Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 December 12: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Signing comment by Kameejl - "Adding User:Emmaneul."
Line 3: Line 3:
<noinclude>This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on December 12, 2007</noinclude>
<noinclude>This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on December 12, 2007</noinclude>
<!-- Add new entries directly below this line -->
<!-- Add new entries directly below this line -->
====[[Quad damage]] → [[Quake (series)]]====
overly generic redirect name to a specific usage [[Special:Contributions/132.205.99.122|132.205.99.122]] ([[User talk:132.205.99.122|talk]]) 21:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
====[[Gwladgold]] → [[Gwlad]]====
====[[Gwladgold]] → [[Gwlad]]====
Gwladgold is unrelated to Gwlad – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 09:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Gwladgold is unrelated to Gwlad – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 09:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:14, 12 December 2007

December 12

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on December 12, 2007

Quad damageQuake (series)

overly generic redirect name to a specific usage 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GwladgoldGwlad

Gwladgold is unrelated to Gwlad – PeeJay 09:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment and Delete Personally I feel this falls under csd-r3 "It is a recently-created redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).". Although not created as a redirect, that is essentially what it became as it simply recreated the entire content of Gwlad. Since being changed to a redirect, it should just be killed quickly.Nouse4aname (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that it's unrelated. I can't find any evidence that this particular title exists at all outside the Wikipedia pagehistory. But I also can't find anything else that this would apply to. If it exists, the redirect would seem appropriate. Either way, the page definitely does not apply for speedy-deletion under R3. You can say many things about this as a fork or other action but I don't see any way to credibly call this a typo, implausible or otherwise. Rossami (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:EmmaneulUser:Kameejl

Delete for privacy reasons —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kameejl (talkcontribs) 18:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]