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. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Poop machine → Infant

Nonsensical redirect. Delete it. Voortle (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lolz, but still an implausible redirect.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:09, 27 June 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. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Koletsou School of English → Drama, Greece (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: /delete ] 

• Delete No info about the topic in the target article and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koletsou School of English. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The deleted article was a blatant ad for a nondescript run-of-the-mill English language cram school. There is no reason why it should be accorded a redirect or even mentioned in the parent article. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 26 June 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 retarget to Economy of the United Kingdom. As a normal editorial action I will add a hatnote to United Kingdom company law. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• UK plc → Public limited company (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: /delete ] 

Also GB plc. I think people typing this in are more likely to be looking for the meaning given at Wiktionary and used quite frequently in UK news media, but about which we don't have an article (soft redirect?). There's also @UK plc, where this briefly pointed; and I think the current target has its merits too. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So it's an informal nickname for the private sector of the United Kingdom, correct? If so, would Economy of the United Kingdom or one of it's drill-down pages be a better target? Neither of those pages currently has any inbound links (though they're old enough to make me think they've been orphaned rather than unused), so we don't have many clues for what readers are expecting when they follow the link. The current target gave enough context that I could figure out the meaning but the wiktionary page was more explicit - either seems reasonable. @UK plc seems unlikely, though. Rossami (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Of the possible targets redirecting to Economy of the United Kingdom most closely reflects the normal usage of this phrase: it means the private sector, entrepreneurship, or business in some loose sense[1][2][3]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to United Kingdom company law, since that would cover the legal elements that define what a plc is in the UK, as opposed to other public limited liability corporations in other countries. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:29, 27 June 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. Ruslik_Zero 16:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WYGIWYGAINUC → WYSIWYG (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: /delete ] 

Although these abbreviations are ostensibly equivalent, as redirecting one to the other would indicate, I can find no sources for what the longer abbreviation stands for, and the article that is redirected to never mentions it. Possible hoax. Specs112 t c 15:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• According to Acronym Finder, WYGIWYGAINUC stands for "What You Get Is What You're Given and It's No Use Complaining". It was a pejorative play on WYSIWYG, though not an especially notable one that I can tell. The redirect is not especially harmful and has been around since 2005. Nevertheless, I'm not sure the redirect is the most helpful we can be to readers. Wiktionary accepts acronym entries. Transwiki to Wiktionary (in cleaned up format), then turn this redirect into a soft-redirect using {{wi}}. Rossami (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WYGIWYGAINUC doesn't seem to have much to do with WYSIWYG and the page gets only negligible views, so there's no obvious benefit in keeping (the reader doesn't find out what it stands for, much less any encyclopaedic information) and no significant harm in deleting. But if Wiktionary wants it (and would they? I know the criteria for neologisms is looser there, but there must be some sort of limit?) then a soft redirect would also work. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Criteria for inclusion is, basically, evidence of use (not just a mention) in durably archived sources. I'm not presently able to check for this, but if uses do exist then soft-redirect seems the best course of action. 82.132.211.178 (talk) 01:18, 27 June 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.