August 31

Muhammad Shahid Mahmood →User:Shahid114

cross-namespace redirect. Redirect was effected by other than redirect target, so it may be inappropriate in itself. The user who created the redirect apparently attempted to deal with a non-notable newly created articlemeco (talk)17:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete asCSD R2, redirect to a user page from the main/article space.Cunard (talk)00:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it.

Battle of the Median Border →Battle of the Persian Border

User:Ariobarza moved Battle of the Median Border to Battle of the Persian Border and mistakenly listed the now redirected Battle of the Median Border atAfD (instead of RfD) with the following reasoning:This page should be deleted on the basis that it takes up space and that it is a redirect page, which was wrongly titled, therefore there is no reason to have a redirect page for Battle of the Persian Border. Please state if your for or against this proposal, on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today and or in its talk page, thank you.. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion either way.Reyk_YO!05:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless it can be established that no-one is likely to use this as a search term, or that it is "wrong" in the sense that it actually refers to something else. Space is not an issue.Richard Pinch (talk)11:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No one is going to look for 'Battle of the Median Border' as the title was the editor's invention and isn't used anywhere else. We don't need a redirect page and I agree that it should be deleted.Doug Weller (talk)11:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Neither Battle of the Median Border[1] nor Battle of the Persian Border[2] appear as a title at google books. There first should be a consensus on the name of the article or some reliable source support for the name of the article before the losing name can be deleted.Suntag (talk)15:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it helps document the recent pagemove of a page with significant history prior to the move. Regardless of the "correctness" of the title, other editors and readers have worked on the page at the old title. If the content and all references to it suddenly disappear, new users tend to incorrectly assume that our database is unstable and ate their hard work. They then repost the content and either getbitten for the mistake or we end up with an article fork. Neither is good for the project. These redirects are automatically created as part of the pagemove process on purpose. Unless they are actively harmful, leave them be.Rossami(talk)03:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One other editor besides me, the IP is just the creator logged in. I don't think this is a good reason.— Precedingunsigned comment added byDougweller (talk •contribs)08:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A good reason for what? Keep or delete?Richard Pinch (talk)11:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment andDelete (I don't know if I can say delete here, so sorry) Hi, as the creater of this article, I assure all of you that Battle of the Median Border or Persian Border CANNOT be found in any book! I had to make it up partly because there was no title for the battle, and I stand by what I did because the authorities who wrote about the battle had said it happened on the Median-Persian border, though, on the Persian side. Because the Persians were defending THEIR frontier town, so on that note I called it Battle of the Persian-Border! Just on the basis that such both titles do not exist, this WRONG title that does not exist, should be deleted with no haste, as it also takes up space. Please pardon my caps lock and my being for it to be deleted, when just wrote that I was going to comment, thank you all.--Ariobarza (talk)03:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
• Delete redirect; take target to AfD as aneologism. The actual move here is to merge the target article into a more comprehensive article namedWars of Cyrus the Great (which currently shows up as a piped link toCyrus the Great in a heading).147.70.242.40 (talk)20:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The above solution is by far the best idea, it would solve the problem of a number of similar articles.Doug Weller (talk)13:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hi again, the point is not to merge the article with the Wars of Cyrus the great which is piped from Cyrus the great article, or merge it into the template, the POINT is to merge the history to the history of the Persian Border article, but to also delete the Median Border ARTICLE! Thank you very much.--Ariobarza (talk)11:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
  • Deletion of standalone articles need to go through AfD. It is beyond the purview of RfD (redirects for discussion) to determine whether an article's deletion is appropriate. I merely mentioned an option of dealing with the issue as to which name should be kept (and how it relates to the redirect in question).147.70.242.40 (talk)15:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zxcvbnmasdfghjklqwertyuiop →QWERTY

• Delete Useless random typing redirect. –Juliancolton^{TropicalCyclone}23:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Who's going to search for that? No one.Cunard (talk)00:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plokmijnuhbygvtfcrdxeszwaq →QWERTY

• Delete Useless random typing redirect. –Juliancolton^{TropicalCyclone}23:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Who's going to search for that? No one.Cunard (talk)00:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plokimjunhybgtvfrcdexswzaq →QWERTY

• Delete Useless random typing redirect. –Juliancolton^{TropicalCyclone}23:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Who's going to search for that? No one.Cunard (talk)00:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1234567890qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm →QWERTY

• Delete Useless random typing redirect. –Juliancolton^{TropicalCyclone}23:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Who's going to search for that? No one.Cunard (talk)00:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qazwsxedcrfvtgbyhnujmikolp →QWERTY

These redirects make little sense. I doubt anyone will search for theQWERTY article by mashing on their keyboard in different combonations.Brougham96 (talk)01:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are several more of these, but the ones I nominated here seemleast plausible. -Brougham96 (talk)03:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I added{{db-r3}} to the pagessince speedy delete seems to fit. If not,delete.Suntag (talk)15:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deletion under R3 requires that the redirect have been recently created, and these redirects are too old to be considered recent. They are worthless, though, sodelete. --Metropolitan90(talk)15:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I just saw "as a recently created redirect page" in the db-r3 template. It was added21 May 2007. I think that no one other than the redirect creator ever came across these redirects, so the recently created redirect page requirement does not seem to make sense in this case. Perhaps the policy should be modified to read something to cover situations like this.Suntag (talk)15:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it.