Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 March 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on March 10, 2008

Wikipedia:RICK → Wikipedia:Requests for rollback[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 17:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be an unlikely redirect choice, for someone looking for Wikipedia:Requests for rollback, as it unclear as to how it relates to the subject. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nonsense. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The (dubious) motivation behind this is explained at [1], but that doesn't make it a useful shortcut, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of clever inside jokes. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Party poopers. John Reaves 20:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. --On the other side Contribs|@ 01:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this was done in order to prevent some sort of vandalism (involving the notorious Rickroll, as noted), then I'm all for keeping it. I don't know that that's the case, though - and if it is, I recommend that we remove it from the shortcut box at Requests for Rollback. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This redirect is obviously only intended as a joke. FunPika 00:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Come on, people! Lighten up a little! Of course it's a just a joke redirect, but it's outside of article space, and redirects don't cost anything. Wikipedia could use a little sprinkling of humor here and there. I can't speak for you all, but I sure find it funny. Besides, non-admin rollback has a bit of a history of jokes like this. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I like it. It's not a 'clever inside joke', it's a fairly widespread internet phenomenon. Lighten up, it's not damaging anything, no more than any of the other humorous essays are. Cel Talk to me 21:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm OK with the idea of having an official anti-vandalism motivation with an unofficial inside joke motivation behind it. -- RoninBK T C 00:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid justification for keeping it. On the other hand, "joke" redirects violate WP:POINT and should be deleted.B.Wind (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I did get a chuckle out of it, There's no use for keeping an unnecessary redirect and joke. Dadude3320 20:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Yao Mingo → Yao Ming[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted (CSD G3). -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This useless redirect is the result of a vandalism. Chris! ct 21:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anarchism/etymology → Anarchism[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 01:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Proded by Skomorokh, but prod removed by another user. This redirect is dubious and nonsensical. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_10&oldid=1146677190"