Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 March 10

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

RICK → Requests for rollback
The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 17:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC) This seems to be an unlikely redirect choice, for someone looking for Requests for rollback, as it unclear as to how it relates to the subject. Nan oha A's Yu ri    Talk, My master 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom. Nonsense. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The (dubious) motivation behind this is explained at, 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)
 * Party poopers. John Reaves 20:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above. -- On the  other side  Contribs 01:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Delete This redirect is obviously only intended as a joke. Fun  Pika  00:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Yao Mingo → Yao Ming
The result of the debate was Deleted (CSD G3). -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC) This useless redirect is the result of a vandalism. Chris! c t 21:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Anarchism/etymology → Anarchism
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 01:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 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) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete as nonsense. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as utterly useless nonsense. No one would use such a search term. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  02:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)