Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"TCC"


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was speedy deleted on WP:RFD by User:Freakofnurture - see - BigDT 22:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"TCC"
This is an acronym for The Casual Courier. I've added TCC to the TCC page but this doesn't deserve it's own page just to direct the reader to The Casual Courier page, it is mainly a list of links, plus it does not conform to any of our naming conventions. Ben W Bell  talk  13:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom or, if there is a strong need, it can always be redirected to the main TCC disambig page, but that's probably extraneous. BigDT 13:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * agreed redirect. I'll make the change now. thanks for the comments. very useful. thanks. --Jjacobs 14:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - if it is going to be a redirect, it really should be a redirect to TCC, which is a disambiguation page for all articles/companies with those initials. I seriously doubt that The Casual Courier is the most common TCC.  Does anyone actually refer to them as "TCC" (with quotes)?  Normally, there isn't much use for quoted page names.  Would someone looking for The Casual Courier (or any other TCC) be likely to put "TCC" (with quotes) into the search box? I don't see much reason for the redirect, but if there is a redirect, it should be to the main TCC page, not to this company.  BigDT 15:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to close - as it has been changed to a redirect by the only contributor, should we discuss this on Redirects for deletion? BigDT 17:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Extremely strong redirect to TCC, not The Casual Courier. I agree with BigDT on one front: This should go to the main disambig page. But I disagree on two fronts: One, as the acronym (in quotes) redirects to this one article, as opposed to the disambig page, we shouldn't close the debate. Two, when the article was listed for deletion, it was an actual article as opposed to a redirect, so a move to RfD is unnecessary. -- Kicking222 17:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * With respect to the second point, normally, I would agree, but since the only contributor to the article is the one who changed it, it's really just cutting a step out of the process. As the only contributor, he could have it speedied as db-author, then create a new "TCC" as a redirect. So moving to RFD is just cutting a step out of the process. BigDT 17:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (but do not close) -- now listed on WP:RfD, but he could change it back if the RfD fails. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 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 (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.