The user wrote up an essay on Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The user made the page to look like a genuine Wikipedia policy or a guideline, but if you read it closely it is not. I feel like people are using this redirect link to trick people into thinking that what they are saying is Wikipedia policy, but it is not. This fraudulent link needs to be removed to avoid confussion. Pinkkeith 20:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The redirect is useful (in fact, on discovering it I put it on my userpage), and when followed is clearly a user subpage. At the risk of irony, I like it. (Fortunately, such arguments are appropriate in non-article space.) — Saxifrage ✎ 21:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It reminds me of other web based scams where you click on something and it looks like it is a legitament page but it isn't. This is a dangerous page. If you like the user's essay, use the main link. -- Pinkkeith 21:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, it's tagged as an essay at the top, just like WP:DICK, WP:CRUFT and others. Essays can have shortcuts. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 21:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Commment Those are redirects to Wikipedia pages, not user pages. -- Pinkkeith 21:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Why is an essay in Wikipedia: space any different from one in user: space? Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 21:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Those are officially recognized guidelines. -- Pinkkeith 21:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Nope. {{ Essay}}s are not {{ guideline}}s; anyone can write them and they need no consensus support. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 22:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Okay, I stand corrected. The difference is that they are project pages while this is a user page. If the user wants it redirected for WP: the user should first request a project page. -- Pinkkeith 22:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
            • You don't "request" a project page; anyone can write one, or move a userspace essay into project space. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 22:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
              • Under Wikipedia:WikiProject it states that you make a request. Yet, if the user feels that everyone will just love it, then the user wouldn't need to. That is beside the point. It still out to be deleted since is a main site redirect to a user page.
                • No, that's for creating WikiProjects, not for creating essays. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 22:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
                  • Okay, I know I have seen it somewhere, but I can't find it right now. Even if you are correct the user should just go ahead and create it and have it redirect there. They should not redirect to user pages. -- Pinkkeith 22:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
                    • You understand that there's nothing "official" about being in wikipedia: space now, right? Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 22:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment Wikipedia:Shortcut: "Shortcuts" in Wikipedia are a specialized type of redirection page that can be used to get to a Wikipedia project reference page more quickly Note that it doesn't say redirection to user pages.
  • See WP:PRODSUM. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 22:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Sorry, have to pick my battles. I know there are more out there, but that doesn't make it right. See Wikipedia:Shortcut. -- Pinkkeith 22:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. For comparison, look at WP:WPR and scroll down to 'Department of Fun'. Clearly there is some tolerance of non-policy items in the WP shortcut name space (cf. WP:DUCK, WP:STUPID). I personally find Daduzi's essay interesting and might refer to it in the future. Since it's labelled as an essay I think the risk of misconstruing it as settled policy is small. If you look in the Talk page of his article, you'll see that some of his commenters like it so much they want it to be a guideline. EdJohnston 21:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The Department of Fun are all in Wikipedia space too. If others want to see the article made an official guide then then it could be directed there. Until then this is dangerous and unethical. -- Pinkkeith 21:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment The WP: redirect and the Wikipedia namespace being official policy and guidelines only is an assumption you made. The assumption is untrue, and to be honest I'm not sure why you make that assumption. We could have a separate namespace for non-policies/guidelines, but why? The WP namespace is fine, along with templates that clearly mark guidelines and policies as such. ColourBurst 23:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep its a shortcut to an interal document that is only relevant to the Wikipedia. Just because its not in the wikipedia name space doesn't mean anything. WP:HELP goes to the help name space. The fact it says on the header "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page." should tell anyone what the document is. If it really bothers people move the essay to the wikipedia name space. — Mitaphane _talk 03:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, useful shortcut for good essay. Kusma (討論) 11:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, useful. Voretus ^talk 18:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Delete It is a cross-namespace redirect, which is fishy to begin with, and then the fact that the WP namespace is redirecting to a user page hosting something that looks like an official guideline... is just too much. Should definitely be deleted as The redirect might cause confusion. and to a lesser extent as a cross-namespace redirect. -- Dgies 08:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • You did see the {{ essay}} tag at the top, right? Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 14:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Move the target to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The number of people having contributed or commented on the talk page shows that this is in fact no longer a personal essay, so it is suitable to the wikipedia namespace. Tizio 16:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I could agree with a move to the said link. -- Pinkkeith 13:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, disclaimer makes it clear that it's not an official guideline. Would also back the move described above if the article is looked over by some non-contributors first. Sockatume 17:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Move the target per Tizio. -- Renesis ( talk) 17:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Move per Tizio. ~ BigrTex 02:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep the redirect. Whether or not to promote the target from a private essay to a generally accepted guideline page is a separate decision - it is not appropriate to attempt to decide that in this forum. Rossami (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment What forum might you suggest? I put this here because an adminstrator told me to do so. -- Pinkkeith 13:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Move the target per Tizio et al. Technically, we're not MfD, but it obviously has a fair degree of support as an essay, and that will solve the policy problem with the shortcut. Gavia immer ( u| t| c) 18:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Move essay and keep redirect. Per reasons above which I cannot explain better. -- Kunzite 05:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Shrug If cross name space redirect is a major concern (and I don't feel as strongly about it as many regulars on RfD do), then I'd rather move the essay to Wikipedia space than eliminate the redirect. The redirect has somewhere between 50 and 100 links to it, mostly in AFD, so maybe 25-50 real calls going back to July 25, or about once every three days. No strong reason to come down one way or another for me, but I'd choose keep untouched as first choice and move the target as second choice. GRBerry 20:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep and move, even though this is leveraging RFD in unintended ways. This seems to have gained enough traction to be an essay in the Wikipedia space. But it's clearly marked as an essay, so the argument for deletion holds no merit. -- nae' blis 16:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep (and possibly move) Policy does not dictate that cross-namespace redirects are prohibited. Additionally, the fact that this is not a guideline or policy is clearly and in no uncertain terms marked at the top of the page. If people fail to notice that then, frankly, they're idiots. Finally, I feel the essay is significant, useful, and relevant enough that it should be moved to the Wikipedia namespace anyway, which would render the nominator's argument null and void. -- Y|yukichigai 21:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Move the essay. It's not a guideline nor policy, but essays are allowed WP: style redirects. While ILIKEIT probably doesn't have enough eyes yet for it to become anything more than an essay, it is still useful. ColourBurst 23:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Some nationalism seems to be at play here. There were plenty of "saviours" in the history of Europe ( Alexander I of Russia was one). Until the term is generally established among scholars, the misleading redirect has to go. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete per my nom. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The term is not in general use, and cannot escape being POV. Gavia immer ( u| t| c) 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• As Ghirlandajo notes, a variety of people ( William Pitt the Younger, Alexander I of Russia, etc...) have been referred to with the epithet "The Saviour of Europe." So unless anyone thinks that this redirect should be turned into a special sort of disambiguation page listing all people who can be shown, with reliable sources, to have been widely referred to with this term, I say delete. Picaroon9288 21:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete or turn into some sort of disambiguation page/article. Do not keep as a redirect to this one person, no. -- nae' blis 16:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom.-- Aldux 13:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Moved target page, this redirect is pretty useless. -- AAA! ^{( talk • contribs)} 01:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep. It's very useful. People are going to forget the space, and there's no good reason to make them put it in. - Amarkov ^babble 03:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Amarkov. Gavia immer ( u| t| c) 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

See above. -- AAA! ^{( talk • contribs)} 01:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to avoid the double redirect (!) – I did this already – and keep it. Many other templates have this form, so this redirect helps editors get it right without having to guess. Gavia immer ( u| t| c) 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Retargeted - Should we keep the other redirect? -- AAA! ^{( talk • contribs)} 00:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Pointless, makes no sense, is not all that useful. SuperDT 04:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete. I've never heard the PS3 called this, nor can I see someone else referring to it as this, so I must agree with SuperDT. -- VGF11 04:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete for the reasons stated. Why the article was even created is a mystery. Sockatume 14:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Serbia was not independent in 1999, it was part of FR Yugoslavia // Laughing Man 16:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Does not qualify under reasons for deleting a redirect except as a borderline case of The redirect might cause confusion. Someone confused in this manner would be helpfully corrected by being redirected to the article. -- Dgies 16:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This is also an example of The redirect makes no sense as it is factually inaccurate. Also please be advised that this redirect was created yesterday to simply make a point. // Laughing Man 17:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Factually inaccurate is not the same as nonsensical. Yugoslavia contained Serbia so this redirect does make sense. It may however be politically motivated, but I wouldn't know. -- Dgies 21:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I’m sick and tired of this kind of “ Serbian Guard Cabal“ here in Wikipedia. Nobody in the Western World free media (and other media outlets too) refered to the NATO campaign as “NATO Bombing of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia” because since no bomb was dropped and no bullet was fired by the military organization in Montenegro, whose leader Milo Djukanovic distanced the republic from Milosevic regime since he came to Montenegrin power in 1998. Here’s the proof:

  Image:Milo djukanovic.jpg Montenegro leader Milo Djukanovic and Secretary of Defense William Cohen at Pentagon, November 4, 1999 — few months after NATO attacks on Serbia in Kosovo War]]
  So, as I said here, even the title “1999 NATO bombing of Serbia” is better than “NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia” — the latter title was just common in the semi-free and non-free media from Russia, Belarus and Milosevic’s Serbia — and the three were politically linked at the time.
  Yes, the redirect makes sense and is factually accurate because Montenegro wasn’t the target of NATO. The target was the Milosevic regime and their ethnic cleansing policies in Kosovo. That’s it-- MaGioZal 20:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - As you can see from the comments by MaGioZal, he or she has created this redirect simply to make a WP:POINT (that he could reference in a discussion, see [1] for more background). There has been a discussion on the name of the article, and MaGioZal created this redirect to support his view on what the article title should be, just because he or she could. // Laughing Man 21:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
    • It’s not my view, it’s the view of other ones (and many others), as shown on the talk page, even before I’ve created the article and the redirect (november 8). And, if “1999 NATO bombing of Serbia” would illustrate a point, “NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia” also also would do that. “NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia” is a pro- Greater Serbia, pro- Slavic- Orthodox- Supremacism and pro- Milosevic term.-- MaGioZal 21:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• So, by now, 2 votes for keeping the redirect against 1 objection.-- MaGioZal 21:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This is not a vote. -- Dgies 08:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Here’s another proof of what I said about the reasons why is appropiate to keep the redirect: an article on today’s Washington Post about Kosovo status and brief history. And in no part of the article the word “Federal Republic of Yugoslavia” is used:
  “Kosovo has been a U.N. protectorate since NATO bombed Serbia in 1999 to force late Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic to pull out his troops, accused of killing ethnic Albanian civilians while trying to crush a guerrilla insurgency.”
  And there’s many more articles on respectable sources with the same wording.-- MaGioZal 22:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It absolutely makes sense. -- Renesis ( talk) 17:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

After moving draft out of mainspace this remaining link from mainspace to userspace should probably be deleted. Coppertwig 20:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Per nomination. May qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD G6, "Housekeeping", since it concerns only a sandbox, not a real article. EdJohnston 20:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete, housekeeping for a userfied page. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 21:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Tag it with {{ db-owner}} and it'll be speedily deleted. -- nae' blis 16:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• It wouldn't be appropriate for me to tag "Hellenistic Art/Translation sandbox" with db-owner because it is not in my user space and I did not create it. It's a page in mainspace which should be deleted: it was created by a previous translator who quit after translating part of the article. Currently it's a page in mainspace which redirects to a user page, a situation which is not supposed to happen. -- Coppertwig 09:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Double redirect ultimately leads to unambiguous article. BlueSquadronRaven 22:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete this one; not a likely search term. Gavia immer ( u| t| c) 18:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

redirect to unambiguous article. Unlikely search term in full. BlueSquadronRaven 22:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep, does no harm. Gavia immer ( u| t| c) 18:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply