Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 June 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 13, 2010

GameCopyWorld[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GameCopyWorld (a site containing cracks for games) is only used as a reference on Software cracking and not mentioned otherwise. I think this redirect is confusing and should be deleted. Svick (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Our World (disambiguation)[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - artifact left over from moving the redirect Our World here and back. Implausible search term, since anyone searching for anything called "Our World" will find the page called "Our World" or the article they want before this redirect. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons explained at WP:INTDABLINK. This is a standard Wikipedia naming convention. The correct procedure is to point disambiguation links at this redirect page, not to delete it. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we should keep a useless redirect that serves no function because that's the way things are done? We should encourage people to make double redirects by keeping a page that points to a dab page? Makes no sense whatsoever. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It probably should not have been changed in the first place, but what's done is done. I support Bridgeplayer's reasons.--Abebenjoe (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bridgeplayer.--Lenticel (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Johann F. C. Hessel[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect OpenTheWindows, sir! 04:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - these redirects are generated whenever an article is created by Wikipedia:Articles for creation and there are many around. Either there will be, or if not should be, a policy on whether they have utility. If not, they should be zapped as part of the page creation procedure rather than coming here. I'll ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • These redirects should be kept. There is no harm in keeping redirects into the article space, and these may be useful to editors who have been working on the article before it is moved into mainspace. (Related discussion) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I find the arguments in the discussion persuasive. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments at WT:WPAFC. Essentially, cross-namespace redirects only matter when they threaten to show readers what lies behind the curtains, and having a "paper" trail is really helpful for a. editors looking for their submissions and b. editors looking to submit on an existing topic. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These redirects also serve as Articles for Creation Statistics of accepted articles. There are over 1,000 of these type of redirects, (one for each accepted submission). New users may find it easier to find their submission with these redirects. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_13&oldid=1052656624"