Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 7, 2015.

Template:WikiProject United Nations[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) 15:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is problematic to create redirects for WikiProject templates like this as the workgroup parameter doesn't pass through. Using it as currently implemented doesn't include the pages into the UN workgroup itself (which would be the goal based on the name), so it has to be manually done. The only way to use it properly would be with UN=yes which makes this redundant in a sense. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to a wrapper so that it does activate the workgroup for the United Nations. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While easy to convert to a wrapper, it was only actually transcluded for six articles (on their talk pages), and (as stated) in every case un= is not specified, anyway. This is a maintenance headache (else why is it here?) and were we to convert this to a wrapper, that headache would get stronger, because we'd have to maintain documentation etc. for the wrapper as well as its wrappee. (I note that some parameters – UN, law, Law, un-importance, law-importance, category – are not documented at the template's doc.) There aren't any wrappers for the "law" and "diplomacy" variants of the template.
If anything, it would make more sense to fork the target rather than wrap it. But it's easier simply to replace it in its six uses, which I'm happy to do if we have consensus. Si Trew (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added Template:WPUN, which is unused. Si Trew (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since not all topics about the UN are about international relations per se, a separate template would be a good idea. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since the redirects are problematic. -- Tavix (talk) 02:22, 13 November 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.

Re-energisations[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 Deleted by User:The Anome: Highly unlikely redirects with minimal search traffic

Delete per WP:NOTDIC, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it's silly to have a redirect of every single form of a word imaginable. Commonly used forms, such as energize is okay, but all of these are implausible for a general subject such as "energy." This is also a follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_27#Reenergizational, where I echo BDD's concerns. -- Tavix (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @The Anome: R3 wouldn't apply here, this wasn't a recently created redirect... I know we all want to see these deleted, but I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to wait another week when this discussion closes. -- Tavix (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think these are sufficiently clear-cut cases that we don't need to discuss them further: there's consensus at WP:AN/I for a mass deletion of these. There are thousands and thousands of similar redirects, all created by the same user, and we can't discuss them all in depth. The good news is that if any of these actually have any value, they are trivially capable of being recreated. -- The Anome (talk) 12:46, 8 November 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.

China japan war[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 Sino-Japanese War. --BDD (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does this refer to Second Sino-Japanese War or the First Sino-Japanese War? Ambiguous search term. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 21:16, 7 November 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.

Preceptory[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 and refine per Si Trew. Thanks to him for clarifying the issue. Additionally, I note that the former article at this title was apparently merged to the target article. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-target to Commandry (feudalism), which is a more appropriate article describing this type of place, as opposed to the person in charge of the place. Kelly hi! 12:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it seems to me that the mention of preceptory in the proposed target is just as an example for a particular order (and flagged dubious), while the current target gives a more detailed explanation of what this is. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I suppose another option might be to redirect to Monastery - see for example, this National Heritage List for England entry, which states: "A preceptory is a monastery of the military orders". These structures apparently filled the functions of either/both a monastery and a commandery, depending on their location and leadership. I'm wondering if we should make this a disambig page, or even an article. Kelly hi! 15:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to section Preceptor#Christian military orders. Wiktionary has it as a headword, and it's at the target. Searching throws up a lot of instances that are in Category:Preceptories of Knights Hospitaller in England but we seem to have no more-general (parent) category for preceptories in particular, only monasteries in general. Si Trew (talk) 08:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:39, 7 November 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.

Abrian[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 16#Abrian

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion and philosophy[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 deprecate then delete. Deryck C. 18:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a textbook WP:XY. This could equally refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philosophy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion so it makes no sense to redirect to just one of them. -- Tavix (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteStruck Si Trew (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Restored Si Trew (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC) per Tavix. Si Trew (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with explanation that this was a single WP:DELSORT category until 2006, mark as {{Historical}}, and provide links to the now-separate Religion and Philosophy deletion sorting pages. No point in breaking old edit summaries, etc. which refer to this. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except we already have precedent of deleting deprecated delsort processes. One was deleted last year without incident or harm to Wikipedia and this one is just like it, but worse because it has the WP:XY problem. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Zoroastrianism. -- Tavix (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate per the IP. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 07:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate per 58.176. Si Trew (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate per 58. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. There is no risk of breaking old conversations by deleting this, because it's only a sorting process for active discussions; this sort category was only ever used three times, most recently in 2009, and there isn't even an archive for this to not point to. The only risk would be if one of those three discussions were reopened, then the delsort page (which doesn't exist) wouldn't pick these up, and neither the Religion nor Philosophy delsort pages would pick them up anyway. It harms nothing if these are redlinks, and discourages using this categorization again. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This actually reminds me of another harm that could come about if we keep this. Back when I used to delsort frequently (2010??), I used a tool that basically took the WP:Prefix index of delsorting, and created a list of options based on that. I don't delsort anymore and have no knowledge of the current delsort tools, but if this sort of technique was resurrected, it could cause someone to think there was a specific delsort for "religion and philosophy" when there's not. A redlink would verify that there isn't one. -- Tavix (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it were the case, the fault would be in the tool, and the fix should be in the tool. Tools serve people, not the other way around. Bad workmen and all that. Si Trew (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The moral of the story that I told is that as long as that link is blue, there can be an illusion that it's a real delsort when it's not. (after all, that tool is probably depreciated by now) -- Tavix (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter whether the tool is deprecated or hypothetical. If a tool can't deal with content properly, the problem is in the tool, not the content. Si Trew (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely missing my point. -- Tavix (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not on purpose, I assure you. Si Trew (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The entire function of the deletion sorting process (the tool you refer to) is to categorize and list current deletion discussions. It has no historical usage at all. Deleting a delsort category that hasn't been used in six years harms nothing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. Delete it then (restored my !vote above). Si Trew (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Absent clearer consensus, I was about to implement the IP's solution, but it's really unclear to me what, besides the {{historical}} tag, would actually go there. All of the page history moved along to the religion delsort, and there are some decent suggestions here that keeping could be harmful. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 17 November 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.

Portar Rico[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) 14:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RTYPO, too many typos to be helpful. Stats are at noise level. -- Tavix (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This actually seems like a plausible phonetic misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete with Tavix. To me it does not seem a particularly plausible misspelling, and stats tend to back that up. "Portar" is not an English word, and mildly WP:RFD#D2 confusing since Spanish: portar means "to carry, to bear, to wear" and is a false friend with English "porter"). But we have several other misspellings for Puerto Rico, including Porter Rico, so this is not thousands of miles away (unlike Puerto Rico). Si Trew (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's a single mispelling, and not multiple typos, as it could be a pronunciation spelling -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it would seem unlikely as typos, more likely just misspelling/misunderstanding. I am torn both ways with it, really; changing mine from "weak delete" to "very weak delete". Asking myself the question where else could it go/be confused for? tends to yield the answer "nowhere, so keep as harmless and just vaguely useful"... it's not as if we have Port Arico or anything similar (that I could find). On the other hand, we don't have Portar on its own as an R to Port or Puerto (a DAB), which weakens the case for thinking it could be a realistic misspelling. Si Trew (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible misspelling. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. {{R from misspelling}}ses are useful if the misspelling is common (like the common misspelling honor). This one requires the reader to both mishear "puerto rico" as "porter rico", and then also misspell "porter". Is it likely? Fortunately we have a stats tool to indicate if readers make this mistake often, and it seems that they do not. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honor is not a misspelling but an alternative spelling, or an {{R from other language|en-us}}. That's just muddying the waters, to put it politely. Or shit-stirring, to put it less politely :). But gratis for the exempli gratia, we have Honer → Hœnir and Honar as a very bad article about a quango in Belarus, which I shall PROD.
But nah, they could mishear it simply as "Portar Rico", and not require the jump through mishearing it as "Porter Rico" thence misspelling. -ar/-er/-or in some accents (such as mine) are indistinguishable, which is why we get for example mortar (but murder), bursar (but barter), castor (and caster), but not Morter nor Burser. And R dropping ( → Rhoticity in English) adds to the confusion.
Written, these variations sometimes come from the Latin or Greek spelling (for example actor – Latin and sometime English feminine actrix – not acter, funicular not funiculer) but sometimes it is just how spelling settled down in the English Renaissance with no great etymological rigour. It is why, for example, we get burglar and not burgler (I've just rccatted that as {{R from misspelling}}), and the back formation "burgle" ( → burglary as do the others). We need to use [Occam's Razor]] here soon.
The stats show, as we both stated, that this isn't likely as a search term. I'm inclined to unweaken my delete !vote. Si Trew (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not a plausible misspelling. ONR (talk) 01:11, 9 November 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.

Microsoft Cortana[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) -- Tavix (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose retargeting this to Cortana, the disambiguation page. Cortana (Halo) is a plausible search target for "Microsoft Cortana", since the Halo video game series is published by Microsoft. Therefore, "Microsoft Cortana" can equally refer to the software or the video game character. sst✈discuss 15:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Retarget per nom. While it is possible that Cortana (Halo) could be referred to not incorrectly as "Microsoft Cortana", I don't find it very likely, hence the weak. Update 18:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC): Actually as there are only two things the term could potentially refer to at this time: a {{redirect}} template at Cortana (software) (primary) and a {{for}} at Cortana (Halo) takes care of it per WP:DABLINKS. I took the liberty of applying those templates to the pages (i.e. [1] [2] respective to the order above). So, Keep, as long as the aforementioned changes (especially the former) remain in place.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think too many people would refer to the Halo character as 'Microsoft Cortana', but I have heard many people use the term to describe the voice-assistant.BlAcKhAt9(9 (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse the redirect, move the article to "Microsoft Cortana" per WP:NATURALDAB -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Blackhat, and Whistler below. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 10:06, 08 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse the redirect per 70.51. Si Trew (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Blackhat, do not reverse the redirect, I think adding 'Microsoft' before a product of theirs is just a habit from when Microsoft used to do it all the time i.e. 'Microsoft Windows'. Cortana is never marketed or written as 'Microsoft Cortana', therefore it shouldn't be the name of the Wiki article, just as you wouldn't call the Siri article 'Apple Siri', or Bing 'Microsoft Bing' - because they are not marketed as such. Whistler (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, do not reverse per Whistler. The product has never been marketed as "Microsoft Cortana" but it is a plausible search term. ONR (talk) 01:12, 9 November 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.

NSYC[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 speedy deleted WP:G8 by GB fan. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Not at target, and its expansion, Newfoundland Symphony Youth Choir, is itself red (that is mentioned at the target). If the full name doesn't need a redirect, the initialism doesn't. Hits at noise level, no internal links. Si Trew (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created the missing redirect for the former name - it is trivial to redirect former names of entities to their current names. If it can be sourced that the entity was known by the acronym, it should also be kept. bd2412 T 14:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Apparently the Sayville Yacht Club goes by the "short name" of NSYC (although I have no idea where the N came from, my searches just shows "SYC") My search results showed the biggest usage being a misspelling of NSYNC and second is a stock symbol on NASDAQ for National Stock Yards Co. (and it looks like we don't have an article on that.) -- Tavix (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I'm convinced that was a typo and I've removed the N from Sayville Yacht Club. My attention turns to to Shallaway (shouldn't the title be "Shallaway Youth Choir"?), and I'm not sure how notable that subject is. I've had a hard time finding any information on it besides the fact that they won the Llangollen festival in 2015. Is that enough to confer notability? -- Tavix (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds doubtful to me. Of course, if the topic is non-notable, the redirects would be deleted along with it. bd2412 T 00:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
...and succeeded, so now I've taken the two R's to CSD per WP:G8 (I thought that would be done as part of the deletion, but at least this time it wasn't.) Si Trew (talk) 11:38, 8 November 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.

Socio-economistic[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 User:The Anome as WP:R3. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Made-up. I hesitate to combine this with #Social-economistic, below, because they have different targets (but have no objection if someone else does.) Hits average one every three days; no internal links outside of this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 12:04, 7 November 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.

Atheistic evangelists[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 Evangelical atheism. --BDD (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to an anchor that has been removed from Antitheism. There's a slight POV here issue here in suggesting that (a) atheist evangelist actually exist, and (b) that if they do exist, they are actually antitheistic. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Evangelical atheist" is a phrase that exists in the real world. We may be missing an article on the concept, since this is different from opposition to theism per se. As with other beliefs, there are atheists and antitheists who hold those views but do not disseminate them, and there are atheists and antitheists who feel obligated to share their views and attempt to bring others around to them. bd2412 T 14:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @BD2412: It's not that we're missing an article on the concept, it's just that it was "merged to oblivion." What would you think about restoring this version? -- Tavix (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • With a few more sources - and perhaps some commentary from atheists on what they think of the phrase - that would be useful to have. bd2412 T 01:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep -- a useful redirect, and yes, there should be a target for it. -- The Anome (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Close as Retarget as everyone seems happy Legacypac (talk) 14:48, 11 November 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.

Biblicistically[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 by User:The Anome. (mass deletion of implausible Neelix redirects) Lenticel (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect with minimal search traffic. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:10, 7 November 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.

Despectacularizations[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 by User:The Anome. (mass deletion of implausible Neelix redirects) Lenticel (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible "just made this up" redirect with minimal search traffic. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tom Morris: I hope you don't mind my adding other derivatives of "spectacle", all created at roughly the same time by the same user. Delete all of course. "Spectacularization" does get a few (no-WP related) hits, but all are WP:NOTDIC, WP:RFD#D2 confusing since not mentioned at target. None gets more than one hit every three days or so, none has internal links beyond this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I went ahead and added the rest. None of these words have to do with a "spectacle" in this sense (it's a noun in this article, not a verb/adj/adv), so they're nonsense at best and confusing at worst. Also per WP:NOTDIC. -- Tavix (talk) 15:26, 7 November 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.

Noncatholicism[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 User:The Anome (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


WP:POV redirect. Not being a Catholic is not the same thing as being anti-Catholic. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as confusing and unlikely synonym as not practicing Catholicism doesn't mean that you are against it--Lenticel (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One of the redirects is actually pointed at Christian denomination. I have changed the nomination to reflect that. -- Tavix (talk) 21:13, 7 November 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.

Para-militaristically[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 by User:The Anome. (mass deletion of implausible Neelix redirects) Lenticel (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible "word I just made up" redirect with minimal search traffic. (These may be a recurring theme at WP:RFD for a while...) —Tom Morris (talk) 08:45, 7 November 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.

Social-economistic[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 by User:The Anome. (mass deletion of implausible Neelix redirects) Lenticel (talk) 04:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another implausible "word I just made up" redirect. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:41, 7 November 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.

Dehumanisational[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 by User:The Anome. (mass deletion of implausible Neelix redirects) Lenticel (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect based on words the creator just dreamt up. Minimal traffic. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:40, 7 November 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.

Judgmentalistically[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 by User:The Anome. (mass deletion of implausible Neelix redirects) Lenticel (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirects from words that don't even really exist. Minimal traffic. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:35, 7 November 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.

Popularistically[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 by User:The Anome. (mass deletion of implausible Neelix redirects) Lenticel (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect with minimal search traffic. Created as a neologism—I greatly doubt anyone actually uses "popularistically" as a term. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. I added two more for the exact same reasons. -- Tavix (talk) 15:37, 7 November 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.

Straight outta Compton, crazy motherfucker named Ice Cube[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 speedy deleted WP:R3, by The Anome. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTLYRICS. -- Tavix (talk) 04:14, 7 November 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.

Energy(Earth Sciences)[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) 14:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, these redirects are of questionable utility. The disambiguation is unnecessary, but on top of that, there is a spacing error and caps error. -- Tavix (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caps forms for these are absent – e.g. Energy (Chemistry) – so I suspect these may have been created in error, with the space missed. I've no intention of creating them. Si Trew (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom due to formatting issues --Lenticel (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom because of formatting issues; these are highly unlikely to arise by someone else typing them in. -- The Anome (talk) 22:35, 8 November 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.

Hit Me Baby One More Time[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 16#Hit Me Baby One More Time

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_7&oldid=1138580707"