Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 November 20

November 20[edit]

Eschewal of Christmas → Christmas controversies[edit]

The result of the debate was keep M a rtinp23 17:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove evidence of previous page move, evidently to make a WP:POINT. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems legit to me. Do you have more details? Powers ^T 14:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secularization of Christmas was moved to Eschewal of Christmas by User:OLP1999, either as a WP:POINT, or as a joke. "Eschewal" doesn't even appear in (most) dictionaries, although it's a logical form of "eschew". The move was reverted (twice, by two different editors), and I move-protected the page. All this happened on November 7, 2006 (at least in my time zone). The word "eschewal" does not appear in the target article at the present time. The phrase "eschewal of Christmas" has exactly 1 google hit outside of Wikipedia, apparently from someone who saw the Wikipedia article on November 7, or possibly someone who is User:OLP1999. It's just an implausible phrase. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was going to say delete, but it seems this phrase has been mentioned before as another way to refer to the "War on Christmas" which is the exact topic Christmas controversies is about. Therefore, it is entirely possible this redirect could be useful. -- Renesis (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikicite → User:Dmoss/Wikicite[edit]

The nominated redirect was speedy keep, page no longer a redirect. Kusma (討論) 12:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needless cross-namespace redirect, see WP:ASR. Rory096 02:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cross namespace redirects are frowned on at th ebest of times, let alone those that go to a user sub page not policy. Viridae ^Talk 12:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Scrounger → Slang[edit]

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 23:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unreasonable redirect - "Scrounger" is not mentioned on the target page —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 04:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Someone looking for that word would be a little suprised to be redirected straight to a definition a page on slang. Viridae ^Talk 12:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. irrelevant redirect. John Reaves 04:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, irrelevant. -- Renesis (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.