Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 October 21

The nominated redirect was Deleted --Cyde Weys 19:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

1. WikiEN-L
2. WikiEN-l
3. Wikien
4. Wikien-L
5. Wikien-l
6. Wikipedia mailing lists
7. Wikipedia-l
8. Intlwiki-L
9. Foundation-l

All are unneeded cross-namespace redirects. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 17:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia mailing lists; Keep others: They are extensively used, especially on talk pages. John Vandenberg 05:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all. As John says, they are extensively used on Talk pages. I can find no instance of a usage which could create confusion. I could conceivably see that "Wikipedia mailing lists" might someday be an encyclopedia article (though it would violate WP:ASR) but if such an article is someday drafted, it can overwrite the redirect. I don't see a reason to delete the history. Rossami (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, such an article would not violate WP:ASR. Wikipedians seem to in general misunderstand ASR: it means that an article not about Wikipedia should not include information specific to Wikipedia that wouldn't be there if the article wasn't part of Wikipedia. It doesn't mean you can't have articles about notable Wikipedia-related topics or use Wikipedia as an example in an article if Wikipedia is indeed a notable example of that concept (as Wikipedia is the 11th most popular website in the world, it is quite notable). — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 17:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Extremely weak keep Wikipedia mailing lists; strong delete others. I agree with WP:ASR allows the self-reference of Wikipedia mailing lists to Wikipedia:Mailing lists, but the individual lists should be killed under both WP:N and WP:ASR. (Foundation-l is not technically a Wikipedia mailing list....). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all WP:N (essay, not policy) wouldn't allow an article about Wikipedia mailing lists (WP:NOT indiscriminate if you want a policy); although Wikipedia:Mailing lists would be a reasonable external link in such an article, the article itself shouldn't exist, so the redirect shouldn't either. A similar argument only more so applies to the individual lists. --ais523 09:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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