The result of the debate was delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A pseudo-phonetic representation of the target. Total and utter nonsense and about as useful as a square wheel. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 21:30, April 29, 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -Pete (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible redirect.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Nonsense. B.Wind (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can find where this school is, then redirection to the town/county may be useful, but redirecting to school doesn't make sense. As it stands, an extremely unlikely search term. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 21:08, April 29, 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -Pete (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible redirect.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Makes no sense having a generic name redirect to a generic term. B.Wind (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; unlikely search term. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 05:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The first version of the page should have been speedy-deleted as a newuser test, not turned into a confusing redirect. Delete now as overdue cleanup. Rossami (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy-deleted at the contributor's request. Rossami (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Gurmukhi character has absolutely nothing to do with a polyester. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not related and totally useless. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 21:20, April 29, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as implausible redirect.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unlikely that anybody using the English Wikipedia would have a keyboard with a Gurmuki character. This veers close to being a speedy delete. B.Wind (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: i created the redirect page with the "1" w/in the recycling logo circular arrows. Either something has changed, or i messed up by not selecting the right character, but that's interesting that i didn't notice. Perhaps a switch from/to Unicode. --Jerome Potts (talk) 06:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unrelated redirect. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 06:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Letters are written in the wrong order because the creator of this redirect is missing complex language support, see WP:INDIC. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Special chars. make this a very unlikely search term, even with the letters in the right order. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 21:20, April 29, 2008 (UTC)
• Comment would people wihtout complex language support see it in this manner? 70.51.9.170 (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how much imagination you put in this Canadian syllable (Laa), it won't even look like a block. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not related and totally useless. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 21:20, April 29, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Does not seem to be related; an unlikely search term. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 07:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Canadian syllable (Qo) is not even similar to a block. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -Pete (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not related and totally useless. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 21:20, April 29, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Does not seem to be related; an unlikely search term. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 07:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian syllable To is definitely not a block. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -Pete (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not related and totally useless. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 21:20, April 29, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Does not seem to be related; an unlikely search term. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 07:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tibetan letter Zha is completely unrelated to the Mount Everest. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Do you say this with some familiarity with the Tibetan language? -Pete (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing as the Tibetan name of Mount Everest doesn't even contain a Zha, I can't believe this letter is used to represent the Mount Everest. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. -Pete (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not related and totally useless. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 21:20, April 29, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as implausible redirect, not even used in the Tibetan language.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense redirect that has been here since 2005! How did it slip through for so long? Anyway, it isn't useful so it is time for it to go. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 19:52, April 29, 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Another of SPUI's classic silly redirects. This one's not really helpful. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -Pete (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonsense redirect.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hehe, I love finding old redirects like that. Rocket000 (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a not helpful redirect. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 07:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Long overdue delete of this WP:POINT violation. If I remember correctly, this was created as part of a rather heated debates over the concept of notability. Rossami (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. mattbr 08:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

A Thai tone mark whose shape happens to approximate a small plus. This has nothing to do with plus/minus or even addition/subtraction. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -Pete (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as below, how many of these are there?! RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:02, April 29, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 07:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. mattbr 08:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Very unlikely search term, complete nonsense. See this discussion for a precedent. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 19:34, April 29, 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Thanks for linking precedent. -Pete (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete! per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE! Most highly unlikely for someone to search in all caps PLUS an exclamation point. B.Wind (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE PER NOM! Absolute nonsense. :P Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 01:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the same reason as "JEWS!" down below... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because Wikipedia works better when you shout at it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 10:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Heh. But seriously, it is an unnecessary redirect, like "JEWS!" below. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 15:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete! Unlikely search term! Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 07:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Whatever answer is decided should be applied to BEER!, too. Both redirects were created by the same user at essentially the same time.
  The redirects are pretty pointless but they're also harmless. Ignore them because the act of deletion, trivial as it is, is more than the cost of leaving them be. Rossami (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about DRUGS! and ROCK AND ROLL!? --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. mattbr 08:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Just as you thought you had seen them all... you're proven wrong.

• ␥ → Space (punctuation)
• ␦ → Space (punctuation)
• ␧ → Space (punctuation)
• ␨ → Space (punctuation)
• ␩ → Space (punctuation)
• ␪ → Space (punctuation)
• ␫ → Space (punctuation)
• ␬ → Space (punctuation)
• ␭ → Space (punctuation)
• ␮ → Space (punctuation)
• ␯ → Space (punctuation)
• ␰ → Space (punctuation)
• ␱ → Space (punctuation)
• ␲ → Space (punctuation)
• ␳ → Space (punctuation)
• ␴ → Space (punctuation)
• ␵ → Space (punctuation)
• ␶ → Space (punctuation)
• ␷ → Space (punctuation)
• ␸ → Space (punctuation)
• ␹ → Space (punctuation)
• ␺ → Space (punctuation)
• ␼ → Space (punctuation)
• ␽ → Space (punctuation)
• ␾ → Space (punctuation)
• ␿ → Space (punctuation)

These characters are control characters and reserved characters, not spaces. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - as with the batch below, completely impossible search terms, useless redirects. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 19:37, April 29, 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all. This is an excellent argument for a fourth redirect category under WP:CSD. These don't qualify under R3 because they are no typos or misnomers, just impossible to reach. B.Wind (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, useless redirects. Are they supposed to display as question marks, BTW? Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 07:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All we aren't supposed to have tens of redirects with same name. --Gman124 ^talk 02:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Close requested move is underway. Lenticel ^(talk) 23:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need to delete this redirect, so that Online games can be renamed to Multiplayer online game. Online means something on the web, and can refer to browser-based solo games. the article Online game clearly is meant to focus on multiplayer games. Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural comment - Would requested moves be a better place to discuss this? RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 19:22, April 29, 2008 (UTC)

Requested move request is now undereway. I think we can close this now. --76.66.182.45 (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was 13 deleted and 1 kept. Lollerskates was merged. While the history could be moved, the redirect is not causing any harm so not worth it. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)-- JLaTondre (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Lolololololololololol (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• Lolarcoaster (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• Lolzorz (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• Lololol (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• LOLage (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• Lollerpoodles (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• Lolzort (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• Roflpwn (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - As this one has nothing to do with LOL, it should really be redir'd to Internet Slang anyway.
• Roflorn (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - As above
• Lollercoaster (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• Lolerskates (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• Lollerskates (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• Lollerpede (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
• Lollersk8s (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Very unlikely search terms, no links. WP would be swamped with redirects if one was created for every single permutation of every bit of Internet slang, there are an infinite number of such constructions. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 18:54, April 29, 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -Pete (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reiterate my delete !vote following addition of numerous variations. -Pete (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can see keeping a few of those (like Lololol and Lollerskates) as semi-popular permutations. If anything, to lower the chances of recreation. Rocket000 (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But aren't Lollerskates so fun they encourage recreation? Just kidding. ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Lenoxus " * " 00:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some of these have been listed at RfD before. I will try to find links to those past discussions. -- Ned Scott 02:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Lollerskates is ineligible for RfD because it contains content that was merged to another article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lollerskates. -- Ned Scott 02:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all except lollerskates That is in much more common usage than the others.Jwray (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, not really a chance of someone searching for lolololol seriously... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The unicode character for the braille representation of an asterisk. A very unlikely search term given the sp. character. No links. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 18:37, April 29, 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. It seems pretty plausible to me that someone with a Braille input device, or someone accustomed to entering text using Braille, might type the character that way. Redirects are cheap, what's the harm? -Pete (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But surely the braille device would enter the text in ASCII format, not in braille, otherwise how would things such as Google understand it? RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 19:12, April 29, 2008 (UTC)

If you're saying that from a position of knowledge about how such things work, and not as speculation,

I'd be happy to change my !vote. -Pete (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here or here for more info. As far as I know, they represent ASCII [for obvious reasons, braille is useless on a normal PC monitor] RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:23, April 29, 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links -- sorry, didn't mean for you to go to all that trouble, just wanted some assurance that you felt you knew what you were talking about. Delete. -Pete (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Pointless, and how many things can a questin mark redirect to? This, space (punctuation) and question mark are all redirected to from question marks!...... Dendodge.Talk^Help 15:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually, they all redirect from different unreadable characters which many computers represent with ? Oh, and delete. Jonathunder (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems very unlikely that someone would search for Asterisk using 5 of them, and even more unlikely that this would be used as a link. No links. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 18:34, April 29, 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -Pete (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Does no harm, but now that it is up for discussion, there isn't really a point to this one, there's got to be a limit. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 03:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: If we keep this, we'll need **, ***, **** etc. too, and it's unlikely that anyone would search it...... Dendodge.Talk^Help 15:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unlike *****, however, *** and **** are useful → (*** has its own disambig page, and **** redirects to Four letter word, which I understand). Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 07:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a likely search term for asterisk. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 07:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at the deleted pagehistory, I suspect that this redirect was created in order to preempt the vandalism that had been piling up at the page. The vandal seems to have gone away. I suspect that this redirect can, too, though it is not actively harmful and I could see an argument to just ignore it. Rossami (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a nonsense redirect, no mention in the target article & no links. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 18:20, April 29, 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; likely some inside joke among a couple people. -Pete (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: if there is a real individual by this name, this redirect likely violates WP:BOLP. Incidentally, a Google search shows 71 hits. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Oddly enough, one of those Google results is this page! This, that and the other _[talk] 07:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted except for two re-targeted per Zetawoof. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  → Space (punctuation) U+206F NOMINAL DIGIT SHAPES
•  → Space (punctuation) U+206E NATIONAL DIGIT SHAPES
•  → Space (punctuation) U+206D ACTIVATE ARABIC FORM SHAPING
•  → Space (punctuation) U+206C INHIBIT ARABIC FORM SHAPING
•  → Space (punctuation) U+206B ACTIVATE SYMMETRIC SWAPPING
•  → Space (punctuation) U+206A INHIBIT SYMMETRIC SWAPPING
• [[‪]] → Space (punctuation) U+202A LEFT-TO-RIGHT EMBEDDING
• [[‫]] U+202B RIGHT-TO-LEFT EMBEDDING→ Space (punctuation)
• [[‬]] → Space (punctuation) U+202C POP DIRECTIONAL FORMATTING (the preceding 9 entries are not empty, they're arabic control characters which have no width)
• ⁩ → Space (punctuation) U+2069 <reserved>
• ⁨ → Space (punctuation) U+2068 <reserved>
• ⁧ → Space (punctuation) U+2067 <reserved>
• ⁦ → Space (punctuation) U+2066 <reserved>
• ⁥ → Space (punctuation) U+2065 <reserved>
• ⁤ → Space (punctuation) U+2064 INVISIBLE PLUS
• ⁣ → Space (punctuation) U+2063 INVISIBLE SEPARATOR
• ⁢ → Space (punctuation) U+2062 INVISIBLE TIMES
• ⁡ → Space (punctuation) U+2061 FUNCTION APPLICATION (the preceding 4 entries are not empty, they're mathematical control characters which have no width)
• ⁠ → Space (punctuation) U+2060 WORD JOINER (this entry is not empty, it is a control character with no width)
• ⁞ → Space (punctuation) U+205E VERTICAL FOUR DOTS
• ⁝ → Space (punctuation) U+205D TRICOLON
• ⁜ → Space (punctuation) U+205C DOTTED CROSS
• ⁛ → Space (punctuation) U+205B FOUR DOT MARK
• ⁚ → Space (punctuation) U+205A TWO DOT PUNCTUATION
• ⁙ → Space (punctuation) U+2059 FIVE DOT PUNCTUATION
• ⁘ → Space (punctuation) U+2058 FOUR DOT PUNCTUATION
• ⁗ → Space (punctuation) U+2057 QUADRUPLE PRIME
• ⁖ → Space (punctuation) U+2056 THREE DOT PUNCTUATION
• ⁕ → Space (punctuation) U+2055 FLOWER PUNCTUATION MARK
• ⁔ → Space (punctuation) U+2054 INVERTED UNDERTIE
• ⁒ → Space (punctuation) U+2052 COMMERCIAL MINUS SIGN
• ⁑ → Space (punctuation) U+2051 TWO ASTERISKS ALIGNED VERTICALLY
• ⁎ → Space (punctuation) U+204E LOW ASTERISK
• ⁍ → Space (punctuation) U+204D BLACK RIGHTWARDS BULLET
• ⁌ → Space (punctuation) U+204C BLACK LEFTWARDS BULLET
• ⁋ → Space (punctuation) U+204B REVERSED PILCROW SIGN
• ⁉ → Space (punctuation) U+2048 QUESTION EXCLAMATION MARK
• ⁈ → Space (punctuation) U+2049 EXCLAMATION QUESTION MARK
• ⁇ → Space (punctuation) U+2047 DOUBLE QUESTION MARK
• ⁏ → Space (punctuation) U+204F REVERSED SEMICOLON
• ⁐ → Space (punctuation) U+2050 CLOSE UP

These are not spaces. They're various different punctuation symbols, control characters and reserved characters. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification requested Prince K, can you provide a little more explanation so this makes more sense to those of us who aren't familiar with Arabic? -Pete (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the Unicode names to the characters which should help you understand their meaning. I also added two characters to the nomination I forgot. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate the further info. Sorry, I think I'm just too ignorant of both Arabic and Unicode to have an informed opinion. -Pete (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nuke the lot Speedy delete all - Wow. The definition of pointless. No one is going to even attempt to search for these [can anyone search for them?!], impossible search terms given the special chars. And I thought that I was finding lots of useless redirects! RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 18:26, April 29, 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all except ⁉ and ⁈, which I've made into redirects to interrobang. Still unlikely to be useful, but at least they point somewhere sensible now. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all except ⁉ and ⁈, as mentioned above. As RichardΩ612 says, I'm not sure if most people can search for them (n Firefox most of them don't display and in Internet Explorer they're boxes). Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 05:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All per nomination. these are pointless. --Gman124 ^talk 02:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. Target article does not contain this name. If there was a valid referenced usage, then it would be an applicable redirect. However, lacking any applicable content in the target, it doesn't belong. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless redirects. He put this name once on a marriage license application but it is not a name he otherwise used or was known by. Nobody is going to search for him under this name. KleenupKrew (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Related redirects also for discussion: Curt wilhelm vonsavage and Curt Wilhelm Von Savage
• Keep redirects are cheap, and he once used the name. I'm not seeing the problem here. -- Ned Scott 02:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep why not? I think "why not?" is the best rationale for redirects, maybe there isn't a major reason for "why yes", but redirects are cheap and as long as the name was used, so be it. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 03:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because those redirects were intended to disparage the subject, that's why not. KleenupKrew (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If he actually used that name, how can the redirect be an attempt to disparage the subject? I'm not seeing a strong connection, but as others have said, redirects are cheap. Rossami (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a reliable source connecting the name to Werner Erhard? If so, it should be kept; if not, it should be deleted.B.Wind (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source is most likely Outrageous Betrayal by Steven Pressman. Whether or not that book meets WP:RS is a subjective judgment call. It was published by a major publisher (St. Martins) but contains no footnotes or citations itself, and is an overwhelmingly negative portrayal of the man that smacks of a hatchet job. I would argue it does not meet WP:RS but others might argue it passes the notability bar on account of being published by St. Martins. KleenupKrew (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable, and per Ned Scott. KleenupKrew, you should keep your personal opinions out of this discussion and be objective. Pax Arcane 18:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unlikely search term. Anyone knowing that term already knows the person's name. Also, it's a non-notable alternate name that appears to be used as a derogatory term against him on an non-notable attack book. Per lack of notability of the term, and per privacy concerns on WP:BLP, this is better deleted to avoid unnecessary association of the person's name to this alternate name. I quote "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid ; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".". If the name is notable and well sourced, then add it to the person's article. If it's not fit for inclusion on a BLP article, then shouldn't be fit either for a redirect to that BLP. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The redirect is causing harm to a living person, since it's causing mirror sites to place the whole biography of this guy under an alternate name that he used once, like here, I say that this is harmful to this person's reputation, placing his biography under a ridiculous name he used once. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlapete gutturalis is actually the Yellow-throated Brush Finch, an entirely different bird with no page of its own (yet) [1]. The current redirect is just plain wrong. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 01:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: it is best to write a stub for the Yellow-throated brush finch, then repoint the redirect to it. It is preferable to its deletion, but if the stub cannot be written, then deletion would seem the only option (author can trigger a speedy deletion here if he/she wishes). B.Wind (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Revised opinion after looking at target article, which states Atlapetes gutturalis as a historical synonym. Keep. B.Wind (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per B.Wind. Ideally stub would be expanded to better clarify this, or even a new article written for YTBF, but in the meantime, the redirect is doing no harm. -Pete (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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