Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 20, 2015.

Afghanistani (disambiguation)[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) 15:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request deletion because the target Afghanistani has not been a disambiguation page for sometime, and currently redirects to Afghan. Afghanistani was a dictionary definition since at least 2011, despie being tagged as a disambiguation page. Nothing links to this redirect, except for this deletion discussion. The redirect was bot created in 2011. --Bejnar (talk) 22:44, 20 December 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 Wikipedia Adventure[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 30#The Wikipedia Adventure

Gary Trainor[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. I think I should take extra caution because this discussion could become a precedent. From my reading of the discussion below and my own review of the search results, the "delete" side has correctly pointed out that there are two people called "Gary Trainor". Neither is independently notable but both are mentioned in other articles - Meghan Trainor's father, and an actor in Beautiful: The Carole King Musical. This creates a valid case of WP:XY which should trump the two other valid arguments - "keep as {{R from relative}}" and "delete it's not useful" - as neither addresses WP:XY. "Notability is not inherited" is also mentioned below but another editor has already pointed out that it isn't relevant to redirects. Deryck C. 21:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Created by editor and then immediately redirected by same editor. A couple of problems with this: Gary Trainor (father of musician Meghan Trainor) is unlikely to be searched for; there is an Irish actor named Gary Trainor who could be searched for and readers will redirected incorrectly. I don't see the need for this redirect and believe it qualifies for deletion. Notability is not inherited. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is this any different than Austin Swift redirecting to Taylor Swift or Tish Cyrus redirecting to Billy Ray Cyrus? But I know that you will rule that out as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS so, here it goes:

He collaborated thrice on Trainor's album, Only 17, I believe that is enough to target his name to the nearest relevant page. --MaranoFan (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as potentially misleading for some readers, especially as he is not notable, and the target is not partcularly helpful. --Bejnar (talk)
  • Keep as {{R from relative}}. He's mentioned there, and we don't have articles on notable people by this name. I agree he's not notable on his own, but redirects don't need to meet notability standards. --BDD (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wp:R#D2 (confusing) per nominator due to possible mix-ups between the potentially-notable actor and the clearly non-notable relative. Let the user see the search results, which has mentions of both topics. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If one of these is notable should there be a disambiguation link to search results. Peter James (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 210.etc. Simplifying the process of seeing search results is a technical benefit of deletion that we should encourage, when applicable. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Theres just a mention there, not enough relevant content. Peter James (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as her father's influence in her life is arguably at least partly notable and goes on up to working with her on her musical tracks. He also is, indeed, mentioned on the other page. He possibly should be referred to in more depth in that article, but that's an editorial decision up to them. It should be noted that Gary Trainor has been directly quoted in various publications such as here. I don't see how this isn't a reasonable application of {{R from relative}}. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:23, 30 December 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.

Oxygenshortages[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) 15:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fake made up stickwordstogether redirects. Legacypac (talk) 16:21, 20 December 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.

God Manifest[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 28#God Manifest

Dwellingplaces[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) 15:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A dwelling place is called a house in English. Legacypac (talk) 15:56, 20 December 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.

Fiveyear plans[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 29#Fiveyear plans

Ducttapers[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 speedily deleted by Sphilbrick. --BDD (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking two words together does not make it a good redirect. Pluralizing something that should not have an S is not good either. Neelix, so can be speedy deleted if desired. Legacypac (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse that typo. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 00:14, 21 December 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.

Onedimensional man[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) 15:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

puremade upword by slidingtwo wordstogether. Legacypac (talk) 15:38, 20 December 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.

Tricon Global Restaurants Incorporated[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 28#Tricon Global Restaurants Incorporated

Antiimperialisms[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 speedily deleted by Catfish Jim and the soapdish. --BDD (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are actual words. The search engine is smart enough to find the answer if you type these, so they are just spreading bad words across wiki mirrors. Legacypac (talk) 15:17, 20 December 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.

My Masters[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 speedily deleted by SouthernNights and Sphilbrick, respectively. --BDD (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made up meaning by Neelix. This could be how a slave addresses his master or lots of other things Legacypac (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a standard way of addressing groups of middle-class men in 16th-century England, cf the play A Mad World, My Masters (1605). Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not only middle-class, as shown in this quote from Sir Francis Drake, from a speech to his crew off of Puerto San Julian, Argentina, prior to entering the Strait of Magellan (May 1578):
    For by the life of God, it doth even take my wits from me to think on it. Here is such controversy between the sailors and gentlemen, and such stomaching between the gentlemen and sailors, it doth make me mad to hear it. But, my masters, I must have it left. For I must have the gentleman to haul and draw with the mariner, and the mariner with the gentleman. What! let us show ourselves to be of a company and let us not give occasion to the enemy to rejoice at our decay and overthrow. I would know him that would refuse to set his hand to a rope, but I know there is not any such here...
    As some encouragement to @Legacypac: in his efforts, I offer the next of Drake's quotes, in a letter to Sir Francis Walsingham, from off Cape Sagres, Portugal (17 May 1587):
    There must be a beginning of any great matter, but the continuing unto the end until it be thoroughly finished yields the true glory.
    --Mirokado (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Sphilbrick has already speedily deleted the second one. --BDD (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kudos for the most original RfD vote I've ever see go to User:Mirokado. Legacypac (talk) 17:41, 21 December 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.

My great one[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 speedily deleted by Feezo. --BDD (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix was playing with meanings and seems to have come up with this one for the target. Highly unlikely anyone will use this to search or link. The article says Rabbi can mean "great one". Legacypac (talk) 15:09, 20 December 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.

Introducingly[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) 15:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

another double ending nearly fake word. Legacypac (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:12, 21 December 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.

Hustlingly[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) 15:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix redirect, 344 total ghits for this essentially made up word. A few people have created it too, but it's just not a proper word. Legacypac (talk) 15:03, 20 December 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.

Pharisaists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 28#Pharisaists

Indian Land[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 no closure action required (except removal of RfD template). The conclusion is "keep redirect, create relevant disambig page and add hatnote from primary target", which has already been enacted. Read the amazing iterative debate below on how editors in this debate solved the problem amongst themselves. Well done everybody. Deryck C. 21:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

while this was pointed by Neelix at a proposed town by this name, I'm not at all convinced this is the best target on wikipedia for the term which referred to large parts of the USA and was used in other countries. Ideas? Legacypac (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - people might be looking for anything Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Including the country of India. Legacypac (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but "Indian Land" seems like only a PTM for the book, unless that's a standard shorthand for it or something. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The book, to me, is an indication that Indian Land relates to land controlled by Indians as a primary meaning. I'd never heard of the small community in SC before, but it is common usage to refer to native reserves near me as Indian Land. However most of the Google hits on first page relate to the town, so I'm not too concerned about deleting it. Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with that for the most part. I wouldn't say it's the same thing exactly, but they are similar enough topics where merging makes sense. -- Tavix (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're the same to the extent that the same topics are listed on both dabs, so why not combine them? One can redirect to the other; no preference on which. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD and Steel1943: not ambiguous. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Lacking all other meanings, it would be an unquestioned redirect to its present target, and the existence of other reasonable targets is even more reason not to delete. I'm tending toward Indian Country (disambiguation), since there doesn't appear to be a better target. Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal. I was not trying to delete, but find a better suitable target. I suggest we combine the three current DABs favoring the lead of Indian Country but under Indian Reserve. Add Indian Land, South Carolina as an entry and point Indian Land at the combined DAB. Legacypac (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we move the text The terms Indian Country, Indian Reserve, and Indian Territory may be easily confused. Articles on related topics are titled as follows into Indian reserve (disambiguation), redirect IC (d) and IL to it, and do whatever else is useful that I've forgotten? That seems entirely reasonable to me, and if that's what you mean, I'll support it unless I hear a better idea. Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Legacypac (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate for all the various uses of Indian land (traditional Amerind lands, Indian Reserves/Reservations, Indian land claims, the town, the land of India, the lands in the Indian subcontinent, the "unsettled uncivilized lands" of ages past of the West) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 11:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation and redirection done here: Indian reserve (disambiguation). Feel free to adjust if I missed something. Legacypac (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've undone this since it disrupts the ability for the closer to comprehend the consensus in this discussion. If consensus results in this change, it can be performed when the discussion is closed. Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A note leading people to the related disambig page is what we need, and with that everything seems alright to me. However, going directly to "Indian reserve (disambiguation)" is fine as a second choice as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't necessarily disagree with the amalgamated dab, but I still don't see anything there that would typically be called Indian Land. Indian land, sure, but since that is going to lag behind "reservation", "reserve", and "country" in frequency, I think WP:DIFFCAPS is appropriate here. --BDD (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, interestingly enough, Indian land is a red-link. You would think if that was common, then the redirect to Indian reserve (disambiguation) would have already been created. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Would we even be discussing this if it wasn't created by Neelix? Not every redirect he ever created is bad; we don't need to go overboard with scrutinizing his edits. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
don't worry only questionable ones are sent to RfD. Legacypac (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2016 (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.

Andhra Kshatriyas[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) 15:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect creates the false impression that Raju are Kshatriya (this is one of the major warring issues in caste articles on Wikipedia and we routinely reject self-aggrandising claims). Sitush (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took it as a personal name that included the caste. Maybe I took it wrong, but I agree the caste should not be redirected to here either. If this is an alternate name for the caste, redirect to the caste page. Legacypac (talk) 17:11, 28 December 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.

John Allen Wyeth[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 withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article and the target article were created in the last couple of days. The target article was FAR better than this article, so I changed this to a redirect. No title disambiguation is needed since there are no other notable persons of the same name. Delete this redirect and its brief history as an article and move the target here, without leaving a redirect. Safiel (talk) 05:22, 20 December 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.

Pepsi B[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 all. Just Chilling (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are no longer mentioned at the target section. I can't figure out what they're referring to. --BDD (talk) 05:07, 20 December 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.

Yves Fauqueur[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) 15:37, 29 December 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.

Pepsi Sí[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. Nabla (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article or at List of Pepsi variations, which would be the more likely place. Googling seems to confirm that Pepsi has marketed such a product, but I can't really tell if it's actually different from regular Pepsi. --BDD (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I recall seeing this in Cuba recently. I didn't take very much notice of what exactly it is, though, since their local cola is so much better than anything we get here, being made with proper cane sugar and not the HFCS crap we have. But if there's no content about it then a redirect isn't really appropriate. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add it to the article [1] Nothing much is needed to prove it's existence Legacypac (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To Pepsi or List of Pepsi variations? Not the latter, because it's not actually a different product. I'm skeptical of the former, too, unless it can be demonstrated that this is part of a noteworthy marketing to Hispanics. As is, this looks like it's just a variant packaging. Bud Light is perennially released in cans with colors corresponding to a local sports team, sometimes even with NFL logos if I remember correctly. Pepsi products had characters from Star Wars: Episode I at one point. Same stuff on the inside, though. --BDD (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Delete it seems like a minor packaging variation - less significant than bilingual Canada vs US (where there may even be a formula variation I understand). I'm good with delete. Legacypac (talk) 08:42, 23 December 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.

Fault(geology)[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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I considered tagging this one with CSD #3, but it may not qualify for speedy under that criteria, so posting here instead because I'm not seeing how this one is practical. Dawnseeker2000 18:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this does not appear to be a {{R from move}} so I don't see the utility. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's been there for 4 years without causing any problems. I see no evidence of bad faith so even if you and I don't see the utility, the original creator of the redirect obviously did see some value. Even if that value is very, very small, there is zero benefit to deleting it. Rossami (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – I would say that keeping it (and WP projecting an image of ineptitude) is a problem. Dawnseeker2000 20:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be an incorrect assumption. Redirects are supposed to be "wrong". If that were the correct title for the page, that's the title the main article would be at. Redirects help our readers find the correct article. They cover for a multitude of sins including aliases, typos, misspellings, non-standard nomenclature and, as relevant here, variations in the arcane naming conventions used for some of our articles. Redirects do far more than merely support the search engine. They have to because not everyone navigates the wiki by way of the search engine. All that is why we have very different (and much looser) standards for redirects than we would or should ever tolerate for article content. Rossami (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:RTYPO. The stats show that this gets some use, with several peaks of 3 hits/day in November and October, and one peak of 4 hits/day in mid October. -- Tavix (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the activity is bot and webcrawler noise level. It's just wrong and likely a typo on the part of the creator. Legacypac (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No good reason has been presented for causing linkrot by deleting this redirect: it's not harmful. Nyttend (talk) 22:58, 22 December 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.

World flesh devil[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 all. Nabla (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a closer, I found no consensus at this previous batch nomination. On my own, I find a subset of these worthy of deletion. Those that have no punctuation or other indication of being a list seem like unlikely/nonsense search terms. If this were likely, you'd expect to see something like Father son holy ghost extant. As a side note, if you're looking for a fun theme park for the whole family, I really can't recommend either Devil Flesh World or Flesh Devil World. Not at all. --BDD (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Thanks for renoming this junk. The previous batch turned out to be too big I guess. Legacypac (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my previous rationale. Search results are better for these generic searches. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete everything except "mundus caro" (it's the right order) per Ivanvector. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss-Dubious, wouldn't that apply to World flesh devil as well? --BDD (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so; it's more like a search string than a good redirect. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:59, 24 December 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.

Celtic hand[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) 15:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible (OR) regarding the redirect as no sources claim that there is such a medical name. Zyc1174 (talk) 00:03, 20 December 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_December_20&oldid=1079936893"