The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Between the Now and the Never → Between the Never and the Now (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Simply the wrong name. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's an easy mistake to make, for someone not completely familiar with the name. The stats show it gets quite a few hits. --Zundark (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree; the stats show that this is a foreseeable search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perfectly reasonable transposition error. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was No consensus (kept). -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Pixelante → Jack Thompson (activist) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

This was the subject of an afd in 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pixelante, which was closed with a decision to redirect to Jack Thompson's page since he invented the term. However, as there are no reliable sources that discuss the term there is also no content related to it in Mr. Thompson's article so the redirect is more likely to confuse than help. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - quite a widely used term, attributed to Jack Thompson. The stats show that this redirect has good traffic and it has a substantial history. It would be better if some content was added to the target, obviously, and that is a better way to go rather than deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is that widely used, it should be easy to add some properly sourced content to the article, and then we can re-target the redirect to point at the relevant section. As it is now I don't even see this word in the article, and Google news yielded zero results when searching for this term. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The traffic that this redirect gets is some indication as are the results if you carry out a Google web search. This is a gaming term and, as such, tends not to get picked up by the media monitored by Google news. I simply don't have the knowledge to know which, if any, of the gaming sources are considered reliable, however. I don't, though, see a pressing reason for deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The encyclopedia that anyone can edit → Wikipedia (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete. Wikipedia isn't the only encyclopedia that anyone can edit! Ideal gas equation (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as Wikipedia's strapline this gets a lot of mentions in the media, here for example. However, the stats show that it is rarely used as a search term and it is potentially misleading. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - several reasons: (a) As stated above, Wikipedia isn't the only encyclopedia anyone can edit, so the term applies to more than one encyclopedia; (b) Most people on Wikipedia already know virtually anyone can edit it; (c) The encyclopedia that anyone can edit is kind of a weird title... cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 05:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. With the word "free", it's the tagline for this specific enterprise, and I think the absence of "free" is a plausible variation. (FWIW, The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit also → Wikipedia). Alternatively, Retarget to Internet encyclopedia project.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• No objection to Retarget to Internet encyclopedia project. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We've previously deleted A free encyclopedia that anyone can edit!, which also pointed to Wikipedia. Sideways713 (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and precedent cited by Sideways713. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]