The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Malcolmxl5. Deletion requested by creator (CSD G7). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling error....request speedy by creator emerson7 18:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• G7 Author blanked. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:03, 11 September 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. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the redirect was discussed once previously and closed pending the resolution of whether to keep the information on the Dick characters in the medical article. The information has been uncontroversially removed so the redirect now serves no purpose. Otto4711 (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - removal of a section that should not have been there in the first place clarifies an issue that was quite muddy in the prior discussion. Phillip K. Dick fans will have to start with the article on the author (the logical starting point), rather than the one on the malady. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment...I don't really have an opinion here. But I'm not sure that the content, which was removed just yesterday by an anon with no summary [1], after no talk page discussion whatsoever, was "uncontroversially removed". --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The talk page seems to indicate that a "discussion" has been going on since the closing of the previous RfD (on 1 September), but with no followup and no participation after a post by Lenticel stating Hi, I closed the rfd for now. I think you should get a consensus on whether to remove the paragraph or improve it to house characters of other literature. You could then re-nominate the RfD. In this case, there seems to be a lack of controversy in (and after) a bold removal at this point as there has been (as of this entry) no subsequent revision of the article itself. (NOTE: aside from my comments above and in the previous RfD, I have no connection with the article whatsoever). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a comment (by the RFD nom), and another comment by the RFD closer. One person's statement is not a discussion. Stating this is a discussed change that has met consensus is, to put it kindly, stretching the truth. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first RfD was open for eighteen days, during which time anyone who wanted to participate could. That makes it a valid consensus, even with its minimal participation. For those who disagree with the closer's view of the consensus, there is WP:DRV. -- Suntag (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The redirect was created to populate the Category:Fictional phocomelic characters, an improper purpose for a redirect. As an alternative, a WikiProject could tag the redirect talk page with their banner to categorize the redirect pages in their project sub categories. It is very unlikely that anyone will type in "Phocomelic characters in the work of Philip K. Dick" in the search box. -- Suntag (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unhelpful redirect. I have no opinion on whether or not a good article by this name could exist, but it's definitely a bad idea for a redirect (and without the information, a useless one). Terraxos (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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