Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 April 24

The naming of the page (disambig) is not any more accepted (disambiguation is used instead), and, it never was an appropriate disambiguation page. Looking at this diff will show that, it used to be a page with a list of names (no links to articles) and then changed to a disambiguation page with only one link in it (which was why some tried to delete it through Speedy Deletion, but the process was stopped.) I believe it is not necessary and should be deleted.huji—TALK 10:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no one would ever type that in or unintentionally link to it ALTON .ıl 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I must disagree with Alton.--Simul8 11:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you be more specific? 64.178.96.168 18:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Alton. No need for disambig page that is just a redirect (worse, it should be disambiguation). 64.178.96.168 18:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect serves no useful purpose, as there are three other redirects to the target page. Also, no one would ever type in that searching for something, as it is just a cultural reference. The only reason a person would use that would be because they already knew the redirect existed; redirects are supposed to be used when an alternative title exists, and helps the user navigate, and this would not fill that purpose. Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 00:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't get it. JuJube 01:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep even though I don't really get it either, it's used in a few places, which suggests that maybe someone finds it useful—who's to say why a particular mnemonic sticks in a particular brain? It was apparently created as a joke—while investigating its uses, I found the history behind its creation here (you'll probably have to scroll down a bit, as it appears towards the end of the section). I suppose that if it's deleted, there's an argument for moving it to BJAODN. Anyway, bottom line, redirects are cheap enough that I'm not seeing a compelling reason to delete. Though I won't shed a tear if it goes. Xtifr _tälk 09:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of usefulness. Plus, would it be better served redirecting to don't be a dick? :D--Wizardman 23:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The reason behind creating this redirect (which is described here) is not satisfactory.huji—TALK 18:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:BJAODN candidate. Read reasoning supplied by User:Wizardman and suggest not worrying about pointy sticks and sticking with fresh fruit. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]