Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 11, 2015.

Terror (emotion)[edit]

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) 19:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be better at Horror and terror but I am uncertain about this. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:44, 11 February 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.

Scared shitless[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 23#Scared shitless

🕷[edit]

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. This seems to be the emerging consensus for such Unicode symbols. Besides the discussion Gorobay linked to, there was also that for the snowman symbol even more recently. --BDD (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...that is to say, in every operating system that supports the Unicode Supplementary Multilingual Plane and has fonts including this Emoji/Pictograph. Si Trew (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Gorobay. On the other hand, it could also be used to redirect to a unicode page that describes the characters, if such a page exists (if not, then the redirect to spider is the best choice if the redirect is to exist). -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The relevant unicode block is Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs, and almost all the characters in that table go to the depicted subject, e.g. 👩 → Woman, 🐪 → Dromedary, 🔧 → Wrench, 💤 → Sleep. If we want to change that, we should do so as part of a general discussion about rather than picking them off individually. I do note though that the U+1F57x block is not linked in that table (none of the characters in that row are in my font set so I can't easily tell where they should go). Thryduulf (talk) 22:05, 12 February 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.

Afro-Asian Bloc[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 18#Afro-Asian Bloc

Jusik hoesa[edit]

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) 19:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vague. Seems to have something to do with Korea. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTDICT, Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. further the topic has no particular affinity for Korean. If we have a corporation article for Korea specifically, maybe retarget to it. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per 70.50. Si Trew (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 01:34, 13 February 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.

Chusik hoesa[edit]

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. Indeed, this might be worth its own article at some point; compare to Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung. --BDD (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vague. Seems to have something to do with Korea. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage article creation. It seems to be the Korean counterpart to the American corporation. However, there might be some notable differences between the two. --Lenticel (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDICT, Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. further the topic has no particular affinity for Korean. If we have a corporation article for Korea specifically, maybe retarget to it. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:45, 12 February 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.

Publicly quoted companies[edit]

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 Public company. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A company being publicly quoted does not make it a corporation. Also just implausible. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:01, 11 February 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.

Secular-progressive[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 18#Secular-progressive

Munificence[edit]

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 Generosity. No prejudice against a new discussion for Liberality. While it does mean generosity, there's definitely some potential for confusion, and its redirect was added after most editors had already put their say in. --BDD (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible WP:SURPRISE. Though merriam-web does say: " characterized by great liberality or generosity" as a definition of "munificent". [1] Mr. Guye (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Generosity. Its only use in an article, at Mehmed I, has that as the intended meaning (a king can hardly endow liberalism in its political sense).
Liberality also redirects to Liberalism, and perhaps should be taken together with this nom. Its only use in an article is at Tomás mac Muircheartaigh Ó Ceallaigh, in a quote, where generosity (or altruism) would seem to be the intended meaning. Si Trew (talk) 04:53, 12 February 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.

Criticism of conservatism[edit]

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) 19:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly helpful because there is no specific section in the article to redirect to that discusses specifically about criticism of conservatism. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:50, 11 February 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.

Secular politics[edit]

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 Secularism. --BDD (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly POV. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:31, 11 February 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.

Democratic movements[edit]

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 History of democracy. --BDD (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just does not seem to be accurate. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the decision, I think this, Democratic movement and Democracy movement should redirect to the same target. Si Trew (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I note the only use of Democratic movements in an article is the hatnote in Democracy: ""Democratic movement" redirects here. For politics in general, see Democratic movements. (So it would become circular if thence retargeted, the solution of course being to remove the hatnote.) It's a bit odd, though, to hatnote through a redirect: why not just say "For politics in general, see Politics (duh!)".
It's also used at Talk:Constitution of May 3, 1791/Archive 1, where social movements would probably have been better anyway, but there's not much we can do about that (otherwise we could never change any thing referred to by an archive without its version). Si Trew (talk) 06:58, 15 February 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.

Mosaic faith[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV or possibly non-unique redirect. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Mosaic, as in "of Moses". Ivanvector (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since a simple search on the scholarly Google books proves from multiple WP:RS & WP:V & WP:N works and authors beyond a shadow of a doubt that the term "Mosaic faith" has always predominantly and exclusively referred to Judaism and as the faith of the Jews, thus the redirect is more than valid. The nominator has not specified any real reason or policy beyond a vague sense of WP:IDONTLIKEIT & WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and one gets a feeling that the real intention may perhaps be to set the stage for some historical revisionism because there are some pseudo-scholars who think that the term can be used in any number of very bizarre and whacky contexts none of which is in keeping with the accepted classical usage of this term. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 06:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment add a hatnote for syncretism if this is kept as is, or retarget to that. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't think so. Why would anyone use the word "mosaic" (as in the artistic sense) for a belief system? Please provide evidence that anyone uses the adjective "mosaic" in this context. JFW | T@lk 13:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't provide evidence, only my personal anecdote: I had no idea that Mosaic was an adjectival form of Moses. Before reading far enough into this discussion, something akin to syncretism was what I was imagining the term meant. I'm happy to have learned something today, but as I consider myself a fairly literate person, I think I'm not the only one who would make the same mistake when seeing the term for the first time. LadyofShalott 17:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nor I; I had to google it. Syncretism defines a belief system formed from a patchwork of other religions, which brings to mind an artistic mosaic. However this usage isn't apparent in sources; in fact the reverse is true: "mosaic syncretism" appears commonly in scholarly sources referring specifically to a belief system with Jewish and Christian components. Ivanvector (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a poetic name for Judaism and has no alternative meanings. Currently no arguments provided as to what alternative meanings would need to be addressed. JFW | T@lk 13:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An archaic term that doesn't stand on its own but is an appropriate redirect. Looking through the sources in Google books, as IZAK has done, I'm not seeing any meaningful uses of the term to mean anything other than Judaism, nor does this mainspace search for uses of the term "mosaic faith" turn up anything meaningful other than references to Judaism as the predominant use of the term. Alansohn (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a new term for me, but I have been convinced by the information given by Ivanvector and IZAK. LadyofShalott 17:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Lenticel (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I kinda knew that "Mosaic" was an adjective, but it was refreshing to be reminded, and I agree that not knowing that is not a surefire indicator of stupidity. Si Trew (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IZAK's search demonstrating that the term is used to refer to Judaism, and the absence of a comparable demonstration that the term is used to mean syncretism (as opposed to people thinking it could mean syncretism if you interpreted "mosaic" like the tile thing instead of Moses). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:51, 17 February 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.

Legal stone[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 18#Legal stone

Amon Twyman[edit]

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) 19:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject as mentioned in the redirect's target is not mention in the target's article. Thus, The connection is not clear and possibly misleading since it does not identify the subject of the redirect in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I improved the redirect. Deku-shrub (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Deku-shrub: I see that the target has been changed to Transhumanist politics#Core values, where the subject is mentioned and there is a link to this redirect, but the subject is not really mentioned in detail there to identify the person. However, it does seem that he is somewhat notable. So, I now think that this redirect should be deleted per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I tend to disagree that the person is notable, having not been able to find anything written about him, only by him. However, that might indicate that he's notable within the field of transhumanism, or whatever field that is. Deleting the redirect encourages creation of an article. Ivanvector (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the person is notable, which I doubt, there should be an article--making a redirect or everyone quoted as speaking for an organization is absurd, as absurd as redlining their name. WP remains searchable by google etc. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 12 February 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.

The Dude with the Tude who can ruin your weekend[edit]

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) 18:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While technically correct (although I don't know what a tude is) this seems like an unlikely search term. kelapstick(bainuu) 13:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I believe that "tude" is short for "attitude", actually meaning "bad attitude". Nevertheless, I don't really expect anyone to search for this term. LadyofShalott 18:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment'. dictionary.com has it as "'tude", with the leading apostrophe. As you see, WP doesn't, nor tude (WP:NOTDIC, of course). Si Trew (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as far as I understand scripture, Death is not gendered, has no personality, and has no regard for human time constructions. Ivanvector (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. Besides, Death is a totally swell guy. --Lenticel (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per search engines, this phrase is used to refer to a character by the name of "Mr. Grimm" in the Twisted Metal video game series, but that character is not mentioned there. If mention of that character was added to Twisted Metal, then this could be redirected to the section representing that character, but my guess is that the character is not notable enough to be able to overcome being called a WP:NOTWIKIA violation if added to the article. Steel1943 (talk) 00:54, 12 February 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.

Reading rainbow dude[edit]

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) 18:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. Very funny, but... Can't speedy as it wasn't recently created. Dweller (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete was going to nominate for very much the same reason. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. LeVar Burton was the host of Reading Rainbow for 23 years (1983 - 2006). That could make him the "Reading rainbow dude" for many people who grew up during that time period. Not sure if that warrants a redirect or not. Natg 19 (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, however I can't see someone searching Wikipedia for the host of the show by searching for Reading Rainbow dude rather than simply Reading Rainbow, and what LadyofShalott said as well.--kelapstick(bainuu) 18:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while Burton undoubtedly is the "Reading Rainbow dude", to type that phrase, you must spell out reading rainbow, which gives you an article containing that information and pointing to LeVar Burton. So, while amusing, this redirect is not necessary. LadyofShalott 18:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - longstanding redirect that gets readers where they want to go and is doing no harm. A user typing "reading rainbow" would get to a different article. Ivanvector (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question How many people (are there any at all?) type that phrase? We do have that data, don't we? LadyofShalott 21:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that info is always linked in the header of an Rfd nomination (see "stats" above) as long as the tool is working, which it often isn't. The answer in this case is zero. However we typically don't delete redirects unless there's some good reason to, because redirects are cheap. Ivanvector (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back as far as May of 2014, which is as far as the tool would let me go, the highest number of hits for this redirect was 158 in one month (and as low as 11). The 158 was in May of 2014, highest day was on 29 May with 69. That is not surprising as Burton launched the Kickstarter campaign on 28 May.--kelapstick(bainuu) 14:27, 12 February 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.

King of Antarctica[edit]

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 Antarctica#Politics. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's not the King of Antarctica. DrKiernan (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - misleading redirect and BLP violation. Ivanvector (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A major Norwegian newspaper, Verdens Gang, has explicitly nicknamed him King of Antarctica. As a result, millions are now permanently introduced to this nickname and relate it to him. The visit was also a significant political and historical event, and this nickname has to be seen and understood in the said context, which gives it a special importance. This is the new folkekongen in spe! All this justifies a redirect from King of Antarctica (nickname) to Harald V of Norway (name). If a knowledge-seeking Wikipedia reader is looking for 'King of Antarctica', he/she will be guided to His Majesty's biography and learn that Harald was the first monarch being present there, that he has this nickname etc. No More 18 (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, this redirect specifically implies that he is the King of Antarctica; he is not, and there is no such ruler. If this incident was notable enough to be included either in King Harald's article or in the article on the Norwegian tabloid, then we could retarget there, but it is not. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Ivanvector (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete patently false information does not merit an assumption of good faith. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Antarctica#Politics which explains that it has no political leader, king or otherwise (although Norway is the only country with a terratorial claim in the Antarctic to currently have a King). If the nickname were mentioned on Harald V's article then I'd suggest retargetting it to the relevant section, but as it isn't there is no non-misleading way to point it there. Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Trhryduulf or Delete as there is no king -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryddulf is probably better. I have "speedy" retargeted the redirect to deal with the BLP issue but this thread can stay open. Ivanvector (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate with some or all of:
  • King Range (Antarctica), named by US-ACAN for Cdr. James P. King, USN, staff meteorological officer on Deep Freeze operations, 1962-64. (There is a DAB at King Range, these words I scraped from the article not that DAB)
  • King Peak (Antarctica), named for Clarence King, the first director of the USGS, 1879–81. (There is a DAB at King Peak, these words I scraped from the article not that DAB)
Unfortunately, King's association with Antarctica is not mentioned in his bio – perhaps it should be. RS here:
  • "Geographic Names: King Peak, Australia". geographic.org. Bethesda, Maryland, United States. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Named for Clarence King, the first director of the U.S. Geological Survey, 1879-81
I know there are too many blue links there: for your convenience. This 2015 claim by Norway could be considered under WP:NOTNEWS, but I agree that if it's mentioned frequently in the Norwegian or international press then it would be imprudent to "suppress" it. Unfortunately my brief search for news outside of Norway doesn't turn up much. Si Trew (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any of them as good entries on a dab for the phrase "King of Antarctica" ("King, Antarctica" would catch a couple but not all). If Clarence King were called "King of Antarctica" (cf Lawrence of Arabia) it would make a good target/dab entry but I can't find any evidence he is/was. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "King Harald visits Antarctic namesake". The Local. 11 February 2015. Retrieved 15 February 2015.
  2. ^ "Sun shines for king in Antarctica". newsinenglish.no. 11 February 2015. Retrieved 15 February 2015.
  3. ^ "King Harald begins Antarctic visit". Norway Post (newsletter). NRK/Aftenposten. 11 February 2015. Retrieved 15 February 2015.
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.

Understanding women[edit]

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) 18:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply not the same concept. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The heading was requested in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_sciences#Sociology which I have seen on December 13th, 2014. Using my expertise in gender, I decided that what the requester wanted would be either Sociology of Gender or Feminism (since the request was posted on the Social Sciences - Sociology section of Requested Articles). Sociology of Gender is simply not good enough for such a wide topic / title. Feminism, on the other hand, provides a lot of useful information as well as links and references and is built around and by an active Wikipedia community. Hence the redirect. The redirect here suggests equivalence in content and substance, not sameness. Mehmetaergun (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, not the same. --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Misleading redirect. Women and feminists are neither equal nor "equivalent" subjects. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Weak Retarget to Women's studies --Lenticel (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments above, and because I don't think it's possible for there to be a NPOV target for this. I think that women's studies is a poor choice of target for the same reasons. Ivanvector (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an innacurrate target, and targeting a valid target that is not the title of a published work would essentially be a WP:NOTGUIDE violation. Steel1943 (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just too vague. As a published guide, "Understanding women" would be handy (I'd buy one), but without one it's not encyclopaedic. The phrase could also mean "compassionate women"or, at a push, woman understudies or assistants, using "understand" in the archaic sense of being inferior or supporting. As well as lots of junk columns in the meeja, there is actually a book by this title that has good enough sales possibly to be notable (but not very):
However what we'd need to make that into an article is RS reviews of it: I can't find any. Nor much on the publisher New Tradition Books: self-published? Si Trew (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a guide in the Haynes Manuals series ("Haynes Family Manuals"):
These "Haynes Family Manuals" publications were perhaps launched slightly tongue-in-cheek (they are famed ih Britain for their car repair manuals, mostly bought by men) but with the serious intent of getting men interested in women's health etc., something usually restricted to women's magazines and perhaps considered taboo, so are not entirely frivolous. (That's just my opinion, of course.) Si Trew (talk) 05:50, 15 February 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.

Chemical and Biological Warfare[edit]

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 Warfare#Military operations marked by a specific characteristic. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can't redirect to both Chemical warfare AND Biological warfare so should we:

  • B: Delete entirely because we have no good target to link to,
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.

Pussy power[edit]

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) 18:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of Pussy power looking on Google seems to be more about a woman's dominance over a man post-sexual intercourse. Not at all feminism. Er. . .well it also just looks very shady. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:45, 11 February 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_February_11&oldid=1075708379"