambig), Satsuma (disambig), Watt (disambig), Twentysomething (disambig), Michael Card (disambig), Precious Moments (disambig). Regards, JohnI 05:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- But so what if they do? If someone creates a new disambig page using the old naming convention, it's a single, very simple pagemove by any editor to fix it and move the page to the new naming convention. We make those repairs all the time. That seems like a very easy problem to fix - far lower costs to the project than the risk of breaking external links or the loss of page history. Rossami (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I completely understand your position, John, as it's one I previously shared. But currently, there are less and less pages like this, and newcomers aren't likely to notice unused old redirects, so most won't confuse the old disambig term with the current disambiguation. If a newcomer creates a DAB page with the former term, it could be moved and delinked as Rossami stated. If they create it as a redirect to a current disambiguation, then that one could be deleted, since it would be rather new with no significant history. However, older redirects that have been around for years might have links from outside websites since, back then, it was the norm. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 13:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep redirects are cheap. Rich Farmbrough, 15:31 25 September 2007 (GMT).
September 20
Cedarview Middle School → Barrhaven, Ontario
Redirects to page with no info about the school, only a link to the redirect LK 21:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. There is great debate over whether schools are inherently notable enough for independent articles. To the extent that there is any consensus on the issue at all, it is that the articles should usually be merged and redirected to the page about the township where the school is located. The more junior the school, the clearer the consensus (that is, essentially all elementary schools should be redirected, most colleges should not, high schools are in the middle and remain hotly disputed). Be bold and pull the content out the the redirect's page history and update the page about the town if you like but deleting the redirect altogether would be likely to stir up a great deal of unnecessary controversy. However, you are correct that the circular redirect must be removed. I'll go fix that. Rossami (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment (minor quibble): actually, I think it's generally preferred to redirect to an article about the school district, if possible. Since there doesn't seem to be such an article in this case, it might be appropriate to retarget to Barrhaven, Ontario#Education and tag the redirect as {{R to section}}. Xtifr tälk 23:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Barrhaven, Ontario#Education, per Xtifr. These types of things are likely to be re-created again and again, so there's really no sense but to create as an article or redirect to a relevant and closely related topic. Xtifr's suggestion is best, unless a better alternative is found. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 19:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
→ Chappaquiddick incident
Faceosphere → Facebook
Not mentioned in redirect target. Not likely to be, either, as this is a website promoting a neologism that (as the creator's edit summary points out) gets all of 23 google hits excluding Wikipedia. Given the extreme hostility of the site's promoters, I'm not inclined to reward them even with a redirect. —Cryptic 13:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Normally, a redirect would be an acceptable compromise to avoid the creation of yet more pages about neologisms. In this case, however, the Deletion Review decision takes precedence. Delete. Rossami (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- weak keep - Faceosphere.com is a completely non-notable site. "Faceosphere", ("Facebook" +"blogosphere") on the other hand is a neologism being promoted to refer to the contents of Facebook the way blogosphere refers to the contents of the blogs. I ran across the term and had to google it to get an idea of what it meant. If someone wikipedia's the term, it would be useful to redirect them to Facebook and then the meaning of the term becomes immediately obvious to most people. The meaning of Faceosphere relates to Facebook and not to Faceosphere.com. This redirect in no way rewards them. All that said, I don't really care all that much either way. I've never even read content at the Facebook site. WAS 4.250 23:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as neologism relating to a notable feature of Facebook, SqueakBox 23:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as utterly non-notable neologism and as attempted spam. If the website operators so desperately want the Googlejuice, they'll have to earn it the old-fashioned way. --Calton | Talk 17:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- utterly non-notable neologism Yes. redirect as spam No. WAS 4.250 16:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Highly unlikely search term, not even mentioned on target page - appears to be simply a vain attempt to get the neologism 'faceosphere' onto Wikipedia somewhere. Utterly useless as a redirect. Terraxos 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
→ User:Rogerthat/Franco Cozzo
BritneySpears → Britney Spears
Batman/Batman → Batman (1989 film)
There aren't articles linked to this redirect. David Pro 21:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Documents an old pagemove. Per "keep if" #4 above, pagemoves are generally considered useful history. Does not appear to meet any of the "delete if" criteria above. The fact that a redirect currently has no inbound links is not a reason to delete it. In a perfect world, none of them would. They are kept because they serve other purposes as well. Rossami (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This is a nonsense redirect and harmful, because a redirect can't have David Pro 23:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)- Please do not make explicit "delete"
votescomments in the bulleted section of a discussion when you are the nominator. It give the impression that you're trying to have your opinion double-counted and creates potential confusion for the admin who eventually have to close the discussion.
- It is not nonsense. It is a hold-over from when the project used to use sub-pages. We moved away from that structure for lots of good reasons but we keep the old redirects around intentionally. Look at the CamelCase discussion above for another example of keeping redirects even though we've changed the naming conventions. And, yes, a redirect can have the format → something because Namepage/Namepage is itself just another page. Try it. It works fine. Rossami (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not make explicit "delete"
- Keep. There are many redirects like this, as part of the old article name format. The guideline states: You risk breaking external or internal links by deleting the redirect. Old CamelCase links and old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing external links pointing to them. Although links in Wikipedia to this redirect have been corrected, there may be many other webpages outside WP that have not. As there is no way of accurately determining this, the most conservative approach is to keep. And as Rossami stated, it has a useful page history. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 00:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This redirect isn't useful. David Pro 18:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)- Remember, this is a discussion, not a vote count. You can add to your suggestions and arguments within your nomination, or subsequently, directly to another user's comments. There's no need to say delete three times. It doesn't make any difference in the end. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Articles don't have to be linked to a redirect for it to be useful. If there is any chance of someone typing it into a search, it's useful. Doczilla 05:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)