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 speedy deleted WP:CSD#G7 by User:Danger. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:IAR. → Wikipedia:Incorporate all rules (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Deliberately made to appear like Wikipedia:IAR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see any way to apply AGF here - this has clearly been created as a disruptive easter egg. Given that the author appears to believe that all Wikipedia rules should be obeyed, they're wilfully ignoring WP:ASTONISH. Mogism (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as disruptive. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not 100% convinced that this was bad-faith myself, but it's a moot point: it's way too visually similar to the normally-used one regardless of the author's intentions. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or rename to something like WP:InclAR. It would be too easy for someone to accidentally include a period in their link to the well known policyWP:IAR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The only bad faith in this thread is Mogism admitting his or her inabilities, and therefor choosing to label and action as bad faith. Unfortunately when you hide behind your ignorance to veil an attack you deliberately poke the one you attacked, with a challenging dare. I know it would be better of me to absorb the attack and not retaliate; in the interest of civil discourse and non-escalation. However, since the underling theme of my efforts deliberately contrast WP:IAR, I will instead ignore the wisdom within the rules, skip all forms of fish-slapping, and go straight to the "fuck you" and "kiss my ass" forms of reply. Better yet, I'll leave it to your narrow imagination to ponder what I might have said, had I said what your comment means to me. As far as what to do about the redirect, I'm so fucking disgusted with Mogism's asinine regards, I don't even feel like commenting at all. I trust the community will reach a proper decision without further input from me. Regards, 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete You don't have to assume bad faith to recognize that this redirect is misleading. --BDD (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and also delete IAR.? I've userfied the target anyways to User:My76Strat/Incorporate all rules and User:My76Strat/What "Incorporate all rules" means. IAR.? is difficult to reach if typed by hand as part of a URL. The shortcut name is POV about IAR, a core policy based on the WP:Five pillars. The essays advocate something which is a logical impossibility except for eidetics and savants: it is therefore elitist and anti-"anyone" - a core WP concept. The word "rules" is explicitly disavowed by WP:Five pillars - Ignore all rules agrees with and amplifies that deprecation. However, "Incorporate all rules" serves to amplify their application as rules which is directly counter to pillar and policy. --Lexein (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 to avoid that it points to the father of a different subject until somonee gets around to write the article on the artist. Tikiwont (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Henry Sands → Julian Sands (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Unnecessary; and to make way for an article on the artist of that name, linked from Norman Neasom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with the o.p. - Henry Sands is the subject's son, not the subject, and there's no realistic chance that someone searching for the son will be looking for the father. Mogism (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Just make the article - you don't need to erase the redirect to create the article, just click edit and start typing (but the redirect for discussion notice does need to stay until this discussion is done). Ego White Tray (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.