Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 16,
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 00:25 (UTC)
[edit] February 16,
Originally created as a misdirected link due to the fact that someone put a comma in the two square brackets hence creating a link to this very misnamed page. Besides the fact that it serves no purpose as February 16 already exists, I don't know what to do with the information. It doesn't really seem important enough to justify putting it on the February 16 article in my opinion so I say just delete it Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:50, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Wouldn't be a useful redirect, delete. --W(t) 04:52, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
- Redirect to February 16, as a useful article is unlikely ever to come out of it. Could be useful if someone makes a typo. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 06:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not important enough to merge with February 16, and not a useful enough redirect (such typo redirects are speedy deleted all the time). — Ливай | ☺ 06:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not a common misspelling. - Mgm|(talk) 08:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - per Weyes. --FCYTravis 08:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per Weyes. JamesBurns 10:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, this is not a common misspelling by virtue of not being a misspelling. -Splash 16:21, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect --Tothebarricades 00:47, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, NO redirect. I'm a fan of redirects for many things, but not random punctuation. Xoloz 03:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
