The result of the debate was Speedy delete (R3) by Mets501. Heimstern Läufer 22:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Google hits for this name, no reason I can find for this redirect. Contacted redirect creator to ask why he/she made the redirect, got no reply. I could see an argument for speedy as patent nonsense or vandalism. Heimstern Läufer 17:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as G1 (patent nonsense). Gavia immer (u|t) 17:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 15:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newb is fine, as it is a term for a newbie, ie: someone who is new at something. n00b isn't. A n00b is a term usually given to something who is new, and, bad at something. See wikt:noob for some examples. I think based on WP:BITE we shouldn't refer to our newbies as N00bs. The page only has around 4 legitimate links to it. — Deon555^talk_desk^{sign here!} 05:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's potential incivility, and it's rarely used. Gavia immer (u|t) 16:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to WP:NEWBIE. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 17:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Uh, no thanks on this redirect. It's not helpful to call our new users "n00bs". Delete; possibly add a redirect at WP:NEWBIE per Dark Shikari. Heimstern Läufer 17:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, etc. Iced Kola 23:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Kept. If the intent was to have discussion in a single place, then the redirect serves that purpose better then deleting. The redirect will send people to the target page so they will enter their comments there. Deleting it will cause people to create a new talk page when they have comments to add. -- JLaTondre 15:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kaçanik was created as an exact duplicate of Talk:Kačanik by User:Hipi Zhdripi. I transformed the talk page in a redirect a few hours ago. — No comment would be lost (everything was posted at Talk:Kačanik too) and currently nothing links to Talk:Kaçanik. Deleting this talk page would help eliminate the possibility of parallel discussions in the future. -- Evv 06:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and speedy close - this looks like a content/naming dispute, given that the main article page Kaçanik has content that was covered over by a redirect. You want to use the process at Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages, not Redirects for Discussion. Gavia immer (u|t) 16:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, there is a content and naming dispute in every single Kosovo-related article :-) which has lead to the creations of many forks and cut-and-paste moves. This specific talk page was created as part of these disputes. However, before I transformed Talk:Kaçanik in a redirect (diff.), both talk pages had only two edits made by User:Hipi Zhdripi – in fact, he made the same two edits to (almost?) all articles about cities of Kosovo. What follows is the entire history of both talk pages:

  The edits to Talk:Kaçanik (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Kaçanik|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

  • 06:16, 20 January 2007 Evv (added {{rfd}})
  • 14:46, 19 January 2007 Evv (Transformed in a redirect to Talk:Kačanik — Thus removed redundance, for Hipi Zhdripi had made the exact same two edits in both talk pages)
  • 04:55, 17 April 2006 Hipi Zhdripi
  • 20:54, 13 April 2006 Hipi Zhdripi

  He made the exact same edits to Talk:Kačanik (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Kačanik|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

  • 04:56, 17 April 2006 Hipi Zhdripi
  • 20:53, 13 April 2006 Hipi Zhdripi

  I'm proposing to delete the talk page because it's 100% redundant. In fact, it would be the same to delete either Talk:Kaçanik or Talk:Kačanik. Except for my redirect, the rest is identical: delete the one you like less :-) All I want is to avoid parallel discussions in the future. - Best regards, Evv 18:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 15:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another deleted article on a non-notable church recreated as a redirect to the town where its located. No mention of the Church in the target article.--Tdl1060 18:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I cannot imagine how would be useful to anyone, and can see some ways in which it would be damaging. delldot | talk 22:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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