Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 March 17
March 17[edit]
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 17, 2008
WP:LYNCHMOB → Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct[edit]
The result of the debate was delete. John Reaves 04:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- also adding WP:WITCHHUNT created at the same time to the same target —Random832 19:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
(note: I didn't cite a reason because I thought the title of the redirect speaks for itself) —Random832 04:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, no reason cited. Besides, it's a harmless joke. Like WP:DRAMA redirecting to ANI. Will (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - this is a joke, but I don't believe it's a harmless joke, unlike WP:DRAMA. The target page is an important part of our stated dispute resolution process (I have no comment here on its practical workings, only that it's part of the suggested dispute resolution path), and this sort of offhand disparagement of the process could potentially disrupt dispute resolution just by existing. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Further: to make it clear, I agree that WP:WITCHHUNT has the same problems and ought to be deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Let us preserve some decorum in our approach to dispute resolution. Aramgar (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete along with WP:WITCHHUNT and possibly even WP:IDIOT. Could be even more that were made after some user or group of users did something that he didn't approve of. These appear to have been made out of spite. It's more of a disruption that tries to go around WP:NPA than it is a "joke". 216.37.86.10 (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete both as pointless. WP:IDIOT is barely useful as long as the target article exists... and it can be argued whether or not the target article should go through the deletion process (would a prod work here?).B.Wind (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)