Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tproxy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete/redirect. — Scientizzle 15:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tproxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I redirected this to Proxy server, but the author reverted me, however I feel this article is pointless as we already have an article on proxies. The redirect is not obvious anyway, it might as well be deletedJackaranga (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Jackaranga (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no evidence of RS coverage and ghits don't assert notability to re-write the article into something encyclopedic. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, It may have found a place in Wiktionary, but usage isn't common enough. 9Nak (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as redirect - this is actually widely used in industry - but I can't see it needing its own article - David Gerard (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, is there any way then to keep the creator from reverting that, which is the original issue? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's a problem, the redirect could be protected just like any other page. bd2412 T 19:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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 (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.