Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 26

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

March 26

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.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the FIFA World Cup would be any more "real" (or

World Cup. -- Tavix (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - inherently POV. Fenix down (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a valid search term. GiantSnowman 17:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A POV search term. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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
]

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.

Hundreds-and-thousands

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 7#Hundreds-and-thousands

Wikipedia:Prick

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, –Davey2010Talk 04:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes but not every swear word needs to be redirected back to Meta,
WP:DICK is more than sufficient, –Davey2010Talk 16:07, 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]
gender bias in WP insults. Legacypac (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Ha ha. I don't think twit is specific to one sex though, at least in British English; WP:TWAT, maybe. Si Trew (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Twit is not gender specific at all, I just think it is an excellent adjective for some people. Legacypac (talk) 06:33, 27 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.
The result of the discussion was speedily retargeted to List of artists represented by the Simon Lee Gallery by nominator User:Legacypac. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 07:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

  • Delete. I don't think the article in namespace is useful as it stands – at least the lede is not. We could move it, with a less detailed lede, to
    WP:NOTINHERITED. Si Trew (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
feel free to improve the article so it can be moved. As a stale userspace draft it will never help anyone. Legacypac (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
R to list}} or some such. Si Trew (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I've retargeted Simon Lee Gallery to the new list article. This RfD is now moot. Legacypac (talk) 05:36, 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 result of the discussion was Speedily deleted by
WP:G7 author requests deletion. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per

WP:CNR out of article space. -- Tavix (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks - learned something new. Still say delete. Legacypac (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    WP:DRIBBLESOFBLUE, though not up for discussion here, should be kept.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:20, 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.

Poochie dog

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 7#Poochie dog

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_26&oldid=1037903407"