Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 September 20

93:. 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). 312:- 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 842:. 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. 316:

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.

97:

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.

714:

Users sometimes argue that this probability is relatively low or non-existent and therefore merits deletion, while the guidelines states that if there's still any probability, it should be considered useful and therefore kept. I erred in not specifying which type of redirect I was referring to. -

671:

redirect are there for a reason. Their usefulness is assumed and not required to be proven, and therefore should be generally kept. Some of us tend to forget these facts and guidelines during nominations (myself included), so its a common misconception. -

877:

comments 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

115:(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 927:

Although links in Knowledge 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

276:

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 Knowledge. Given the

687:

claim of usefulness should be accepted. Useless is, indeed, a valid argument for deletion, and, in fact, we even have a speedy criterion for a subset of redirects that have no problem aside from being useless

883:

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

957:

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

411:. Highly unlikely search term, not even mentioned on target page - appears to be simply a vain attempt to get the neologism 'faceosphere' onto Knowledge somewhere. Utterly useless as a redirect. 433:. Also, faceosphere failed a Deletion Review, creating a precedent for it to not be worthwhile on Knowledge. ALSO, creator has threatened to use sockpuppetry to push for it to stick, see 291:

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.

220:

I just speedy-deleted it as nonsense. It is one of a series of equally nonsensical redirects made after an article about this totally unimportant person was very properly speedied.

212: 76: 646:

reasons to keep around the old redirect formats. As Cryptic points out, the old CamelCase redirects are explicitly cited as an example of redirects that should not be deleted.

156:. 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. 499: 462: 522: 84: 204: 967: 938: 445: 952: 868: 833: 825: 678: 981: 753: 231: 909: 851: 333: 321: 53: 735: 721: 701: 655: 617: 415: 362: 341:

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. --

399: 304: 794: 634: 603: 566: 349: 166: 476: 382: 138: 39: 34: 107: 178: 271: 893: 862: 613:#4 - there's no way to tell how many pages are scattered through the web that link here. (Besides, it's been around since February! 2! Thousand! And 1!) — 285: 806: 179: 412: 278: 246: 977:

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.

534: 708:

You risk breaking external or internal links by deleting the redirect. Old CamelCase links and old subpage links should be left alone

888:

discussion above for another example of keeping redirects even though we've changed the naming conventions. And, yes, a redirect

21: 245: 17: 706:

To clarify, I was talking about CamelCase redirects specifically. What I meant to say was that the guideline states:

749:

this is a good redirect, classic typo that if we delete it will just annoy our clients, why would we want that?

726:

Fair enough—I was mostly concerned because I've seen others make the broader and incorrect assumption. Cheers,

683:

Actually, that's not quite accurate. The guideline doesn't say that usefulness is assumed, it merely says that

587: 518: 779: 593: 481: 434: 769: 919:. There are many redirects like this, as part of the old article name format. The guideline states: 183: 149: 116: 54: 921:

You risk breaking external or internal links by deleting the redirect. Old CamelCase links and

692:). Academic in this case, since the redirect is clearly useful, but worth keeping in mind. 123: 506: 48: 8: 267: 209: 811: 582: 562: 58: 988: