Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CSD pseudo-namespace

RfC: Should CSD: be an exception to the immunity of pseudo-namespaces to deletion?

History

• WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 10#CSD:G1
  • WP:Redirect#keep
    • WP:Redirect#K2
      • They would aid accidental linking ... redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc.
    • WP:Redirect#K4
      • You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect.
    • WP:Redirect#K5
      • Someone finds them useful.
  • WP:Redirect#delete
    • WP:Redirect#D6
      • The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space.

Discussion

• In the linked discussion above, it was declared that if these were determined to be PNR, then they were immune from deletion. Yet, the closer, Happy-melon, after declaring that "these form an established pseudo-namespace" (albeit weak), continued to delete these PNRs despite of their immunity (weak or strong, a PNR is a PNR and PNRs are immune to deletion). Technical 13 (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose exception

1. I oppose making this exception to the rules without community consensus. I believe that this choice to IAR and dismiss the fact that these redirects were in the wrong forum, as they were immune to deletion as PNRs, where even the nominator declares they expect a no consensus close "[Close as no consensus and open an RFC on creating new pseudo-namespaces without community consensus] is be the conclusion I would expect now. Technical 13 (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)