The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Gogo Dodo. --- RockMFR 04:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful, just a not-very-funny joke. Dvmlny 23:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete racist non-joke. Corvus cornix 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted by King of Hearts (db-author). -- JLaTondre 22:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced User Page OverlordQ 20:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Coredesat 09:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "post-modern marriage". I do not know how a redirect came out of the AFD for a WP:POVFORK (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriage (post modern)), but this redirect is used by no-one and is only a remnant of a POV squabble. Delete. — coelacan talk — 01:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: mistake in proper closing of an VfD: [1]. Pavel Vozenilek 03:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing significant links to it and I doubt it's ever going to be used as search term.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 05:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Chances of this being typed into the search box are very slim.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 17:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if any content was merged (GFDL!), otherwise delete. I can't be bothered to make sure that nothing was merged into Marriage. If there is any doubt, keep it. --- RockMFR 22:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All content in Marriage (post modern) was from Marriage originally so no GFDL issues. No one will search for Marriage (post modern). WjBscribe 17:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per WjB -- Qarnos 10:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per above, and nothing significant about it. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 10:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Coredesat 09:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this redirect is the name of a parody song which appeared in a single episode (Good Times with Weapons) of South Park. It is completely non notable and can only be considered fan-cruft. Qarnos 03:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, reasonable search term. >Radiant< 12:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, redirects help prevent spurious articles creeping up, and the target is entirely reasonable. It's not as if the article title is getting in the way of something encyclopedic... -- nae'blis 16:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I do not understand the rationale of this RfD at all. JuJube 07:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I listed this because I believed it was fancruft - the tenancy of fans of a particular subject (notably, TV shows) to redirect every conceivable search term to the article. Looks like everyone disagrees with me, but that's life! -- Qarnos 10:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems a like a search term that is likely to be used and I can't think of any other target for the redirect. WjBscribe 07:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Coredesat 09:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is in Hexspeak, that could be seen as vandalism. --BlakeCS 08:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is in an older version of the article, according to the mirror at answers.com, but not any more. I don't think this is worthy of a redirect even if it was in the article. -- Qarnos 08:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This seems to be a randmom set of numbers made into a redirect as far as my understanding goes.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 17:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems to spell "I sit a big bitch" to me, but that's so nonsensical as to be pointless - I don't think I've ever come across this number in use, and it isn't mentioned in the article, so delete it anyway. JulesH 18:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  More likely "is it". Gene Nygaard 12:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pointless. Also recommending deleting 0B17Ch, 1517ADEADB17CH, and $EA7. --- RockMFR 22:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm with RockMFR. If we decide to keep this, we could end up with about every combination possible. Blech. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete along with the others mentioned by RockMFR. WjBscribe 07:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not "hexspeak" at all, because it contains an "h". Also delete the redirects identified by RockMFR, as well as any other similar ones that anyone finds – Qxz 19:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Bearcat 20:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive. Dave6 talk, 09:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's never been formally adopted as standard WP policy, but I believe it's at least unofficially accepted on Wikipedia that offensive and/or inappropriate titles like this can be speedied. Consequently, I've invoked administrator privilege to kill this one on sight. Bearcat 09:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was everything speedy deleted by various admins. --- RockMFR 22:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one will ever type in "David Carroll, accused of murder" for a search term. Otto4711 09:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, per nom. -- Qarnos 10:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the David Carroll disambiguation page points here. Rosemary Amey 16:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Delete, replaced by {{dablink}} at David Carroll. Rosemary Amey 19:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The disambig only points there because you undid the work I did changing it. Otto4711 18:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The David Carroll page points to David Carroll (accused of murder), not to the nominated redirect. Gavia immer 17:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I should have mentioned I moved the article from David Carroll, accused of murder to David Carroll (accused of murder) when a user informed me that parentheses are the conventional format. Rosemary Amey 18:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I note that David Carroll (accused of murder) has a 'being considered for deletion' template applied, but there isn't a section for it yet. I guess it should be added here. JulesH 18:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not sure what's happened here, there seem to have been a number of odd page moves, but the page history for the page which is currently at David Carroll (but which is not a disambiguation page) seems to have been separated from its original page, which is at David Carroll (arranger, conductor, musical director). Can somebody please delete the current David Carroll page, so that the old history can be moved back to that location. JulesH 18:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the correct way of handling this would be with a {{dablink}} at the top of David Carroll that states that the other David Carroll is discussed at Marcus Fiesel. There's no need to create a new page just to redirect there. JulesH 18:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JulesH, I've added a {{dablink}} to David Carroll. Rosemary Amey 18:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, leaving the protected redirect. --Coredesat 09:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it's clear that there shouldn't be an article on the topic, it's difficult to see why it should exist as a redirect either, and why it should redirect to this article (which, for obvious reasons, doesn't contain the word "wikilobbying", or even "Wikipedia"). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or perhaps redirect elsewhere. This is one of dozens of page titles created in response to a comedy bit from The Colbert Report (and promptly deleted and protected against re-creation). The key distinction is that this is the exact word (as spelled on-screen) used by Colbert, and it's received a great deal of attention (and therefore is a likely search term). I feel that it's highly preferable to display a relevant article of some sort than to display a deleted page notice when people inevitably attempt to re-create this.
  Other options include redirecting to List of The Colbert Report episodes (2007) (which contains a brief mention of the actual comedy bit in question) or adding an entry to Wikipedia in popular culture and redirecting to there (as we've done with Wikiality, the subject of Colbert's previous Wikipedia-related comedy bit).
  In any event, an identical protected redirect exists for Wikilobby, so whatever is decided for Wikilobbying also should apply to that. —David Levy 15:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I can see that. The trouble is that, unless you know all this, the redirect is bewildering, given that there's no mention of the term on the Colbert Report page. Wikipedia in popular culture looks like a more appropriate target, except that it too has no mention. If something could be added to it, I'd support a change of target. As it stands though, the whole thing is a bit odd; someone searching for "Wikilobbying" doesn't get the truth (that we don't actually mention it anywhere), but an obscure pretence. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, we would have to add an entry to Wikipedia in popular culture, but List of The Colbert Report episodes (2007) already contains a brief description of the "wikilobbying" comedy segment (which, as far as I know, is the origin of the term). —David Levy 02:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then changing the target to List of The Colbert Report episodes (2007) sounds fine. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I've done that for the time being. —David Levy 15:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I just came to this page because i watched the Colbert piece for the first time, if it wasn't there i would've wanted to know why. The redirect is essential. --Kejoxen 22:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the previous comment; given that "Wikilobbying" isn't mentioned in the target article, wouldn't you feel completely bewildered, as though you'd been the victim of a hoax? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would take more than that to 'completely bewilder' me, obviously the lack of a section on the wikilobbying incident on the Colbert page is an oversight but deleting the redirect is not the solution to that problem. if you remove the redirect you're only going to get people trying to recreate the article then getting pissy when they cant. Kejoxen 22:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or at the minimum, protect. There was a great deal of vandalism going on with this topic just a few days ago. The word is a neologism, so my first suggestion of delete is due to the fact that it was Something Made Up on Television One Day. Corvus cornix 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read my initial reply? This title came about because of that vandalism, and it is protected. The "neologism" argument is invalid, as this is a reference to an internationally televised comedy segment, not an attempt to add a new phrase to the public lexicon. —David Levy 02:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no such thing as an invalid argument, only those you disagree with. Corvus cornix 03:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no such thing as an invalid argument? —David Levy 03:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to WP:NOT or WP:SOAP. "Wikilobbying", if such thing really exists outside of the Colbert world, is a practice that is frowned upon by the Wikipedia community. Although it is a neologism, it is one that is unique to Wikipedia and should be noted as an act NOT to do on Wikipedia. -- Emana 01:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing NOT to do on Wikipedia is to redirect users searching for articles to pages in the project namespace. —David Levy 02:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neither Wikilobbying should definitely have it's own article. I know I can write 3-4 paragraphs of factual info on it. Go to the talk page of the Colbert Report. I make a very strong case for it.
  • Do you have multiple reliable sources for it? Corvus cornix 20:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to article. It's a real topic, and the term is cromulent. This isn't the same as vandalism to the Elephant page. Such an article is inherently self referential, but the topic exists to the world beyond Wikipedia.— Randall Bart 21:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, do you have multiple reliable sources for that claim? Corvus cornix 23:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the Deletion Review discussion which endorsed the original deletion and definitively concluded that this has no current existence outside the show and only trivial mention inside it. There are no sources supporting an actual article about this topic. Given the DRV decision, I think that in this case a {{deletedpage}} template is better than the redirect. Rossami (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I strongly agree that we shouldn't have a "wikilobbying" article, I see no valid reason not to retain a protected redirect to an existing article with relevance. In the DRV discussion, List of neologisms on The Colbert Report (which I didn't realize existed) was suggested, and is seems perfect; the term "wikilobbying" is covered in the article. —David Levy 06:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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