The result of the discussion was no consensus--Aervanath (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This redirect is completely useless because the title of the target article is all initial caps, and the "Go" search is case-insensitive for these titles. Ag97 (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and how is someone supposed to find the article if they do not put the first letter of each word in caps? This type of redirect is extremely common and there really is no reason to delete it. Tavix |  Talk  21:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Change target to Real life (reality); in real life (IRL) is a much more common use than some lame reality TV show. See IRL. Resurr Section (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Real life (reality) and add a hatnote to the target. Seems a much more useful way of handling things. TerriersFan (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as the term is a direct alernative of the target. PaulJones (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Real life (reality), the show in question hasn't even aired yet (?)^{lead needs fixed} with a hatnote. –xeno ^talk 23:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Real life (reality), but leave a hatnote link to In Real Life. Robofish (talk) 06:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To clarify (I hope): Ag97 is right about this redirect being useless, but only with respect to the Go button. See #3 at Help:Go_button; someone searching for "in real life" would get to In Real Life even if there were no redirect. Without the redirect, however, in real life would be a red link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fried Gold (talk • contribs) 08:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If this redirect was deleted and someone would search for "in real life" they would still get to this article. I'm also pretty sure that the link in real life doesn't exist in any article, so there wouldn't be a problem with that if the redirect got deleted. Ag97 (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This redirect should NOT be retargeted to Real life (reality). It doesn't make sense that someone would get an article called Real life (reality) instead of an article called In Real Life when they search for "in real life". A hatnote link to Real life (reality) should be added to In Real Life, not the other way around. Ag97 (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If someone types "In real life" then it stands to reason they are searching for information about the internet slang term rather than some limited popularity early teen show. Unless they are just sloppy with their capitalization. –xeno ^talk 13:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Real life (reality) and add In Real Life hatnote there for the uncapitalised. Can be revisited if show becomes more widely known in IRL. --Zigger «º» 09:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think that when someone searches for "in real life" they are looking for In Real Life and just didn't capitalize it. People who are looking for Real life (reality) are more likely to search for "real life", "RL", or "IRL". Ag97 (talk) 15:46, 6 May 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 keep. Apparently a plausible redirect.--Aervanath (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and inappropriate redirect Dicklyon (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree.DGG (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: it turns out there are a bunch of redirects like this to that article, and they're semi-serious, since the article is about being clueless about one's incompetence. See what links there. Should we get rid of them? Or are they OK? Dicklyon (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless anyone can demonstrate that this is a notable term for this phenomenon. Robofish (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, reluctantly. Seems to be a past title in some publication, see this Guardian article by Marc Abrahams. --Zigger «º» 09:44, 6 May 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 delete both. No prejudice against redirecting this to Elâzığ if the town is ever mentioned in that article.--Aervanath (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Including 'murikan → American as well.

I think these should be deleted as they are very unlikely search terms. I believe this would fall under #7 under the reasons for deletion. Who exactly refers to American as "Murikan" or "'murikan". It's a misprounciation and an obscure colloquialism. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Apparently there is a town called Murikan in Elazığ, Turkey (although it's not mentioned on that article) - see [1]. Perhaps this should redirect there? Robofish (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! I wouldn't object to that unless another meaning can be found. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:41, 2 May 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 both speedy deleted as attack pages by User:Mentifisto [2] [3]. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Expert Sexchange → Experts-Exchange

Seems intended to be derisive and insulting rather than useful - it's hard to believe anyone would actually use this as a search term. Nominating Expert Sexchange for the same reason.Robofish (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on second thoughts, these seem to be quite blatantly attack pages, and deletable under WP:CSD#G10. I'll tag them as such, but leave this RFD open in case the admin who takes a look disagrees. Robofish (talk) 06:15, 1 May 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 per CSD R2. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate CNR to a userpage. MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Inappropriate (mainspace to userspace) and completely pointless. Ironholds (talk) 07:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: if you have to create a shortcut to your userpage, at least use the correct format (from the WP namespace). Robofish (talk) 10:13, 1 May 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 delete--Aervanath (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improper recent WP:CNR. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'd go with that. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and general policy in this area. Robofish (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Undeletion to avoid CNR. Note that Wikipedia:Undeletion is linked in the article which is just another name for Wikipedia:Deletion review.--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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