The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect. flaminglawyer 22:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as cross-namespace redirect. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – unneeded CNR: someone searching for a portal will almost surely be familiar with the different namespaces. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was deleted by PhilKnight. Not exactly protocol, but it works. flaminglawyer 21:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because there is no list of Holy Grails at the target. Besides, there is only one Holy Grail, title case, and it is an oblique object (not existing but searched).

List of holy grails is referenced In Search of the Holy Grail. Yecril (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't remember much of the history to this. I'm guessing there was a link from somewhere before the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of holy grails discussion was closed as delete, and I created the redirect to make the link blue. But that's only a guess. Anyway, I've deleted the redirect. PhilKnight (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Deleted except for Hackers on steroids. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Do it faggot → 4chan
• Epic Fail Guy → 4chan
• HABEEB IT → 4chan
• Hackers on steroids → 4chan
• Robot9000 → 4chan
• Tripfag → 4chan

This is an unverified meme and not referenced in the 4chan article. DFS454 (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an unreffed meme; possibly an intended degradation of 4chan (although not very well planned). flaminglawyer 21:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* note when the above comment was added, only Do it faggot was listed. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete most Delete Do it faggot, Epic Fail Guy, HABEEB IT, Robot9000, Tripfag as unmentioned in the article and with no obvious connection. Hackers on steroids is mentioned in the article and [1] some news articles and might be worth keeping. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all except Hackers on steroids per Rogerb67. PhilKnight (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Deleted. Content was not kept in target so no need to keep history. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the kidnapping article doesn't mention this person at all. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 00:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also Thomas Hose, which is a redirect to the same target, should be deleted for the same reason. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 00:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Per BLP (I know it's not in there specifically, but...), we should not have surprising content-free redirects as the sole mention of someone's name on Wikipedia. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Further: The "Shawn Hornbeck" argument mentioned in the discussions I've linked below does not especially apply to these, despite being raised there, because Shawn Hornbeck actually redirects to appropriate context. For the redirects under discussion here, there is no context provided at all. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gavia immer. No inclusion in article -> no context for inclusion -> no meaning -> no reason to have the redirect. B.Wind (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that this has already been through both AFD and Deletion Review. The links to the relevant discussions are on its talk page. Uncle G (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience, discussion links for Tanya Kach: General DRV (under "Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby"), First AFD, Second DRV, Second AFD. Thomas Hose appears to have no previous discussion. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Versus22 _talk 00:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but... currently no coverage of this individual in Wikipedia, but according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanya Kach (second nomination) the content of that article was restored for a merge, so perhaps the history needs to be kept somewhere? --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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