Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 26, 2016.

Real World Cup[edit]

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 Royal) than any other 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[edit]

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]

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]

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[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Prick[edit]

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]

  • Delete as there are already plenty of ways to insult other users here without another tool. Legacypac (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as a non-expletive version of "dick" -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:29, 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]
WP:DORK WP:TWIT WP:JACKASS WP:ASS WP:PUSSY which just shows 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]
  • 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 - This seems to have no constructive worth whatsoever. And if we do keep this, I wonder if we'll see WP:FartInYourGeneralDirection and WP:MotherWasAHamster surface. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless. SSTflyer 13:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:G10 and trout the creator. A clear and unambiguous personal attack ([2]). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily delete per WP:G10, personal attack. Si Trew (talk) 14:49, 28 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[edit]

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]

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]
@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]
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[edit]

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 User:RHaworth per WP:G7 author requests deletion. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:R#D6, as it is a 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. DRIBBLESOFBLUE was an error in being created in article space, not WP space, and I should know, as I did it. My apologies to all for not cleaning that up earlier. I will proceed to delete it myself, per WP:G7. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:13, 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[edit]

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"