The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and protect. Cross-space redirects are not allowed, anyway. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pseudo-article-redirects absurdism beyond the ridiculous reaching somewhere into the sublime. These are either the incredibly obvious redirects to their incredibly obvious target or they are nothing. They are not the lunacy that apparently two people want them to be. Or, better, make back into redirects. -Splash - tk 11:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't self-references specifically not allowed? Danny Lilithborne 11:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no policy against, them, no. WP:ASR is just a style guideline. -Splash - tk 12:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Redirect#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect.3F is what you are looking for. Uncle G 13:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll never understand this silly attitude of "Ohhh, it's not policy, it's just a guideline, so I can ignore it at will." It's a guideline for a reason, it's not just some silly essay that nobody put any thought into. --Cyde↔Weys 01:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Avoid self references. I assume i'm one of the lunatics you're referring to... /wangi 12:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be precise about it, I referred to the article itself as being lunacy, not the people who wish it to be so. The former is merely a criticism of the 'article'; the latter would be a personal attack if one were feeling thin-skinned. :) -Splash - tk 13:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lunacy is the result of lunatics, don't worry skin is thick ;) /wangi 13:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or redirect, but I prefer delete) I agree with Splash and wrote on Talk:Votes for deletion some time ago that ASR is _not_ a reason to keep the links as pseudo-redirects. googl t 13:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Either redirect, which is the obvious solution, or, if you are going to delete these, make sure you fix all the referring links first. -- Arthur Frayn 13:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each page has just a few incoming links - less than 20 each. /wangi 13:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Just Delete. Many editors have put a lot of effort into eliminating all cross-namespace redirects, and that policy is firm. Fan-1967 13:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which policy is that? -Splash - tk 14:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 14:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lot of effort can be found at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Redirect Archives/June 2006. Uncle G 14:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not what I asked for, though. And that some users opted to beat people around a bit with their delete and protect buttons (and a healthy dose of rudeness) does not make their actions into policy, or even sense. -Splash - tk 20:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The discussion on the "page" you linked to deals with ambiguous Three-letter acryonm internamespace redirects, not to unambiguous obvious redirects. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 23:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wrong. Please read the whole page. There's no need to enclose the word in quotation marks, by the way. You're not quoting anything. Uncle G 01:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable outside Wikipedia. I don't like cross-namespace soft redirects any more than cross-namespace full redirects. David | Talk 13:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Ironic delete as a non-notable self-reference. :) RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 14:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Make into redirects. I know my vote won't make much of an impact, but I happen to oppose the whole "cross-namespace redirect" thing and no one -- despite requests from me -- has yet to provide any verifiable evidence that such things are harmful to Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form. I only just discovered the existence of WP:IAR so am citing it here.23skidoo 15:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Both. This is what the help pages are for. Agent 86 15:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How on earth are users going to know to look in the help namespace if they aren't even sure how to get to wikipedia-related material??? I know I myself didn't know about help namespace untill well after I figured out how wikipedia names its internal material --Aknorals 14:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, self-referential. Do not redirect, because cross-namespace redirects are a violation of policy. —Coredesat talk. o.o;; 15:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. They. Are. Not. There. Is. No. Policy. That. Forbids. Them. Anywhere. At. All. -Splash - tk 22:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Both should be redirected as obviously helpful redirects. --SPUI (T - C) 18:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Inappropriate as obvious self references. These don't belong in the main space. Wickethewok 18:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. I prefer. Adding a selfref tag to an article that does not exist or redirecting an article to another namespace is even worse. Just add a {{deletepage}} to both and protect them. -- ADNghiem501 19:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Even if cross-namespace redirects are a good idea, we already have the hard redirect WP:AFD and AFD contains a reference to what people are looking for (which perhaps should be removed per WP:ASR). Those should be sufficient.--Kchase T 22:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both and protect. A cross-namespace soft redirect is still a cross-namespace redirect. BryanG^(talk) 23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, why make it harder for people to find the AfD page? This is a usability issue, not an encyclopedic one. And Wikipedia is enough of a usability nightmare without deleting soft-redirects like these. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 23:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete soft redirect. Any discussion should be under the true redirect (which also should not exist.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both but modify the default search filter for logged-in users so that it includes the Wikipedia:, Category:, etc namespaces. --Zoz (t) 19:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, you can do this already. Just go to your preferences and go to the "Search" tab. There's a "Search in these namespaces by default" section where you can check off which namespaces to search. BryanG^(talk) 01:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, but I knew that. Actually, I meant something like this. --Zoz (t) 15:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• REDIRECT to Wikipedia. 132.205.45.110 22:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, any way you look at it these are going to be either self-references or cross-namespace redirects, neither of which are acceptable. --Cyde↔Weys 01:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. These are simply not encyclopedia topics. Rbraunwa 12:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect both. I really don't understand the reluctance to have a cross-namespace redirect in such an obvious situation. No one has yet cited an applicable anti-cross-namespace-redirecting policy, and having these (in particular) is uncountably valuable, especially to fledgling (not necessarily new) users who have not yet learned the WP:AFD shortcut. Powers 14:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. I don't understand the reluctance either, but I've come to accept it. -- NORTH ^talk 21:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --GoOdCoNtEnT 00:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or even speedy delete since theres really no "content" to speak of, wikipediaisms belong in the Wikipedia namespace. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - - 00:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also, protect-delete for a while if this comes back after being deleted, theres no reason to go through AFD a third time for this. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - - 00:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, the first deletion debate was completely unrelated to the redirect, you realise? -Splash - tk 00:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of protect-deleting this? The end result will be replacing a useful "self-reference" (a cross-space redirect) by a useless self-refernece ({{deletedpage}}). I fail to see how this improves Wikipedia. Kusma (討論) 08:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Have it Redirect to the proper place This is easier to type. FurryiamIAM 06:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, useful to help accidental linking, useless as articles. A useful cross-space redirect "self-reference" is much better than this (and both are a lot better than {{deletedpage}}). Kusma (討論) 08:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; Either keep or redirect. JeffMurph 08:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Make into redirect Having looked at sample deleted and deleted protected pages I don't see that they look any better than a redirect. No one is hurt by the redirect. FunnyYetTasty 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I believe I have a solution to the dispute concerning cross-namespace redirects. Please review it/leave comments at Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. Thanks. --Zoz (t) 15:26, 24 July 2006 (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 (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.