This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 26, 2016.
Real World Cup
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment. It's a perfectly valid search term in the syntactic sense of validity, and every search is from the searcher's point of view. It may not be a valid (whatever that means), npov search result; but redirects don't have to be npov.
Si Trew (
talk)
21:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Chicken amine
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Iranian folklore has no mention of "chicken amine" or anything about chickens, so the redirect seems unhelpful at this time. The article that
User:Jac16888 replaced with the redirect was unintelligible over stretches of more than a few words, fundamentally useless, and hadn't been fixed in the few weeks since its creation. Therefore, despite the dePRODding conjecture of
User:Kvng that "improvement is possible", I feel that
WP:TNT would apply by now if the page had been left as an article.
—Largo Plazo (
talk)
15:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm thinking the now hidden article might even be a hoax, and definitely not written well enough to use. The redirect makes no sense either as there is nothing at the target about this.
Legacypac (
talk)
19:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. The discussion below has found that this redirect is recently created and has a presumed purpose as an insult against other editors. There is rough consensus to delete on these grounds.
Deryck C.17:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)reply
IMHO a pointless redirect as it only redirects to
WP:DICK and then DICK redirects to Meta, Personally I don't think every swear word needs to be created and redirected to Meta, And the only wikilink to Prick is my talkpage. (The only reason this was created was so the creator could link the word and then kindly call me a prick
[1]), Thanks, –
Davey2010Talk04:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)reply
"WP:DICK" is insufficient, since some people have an aversion to writing expletives due to having some sort of upbringing that is insufficient to use Wikipedia if DICK is the only choice --
70.51.46.39 (
talk)
04:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Neutral per 70.51.46.39. Doesn't do any harm. I would be at a weak keep as well, but it was created recently and used to make a
point, which makes a not very beneficial redirect even less valuable in my opinion.—
Godsy(
TALKCONT)19:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as above. I declined speedy deletion, it does not even come close to satisfying the requirements of CSD G10, as there is no identifiable person or subject attacked on this page. Even if it was created for a nefarious purpose, that does not rise to CSD G10. Let this RfD proceed to conclusion.
Safiel (
talk)
16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Further comment Not too long ago, I was called a dumb**** (uncensored) in an edit summary. No action was taken against that editor, other than a civility warning. That would be the appropriate action here. The editor who created the redirect and used it as an uncivil jab should be formally warned for civility and the redirect deleted. This was simple incivility, nothing more.
Safiel (
talk)
16:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Simon Lee Gallery
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Xnamespace redirect from an illogical move of a decent article back into the namespace of a user that departed years ago. The subject reps a long list of bluelinked artists, which strongly suggests the gallery is notable by association.
Legacypac (
talk)
03:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Legacypac: I've moved the user space article to the list aforesaid and tidied it up a bit. That's still an unreferenced article, but I think it's reasonable to retarget this to there as {{
R to list}} or some such.
Si Trew (
talk)
05:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
DRIBBLESOFBLUE
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.