Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 10

August 10

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 10, 2015.

User:Btphelps/Sandbox/Walter E. Lauer

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 speedied. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Btphelps/Sandbox/Walter E. Lauer → Wikipedia:Walter E. Lauer  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

housekeeping -- article moved to mainspace — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 22:46, 10 August 2015 (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.

Ledger stone

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. --BDD (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this is actually a type of building material for homes and fireplaces, but I am unable to find a suitable retargetting option. Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete to encourage article creation --Lenticel (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. --Rubbish computer 12:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. From what I can tell this is a particular cut of stone rather than a particular kind of stone, but I can't find a good target for it either. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As a particular type of cut stone used in building, this looks like it needs to be specifically linked to some certain article's section (no idea myself, but it's not related with tombstones). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a flat stone monument, usually with inscription and often heraldic decoration, over an internal grave. The correct redirect is Funerary art. See definition 2 at http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ledger Verica Atrebatum (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2015 (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.

Chipkali

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 no consensus, default to keep. The main debate here is whether "chipkali" has been assimilated into Indian / Pakistani English, or just a Hindi / Urdu word. There is no consensus on this matter so I'm closing as "default to keep" for now. Deryck C. 09:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chipkali → Lizard  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Lizards are not exclusive to the Hindi language. (WP:FORRED.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: as plausible search term. Sorry, but I don't follow the rationale for deletion. Google leads me to believe that people in some places might know these animals by the Hindi name "chipkali" and search for them as such. (Re-target to a more specific article, e.g. Gecko, might make sense, but I couldn't say which that would be.) – Wdchk (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC) – updated 01:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:FORRED. I added the link to this essay to my rationale. Steel1943 (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I have updated my opinion to "Weak keep", but still not "Delete", just because I have the feeling (and honestly I don't know) that this may be a case where a foreign term has been assimilated into a dialect of English. However, if the consensus is that it's a purely foreign term, fair enough, WP:FORRED applies. – Wdchk (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, wonder if it is a true loanword, especially given Si Trew's comment below. If there is decent proof that it is a loanword, then it's worth keeping. If not, then it's not. Steel1943 (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Rubbish computer 00:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. General topic with no particular affinity for any language -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. My search for "my chipkali", "his chipkali"and "her chipkali" brings up results that make clear it is also used as a term of endearment for a beau(x), "my darling", "my pet". It looks like it is Urdu (here at hamariweb.com/dictionaries; "چھپکلی") as well as Hindi (here at mymemory.translated.net). However, those definitions don't give this secondary meaning.
It's also the nickname of a character, Aurora, in one of Salman Rushdie's books, who would "strive to be an invisible onlooker to the subject of her paintings, just like a 'lizard on the wall'." – a quote that makes that sense clear. But I haven't pinned that down yet beyond the quotes in biographies; I'm not familiar with Rushdie's work. (And somehow we would have to route it to the more natural fly on the wall.)
I'm inclined, with User:Wdchk, to keep it, as it does seem to be being assimilated into Indian English or at least Pakistani English, but none of the major online dictionaries have it yet. It would be better off at Wiktionary, but I doubt that will happen any time soon, and I'm not competent to draft an entry there. Si Trew (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term, no rationale presented for deletion. WilyD 13:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A search term for what? Lizards? Geckos? An Urdu term of endearment? A Salman Rushdie character? How did you come to this determination? --BDD (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as well per Si Trew and Wdchk. If there is some evidence (I consider Si's work to qualify for this purpose) that the word is entering Indian English, then it works under WP:RFOREIGN. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think it's been demonstrated that this has become a loanword for lizards in English. Maybe there's a case for disambiguation, but otherwise it's likely to WP:ASTONISH readers. --BDD (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2015 (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.

Is God real?

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 Existence of God and delete, respectively. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is God real? → God  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:NOTFAQ.

  • What is God → God  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:NOTFAQ, and we're not Jeopardy.

*WhatIsGod → God  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  [Withrdraw one see WP:POFRED "Old-style CamelCase links (if already in existence)". Now identified as that on the redirect page]

WP:NOTFAQ and WP:RFD#D8. Especially improbable because "is" is capitalized.

—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WhatIsGod, it is a {{R from CamelCase}} (although not tagged) and we normally keep those. Delete the rest per nom. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WhatIsGod, per Ivanvector. I wasn't sure whether that was an old CamelCase redirect (I wouldn't keep newly-created ones) but in a blinding flash of inspiration I checked the history to find it was created back in 2002. Without prejudice, I've tagged it as {{R from CamelCase}}. Delete the others. Si Trew (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But is the camelcase redirect even valid? ie, if it wasn't camelcased, would it be an acceptable redirect? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the relevant guidelines at this time, my opinion would be that it wouldn't be. At the time this was created however, it may have been acceptable.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Is God Real? per Just Chillin to Existence of God, which is the topic on hand. Keep - What is God to God, as What is God refers to more than mere existence. As no argument has been advanced for deletion, I cannot comment on why some editors would !vote for deletion for seemingly no reason at all. WilyD 09:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Is God real? to Existence of God per Just Chilling: the article examines the question of the real-ness of God in a balanced discussion. Delete What is God (repeated !vote) per the rationale I gave earlier; respectfully, WilyD's insistence that I did not give one is pointy and insulting to Godsy, to me, and to the others who have given clear rationale for their arguments here. If you'd like to argue that the deletion arguments stated are weak or not valid then please do so, rather than simply stating that none were given when they clearly have been. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't address deletion rationales if none are provided. With respect to unrelated states/non sequitors, nothing can be said except "These are not rationales for deletion, they're unrelated statements". One can't respond to reasoning that doesn't exist. WilyD 15:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Is God real? to Existence of God, since it's referring specifically to God's existence (rather than God in general), neutral on What is God. SONIC678|Hang out with me! 18:06, 11 August 2015 (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.

Z word

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. --BDD (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A trope in horror/fantasy movies which feature obviously common monsters but go to great lengths to not call them what they are is supposedly originated by Shaun of the Dead, but that bit of trivia is not featured in the film's article, and obviously was known prior to this movie since Shaun referenced it as meta-humour. "The Z word" in this case means zombie, and the usage is apparently well-known enough that it wouldn't be harmful to point this there. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2015 (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.

Ghulam Ahmad Qadyani

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. Although the IP raises good points that may be worth considering later, almost a month later we're still here. Given the lack of use of these redirects, I find consensus to delete. --BDD (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ghulam Ahmad Qadyani → Mirza Ghulam Ahmad  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani → Mirza Ghulam Ahmad  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as useless and derogatory (see Qadiani; using actual name without the non-neutral word gets to same target), created by hit'n'run editor years ago as part of a pile of weird POVish redirects. DMacks (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've combined these nominations, since the rationale and target is the same for each. Please let me know if you think they should be discussed separately. --BDD (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nominator. Oddly Hazrat is an honorific; using an honorific and a religious slur in the same redirect is just weird; the first one is also misspelled. Our Qadiani article says that the word is used in official Pakistani documents, so on one hand there might be a case for keeping the redirect on those grounds, but on the other hand we wouldn't keep a redirect like Anne Frank Jew. These should go. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-There are not redirects from, for example, African American Barack Obama or British David Cameron. Rubbish computer 15:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that analogy works. Qadiani is not a racial/nationality descriptor, but the name of the town where he's from. That's called a nisbat and they're quite common in names in Muslim cultures. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (unlike other members of the religious community to whom "Qadiani" is sometimes applied) actually comes from Qadian. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly retarget The fact that Qadiani is used in Pakistani government documents in general terms wouldn't be justification for keeping a redirect to a random member of this religious community (the analogous toponym-based slur "Romish" has been used in U.S. government documents to refer to Catholics [1], but that wouldn't support retention of a hypothetical John Kennedy the Romish redirect).
However, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani specifically (and possibly other alternative spellings) is a potential search term, even if insulting; see e.g. this passport application form on the website of the Pakistani Embassy in Sweden. Someone who came across that would likely try to look it up in Wikipedia to figure it out. It might be better to retarget the insulting term to somewhere that the controversy is specifically discussed; there was previously a mention of it on Pakistani passport, but was deleted in 2011. I might re-add it if I can find better WP:RS. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And after further thought, I'm not convinced "Qadiani" is properly regarded as a slur at all, Wikipedia's article notwithstanding (the source only says the name "carries overtones of contempt"). Foreign South Asian studies experts like Christophe Jaffrelot use "Qadiani" in academic works [2]. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2015 (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.

X word

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. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • X word → MDMA  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Ecstasy is a common name for MDMA, shortened to X, but I'm not aware of ever having heard someone going to a party to get "high on some X word". I mean, if that guy's not a narc, who is? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2015 (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.

T word

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 24#T word

Q word

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 24#Q word

H-word

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. --BDD (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • H-word → Swear  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Hell. Formerly targeted whore (awfully), then retargeted to swearing, and once to hooker. Should be consistent with H word, which targets Hell and is a better target for both. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget while someone could use hell as a sware word a person typing in this term is more likely to want to know what the H word is than looking up swaring in general..--174.91.187.234 (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hell per above. --Rubbish computer 12:41, 11 August 2015 (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.

D word

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. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • D word → Damnation  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Current target doesn't seem to be a notable usage. Suggest retarget to The D-Word. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2015 (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.

E word

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. --BDD (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • E word → Evolution  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not finding any references to reliable sources citing this as a commonly-used "nickname" for this term. Otherwise, the term is quite ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, probably, since there don't seem to be any notable uses of "E word" to refer to anything. For comparison, we have B word and F word as dabs, S-word and R-word index as redirects to specific topics, and A word which bluntly goes to word (as in, "this is a word"). From googling I've found that this can also refer to ebonics, education, sexual promiscuity (being "easy"), and even euphemisms themselves, but none of these uses are notable. Maybe retarget to William Safire, who predicted in the 1980s that we would run out of letter shortcuts to assign to euphemisms, get confused, and stop doing it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This could refer to any number of things, as per what was stated above, and going to the evolution page seems like a big leap. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - See no point in this redirect in my opinion, never heard E-word before and evolution is not a bad word. --189.106.231.36 (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this appears to be extremely obscure at best. --Rubbish computer 12:45, 11 August 2015 (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.

Animal Evolution

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 Evolution. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not specifically defined in target article, and seems like a good candidate for WP:REDLINK. (Note: Metazoan Evolution included here since the former word in the term is synonymous with "animal".) Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Evolution. While the article isn't organized by kingdoms or anything, there's extensive discussion of evolution in animals. Moreover, I can see a reader using "Animal Evolution" as a natural disambiguator if he or she was expecting "Evolution" to be disambiguated. (I don't think "Metazoan Evolution" is really a plausible search term at all—I had never heard of "metazoa" before. But it's indeed the same meaning.) --BDD (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Keep as second choice. There seems no sense in deleting this. --BDD (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2015 (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.

How Rockets Work

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. --BDD (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How Rockets Work → Rocket  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTFAQ, and the fact that the title gives the reader the false expectation that their destination is solely about the subject of the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - covered at target. Could be targeted to Rocket#Physics to eliminate the concern that readers might think the destination was solely about their target, but that standard is not ever applied anywhere, so applying it to one random redirect would be utterly bizarre. Invocation of NOTFAQ seems to be in error, since it says nothing relevant to this redirect. I would suggest the nominator read it before suggesting otherwise. WilyD 09:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. --Rubbish computer 12:47, 11 August 2015 (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.

Flysheet

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 keep. --BDD (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flysheet → Fly sheet  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete This is not what it means to me, it means an ad paper coming through your letterbox. Cf. Fly tipping → Illegal dumping. Target is DAB and that's fne, the R is a bit queer. Fly-sheet is red.

Or we should add something about papers stuck in your letterbox at the DAB, I think, which is probably the best. But I could do with some help finding a decent targetfor the entry at the DAB. Mass mailing is no good, Personal delivery neither, nor direct advertising → Direct marketing. Mailbombing is red. Si Trew (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if necessary to disambiguate, might just as well keep the entries all in one list. Si, I think you're looking for Flyer (pamphlet) which is oddly disambiguated as well. Leaflet distribution targets there, while Leaflet drop targets Airborne leaflet propaganda. These all might work as new dab entries, if these are known as fly sheets where you're from (I have never heard that usage personally). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and note that the redirect goes to a dab page, fly sheet that now includes flyer and such. I agree per Ivanvector that I think of "flyer" as the thing that comes in the mail, and forgot the UK angle. Montanabw(talk) 21:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The target is a disambiguation page, so just add links to articles for missing topics. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if anything else needs to be added to the disambig, BE BOLD!. But it's a plausible search term & typo, so a metaphorical "fuck off" isn't what we should give the readers. WilyD 09:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this appears to be a plausible misspelling. --Rubbish computer 12:49, 11 August 2015 (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.

U.S.-centric hypotheses about Nazi gun regulation

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. --BDD (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • U.S.-centric hypotheses about Nazi gun regulation → Nazi gun control theory  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:R#8. Unlikely search term and synonym. Only one link in the Wikipedia namespace. Appears to have no page view traffic to speak of. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - several soapboxing rants deleted An unlikely search term, and at the outset seems unnecessarily POV. However, "Nazi gun control" is a counterfactual history thought exercise put forward by U.S. Second Amendment activists who posit that the only thing preventing another genocide like the Holocaust is allowing citizens free and unrestricted access to firearms, despite being the only country on the planet to do so. So, "U.S.-centric" is quite appropriate. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep: I can't imaging someone using this as a search phrase, but it is a very US-centric theory. Montanabw(talk) 21:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since the article doesn't mention any "U.S.-centric hypotheses"—or even uses that terminology. At best, it's an implausible search term and at worst it's WP:POV-pushing. Either way, I don't see much use in keeping it. -- Tavix (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this does not appear to ne at its target. --Rubbish computer 12:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have a hard time picturing anyone using this string of words as a way to search for the topic. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2015 (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.

Respect for the dead

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 Veneration of the dead. --BDD (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respect for the dead → Thanatology  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems misleading, given that the target is the study of the dead. Steel1943 (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2015 (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.

Athletics in upstate New York (WP:TITLE)

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. --BDD (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:R#D2, WP:R#D5, and almost in the spirit of WP:R#D6. Makes no sense. Improper disambiguation and something not mentioned at the target. Almost makes it seems as if this is in the Wikipedia namespace which it is not. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible synonym due to the weird wiki markup at the end. --Lenticel (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Obvious typo. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What a weird disambiguator. Steel1943 (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (WP:Deletion policy) per what is this? Unless there's a very notable subculture of upstate New York athletes who are major contributors or critics of Wikipedia's article titles policy, I don't think this will ever have a valid target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't to make sense to me either... CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 12:54, 11 August 2015 (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.

Heritage Polytechnic, Eket, Akwa Ibom State.

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. --BDD (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heritage Polytechnic, Eket, Akwa Ibom State. → Heritage Polytechnic  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Article titles are not sentences. Leftover after a move to a more suitable title. WP:TITLE. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - less than 24hrs old, doesn't need to be a {{R from page move}}. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term. No rationale has been presented for deletion, nor can I imagine any. Doesn't seem like it could be ambiguous. WilyD 09:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @WilyD: You may not agree with my rationale; but to say "no rationale presented for deletion" is incorrect. I gave a "set of reasons or a logical basis for a course of action or a particular belief", which is what a "rationale" is. I didn't just simply state "delete". Respectfully,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 10:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 12:55, 11 August 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_10&oldid=1076197591"