'From WP:RfD:
- Project HAARP → High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program - The "Project" is redundant and unneeded. It's the same bad form as used in referring to an "ATM Machine" and does not belong on WP. A HAARP and a haarp redirect already exist, so removing this badly worded redirect should cause no problems. John Elder 22:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Well, we do have Project HARP, even thought HARP stands for "High Altitude Research Project". This sort of replication is common in English. I'd say keep, to prevent someone thinking we don't have an entry, and creating a duplicate. Noel (talk) 17:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps that needs to be here, too. Anybody can find HAARP simply by searching on HAARP. Furthermore, if the Project HAARP redirect is deleted, HAARP will still show up on the search. Try this for yourself - run a search for Program HAARP. Furthermore, if some poor seeker enters HAARP Project, they will not find the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program link anywhere near the top of the results returned. By your logic we should create a redirect for them. Is that what we want to do on WP, spend time creating all sorts of possible, incorrect redirects for people who seem unable to formulate a correct search? John Elder 05:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia search function is kind of wierd, which is why it's really good to have lots of redirects. E.g. not only does searching for both HAARP Project and Project HAARP not turn up anything (although there's a redirect at the latter!), but searching for "HARP Project" also returns a blank - even though there's also redirect at HARP Project! So it seems like having these redirects is valuable, particulary for preventing creation duplicate articles when people happen to typr in the wrong thing, and nothing shows up. Noel (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- I must agree. Creating a rediredt after typing in a reasonable search phrase, finding nothing, and then locating the desired article strikes me as normal maintenance; and does not imply a Wikiproject:Create all possible redirects. Septentrionalis 15:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. "Encourages sloppy thinking", as you indicated on the talk page, is no reason to delete the redirect and inconvenience people, and strikes me as pretty condescending. I notice that ATM machine does exist as a redirect. Nickptar 00:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Why is this still on the list, anyway? Nickptar 00:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Because it took me a while to find the time to do the research and see which searches worked, and after posting that (on the 25th) I was waiting for a while to see if the original poster responded. Noel (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- I've got no problem with it staying. I'm pretty new to the WP community, so this has been educational. Thanks, all. John Elder 03:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Because it took me a while to find the time to do the research and see which searches worked, and after posting that (on the 25th) I was waiting for a while to see if the original poster responded. Noel (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Why is this still on the list, anyway? Nickptar 00:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well, we do have Project HARP, even thought HARP stands for "High Altitude Research Project". This sort of replication is common in English. I'd say keep, to prevent someone thinking we don't have an entry, and creating a duplicate. Noel (talk) 17:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
i removed the speedy delete tag. What is wrong with the title??? Its very common -CunningLinguist 22:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You beat me to it, but I do have a RFD in. The "Project" in "Project High-Frequency Active Auroral Program," is redundant. It's the same kind of bad usage you hear when somebody speaks of an "ATM machine" (Automatic Teller Machine Machine). There are already redirect pages for HAARP. This one is redundant and encourages sloppy thinking and usage. John Elder 23:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)